Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive33

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: June 30, 2005 - July 5, 2005


User:Gabrielsimon (I)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --W(t) 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's another 5 reverts by him after that, but I trust this is enough to get the picture. --W(t) 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC)
Well, if these weren't enough, the 5 reverts after that make it obvious. He's been blocked for 24 hours - hopefully he'll take my suggestion to reflect and discuss to heart. Yes, I'm an optimist. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 01:26 (UTC)
  • User justifies this as "the truth offends" or "deletionist was vandalism". A breif look at this history page will show this user has ran afoul of several editors. I was possibly a bit snippy with the spelling bits, but there is no attempt to fufill the burden of proof here. Some of these are not simple reverts, but overall gabrielsimon has definatly broken the 3rr.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)
well he has but he has already been blocked.Geni 30 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)
  • How many more times does this user get to violate and be blocked for 3RR? My quick check of the block log shows July 6, June 30, June 29 and June 14. Wikibofh 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


EN-L Mailing List[edit]

These came over the Wikipedia en-l mailing list and to my personal email.

Fuck you, assholes. I never would have come here if I knew THIS was the way Wikipedians act.

To Rdsmith4: these emails are REAL. The one from Gregory Maxwell came directly off the wikien-l mailing list. Don't delete them just because you don't like the fact that you've got neo-Nazis with admin powers.
I'm fairly sure this e-mail is sarcastic. I'm entirely sure that it doesn't indicate that its author is a neo-Nazi. —Charles P. (Mirv) 30 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Kurita77

>From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>,English Wikipedia <wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] New user, blocked indefinitely?
>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:59:24 -0400
>
>On 6/29/05, Kurita Ryohan <kurita77lineman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm now on 66.69.133.72. You can check it if you like.
> > I told you, my idiot neighbors are putting in a pool and didn't check the
> > utility maps before they started digging. They cut the cable lines and
> > everything has been getting patched and re-patched for the past few days.
> > What the hell is wrong with you people?
>
>Well Kurita, enviroknott obviously lives near you. Because he's been
>such a pest we have decided to block everyone in your area who makes
>edits remotely resembling enviroknott.  I'm afraid that if you want to
>edit you're just going to have to track him down and ask him to move
>to a new community. Sorry.
>____________________________

note that enviroknot exhibited exactly the same behaviour of claiming innocence while carefully avoiding to recognize or comment on the sockpuppet evidence, such as signing with the wrong username, on the wrong talk pages etc. A new user with the same IP who appears within minutes of Enviroknot's block, and starts quoting Enviroknot's statements on Talk:Jihad immediately is just not credible, sorry, neighbors or no neighbors. We may be legalistic sometimes, but we do retain a few shreds of common sense. dab () 30 June 2005 07:53 (UTC)

"carefully avoiding to recognize or comment on the sockpuppet evidence" - What the fuck do you call the big thread response up above then dumbass? You haven't shown any common sense or good faith, all you've shown is that you're a dumbass on a fucking witch hunt. Kurita77
Thanks Kurita77, I think you have permanently removed any doubt among the admins that you are one and the same as enviroknot.--Wiglaf 30 June 2005 12:31 (UTC)


User:Noitall[edit]

I was wondering if I could get some advice for the following problem. On June 19th, Category:Anti-gay rights legislation came up for CfD (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 19 for the archived discussion). It seems that there was some discussion on the category, mostly between Users Dave and Noitall. After two days, they commented out almost all of the discussion and deemed there was a consensus to rename the category. After the required seven days, I un-commented out the discussion (I take care of archiving CfD these days), determined there was in fact no consensus, and marked it as such.

Noitall then modified the archive to say there was a consensus [1], which I reverted. This happened twice more [2] and [3]. I left him several warnings on his talk page to which he basically called me an idiot: [4], [5], [6], and [7]. I then blocked him for CfD archive vandalism and 3rr [8].

Any comments? Thanks. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

4 Renames (of which 2 are rename/keep) and 3 deletes. I fail to see any consensus here unless CfD operates with extremely broad percentage of what is deemed so. Inter\Echo 30 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  • Technically the only thing that requires a substantial consensus is deletion. The problem here is that a vote-to-rename is mixed up with a vote-to-delete. What I'd propose is that if there exists a naming convention in the MOS, this should be renamed accordingly. If not, leave it be, and interested parties can take it to RFC if they want to form a naming convention. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
Your assessment is fine, however I'd suggest leaving the blocking to someone else in cases like this: You might be too close to see things neutrally, and there is a certain conflict of interest. --W(t) 30 June 2005 23:52 (UTC)
  • Please see below for accurate information, discussing Administrator Kbdank71 abuse. --Noitall July 1, 2005 23:34 (UTC)


User:Gabrielsimon (II)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Rhobite July 1, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Cyrius has now blocked Gabrielsimon. Thanks. Rhobite July 1, 2005 03:46 (UTC)


User:Old Redneck Jokes[edit]

Just a heads-up: I do not intend on unblocking this user. If someone else wants to, that's fine, but he sent me three emails. Look here.

I was joking it wasn't a personal attack, if you type Zod 
in the search it will tell you I am a satirist and you should 
know that I am too afraid to beat some one down (that's a lie). 
But I was just unblocked can't you just unblock me, I've gotten 
a website now and any "personal attacks" will be discontinued, 
so will you please unblock me.
From,
Ronnie DeYoung
I was never warned before not to "personal attack" people. But 
once again I don't consider saying something that is meant to 
be somewhat humorous to be a "personal attack". I've actually 
talked about this before. What I said wasn't offensive, it was 
a fact. I said "watch yourself" as a joke, I'm too lazy to actually 
do anything. So Linuxbeak, do you think you're special that you 
blocked someone that can anal rape you with his massive intellegence? 
Well you don't have to unblock me if you want because I know your 
kind. Just because you're are a rich little dipshit that can afford 
to go to the University of Rhode Island, doesn't mean that you can 
be a dick to Zod. For Zod will anal rape you with his massive 
intellegence. The crappy joke "I can break diamonds with my voice" 
its just a sickening cliche joke. Remove that joke from your profile, 
or I will have to anal rape you with my massive intellegence. Oh 
and one last thing Protestant-Baptist thing, my SAT score was 
1380 boo ya
 h!
Okay I wish to update something and it's really bothering me, so you 
dumbass cocksucking 18 year old, I want you to unblock me, or I will 
anal rape you with my massive intellegence. Listen I've done it before 
and I'll do it to you unless you unblock me, for the good of the 
"wikipedian" community.
Thank you for your time Ass Master.

From,
Ronnie DeYoung

I've got enough to do than to feed trolls. *shrug* Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 1, 2005 03:22 (UTC)

  • Yep. He got off a block and immediately went back to blocking behavior. He e-mailed me non-stop claiming that it wasn't really him, that it was a "stupid cousin" doing all the bad stuff, then that it was his "stupid brother" doing it, then sending an e-mail from the stupid cousin admitting it, etc. ad infinitum. Look also at user:Gasbag for his buddies. I don't see a reason to unblock this "satirist" at any time in the near decade. Geogre 5 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
  • This guy got blocked again for threatening to anally rape me. Not that i'm concerned about that. Hedley 5 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
Looks like this guy got indefintely blocked. Props to whoever that admin who blocked him was; we don't need to put up with that crap. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 5, 2005 22:37 (UTC)


Main page[edit]

Someone needs to edit the main page of the site and remove the picture there - I think it has little to do with an Estonian rock band, as it should. Wally 1 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)


Yet another GNAA VFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America Deletion (5th nomination) was created by User:Convene, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. Because the nomination was created for purposes of disruption, I've protected it and removed the notice from the GNAA article. Feel free to reverse my decision if you feel I've not done the right thing, but I really can't see how anything good could come from repeating this process yet again. — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what psychic powers you employed to determine a) User:Convene is a sockpuppet and b) the nomination was created for purposes of disruption. Or did you have some actual evidence you're not sharing with everyone? --Calton | Talk 1 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)
At this point please don't revert the decision by simply unblocking it.. already voters have been turned away. :) If you disagree, feel free to start a new VFD. Although it can hardly be considered fair after we've gone around systematically blocking the supporters. :) Gmaxwell 1 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • See my comments I left below in Blocking of GNAA "sockpuppets". <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)


Blocking of GNAA "sockpuppets"[edit]

User:Radiant! has blocked a bunch of people, many of which I recognize as individual GNAA members, as "Sockpuppet. Only edits are VFD votes." I asked him about it on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be active right now. Some are obvious sockpuppets, while others, like Timecop, have a number of legitimate edits. Blocking, especially in the latter case, seems way overboard. --SPUI (talk) 1 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Quite a few of the ones he marked as only being active in VFD actually had a couple of other edits as well.. A small issue but if we're going to block people accuracy counts.. and we should unblock timecop for sure.. Gmaxwell 1 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
And they are now in IRC very politely asking to be unblocked. Gmaxwell 1 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

I've unblocked them, because, well, I can't find anything to justify their blocks other than that they are GNAA members; they didn't do anything more disruptive than vote, and I have no reason to believe they are anyone's sockpuppets, just a group of people with too much time on their hands. Since 1) VfD is not a democracy and their votes would likely be discounted anyway, 2) the VfD has been locked now, 3) blocking them is entirely ineffective and only encourages actual disruption, and 4) Radiant!, who originally blocked them, doesn't seem to be around and responding to the comment left on his talk page, I've unblocked. I trust that they will be reblocked if they do abuse their reinstated editing privileges. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

  • Okay, I was away for a couple of hours... perhaps this was overkill but these accounts seemed rather suspicious to me. I did look over their edit histories and found that these accounts either had nearly no edits other than to VFD, or had been absent for a very long time and suddely returned to answer one VFD. Timecop being one of them - he has 51 edits, the vast majority of which either to the GNAA article or to VFD votes. Those accounts that had a bunch of nontrivial edits, I didn't block. I haven't checked for GNAA membership (partially because I don't quite see how to do that) but these doesn't strike me as regular editors. You're probably right though that blocking them would not particularly accomplish anything, though. One exception though for User:Lysol, since he's been changing other people's votes. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 22:56 (UTC)
    • Interestingly enough you unblocked Convene as a GNAA member, but he probably isn't since he's the one who nominated the article for deletion in the first place. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 22:58 (UTC)
      • The mass descent of "new editors" stretches my ability to assume good faith, as well, but I think they cause more fuss blocked than unblocked. Changing votes is another story, of course... As for Convene, well, the debate has been locked now; s/he failed to get what s/he wanted except for some momentary attention; I don't suppose it hurts to unblock now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 1 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling that I had a small part to play in this, for the dicussion I started on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America. It's odd how they just recently started trolling again. If so, I sincerely appologize to the admins who have to monitor their edits. <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
It may be notable that Timecop showed up on IRC complaining about unfair blocks and cursing "some Jew" who blocked him. For some reason, when he said that interest in investigating his claims dropped to zero. I wonder why that is. I'm not sure it counts as asking "very politely." (He couldn't of course have meant Linuxbeak, who is as fine an example of Aryan manhood as exists.) - David Gerard 4 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)


User:Yahweh divine[edit]

I've received a complaint by email from another editor that the above user name is inappropriate in that it may be offensive. While I can see how this may be the case, I'd like to ask opinions on this one, and since I've had previous interactions with the editor in question (User:Yahweh divine) over what seemed like vandalism (at the time), maybe a less involved party can communicate with Yahweh divine if it is felt that their user name is inappropriate. Fire Star 1 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)


Permaban vandals?[edit]

User:Lolwtf vandalized several pages in a short period of time; he also vandalized at lease one image, the Flag of Canada. Since vandalizing an image requires an account, and since the first edits on this account were vandalism, is there anything wrong in slapping an indefinite ban on it? --Golbez July 1, 2005 21:16 (UTC)

Isn't this AN/I material? --cesarb 1 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
I figured it was more a policy question than an incident question. And I've never used the Admin's noticeboard before, you expect me to know how it works? ;) --Golbez July 2, 2005 00:38 (UTC)
If the account has done nothing but vandalize, go ahead and permaban it. No one will complain. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
Should definetly be permabanned. This guy is the rogue who replaced the FA image off the main page with Mr. Cock suck. Hedley 5 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)


Administrator Kbdank71[edit]

Kbdank71 is a Wiki Vandal: Violates Wiki 3RR Policies – Vandalizes Page Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 19

Regarding Wiki 3RR procedures, here are the Wiki procedures violated by Kbdank71:

1. Violating blocking Policy: Lying (or inability to count) – Cited me for violating 3RR policy, but I did not revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.
2. Abuse of Administratorship: Kbdank71 reverted 3 times first, then blocked me for removing his vandalism.
3. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.
4. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

On the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 19 page edits, Kbdank71 did not even bother to learn the issues. Here is what happened:

1. I put the Category:Anti-gay rights legislation up for deletion as it was related to 5 other categories also up for deletion.
2. The topic was vigorously debated with the principal opponent of deleting said category, Dave.
3. On June 20, Dave proposed to RENAME the category to Category: LGBT-related laws to be like Category:Family_law. I agreed.
4. On June 20, Dave wrote this: “The user that submitted this and I have come to a consensus on what to do about this, which is compatible with the votes of four of the seven editors that voted (by my count) and I suspect would be acceptable to the other editors if asked.”
5. After that time, many Users voted on the other 5 categories, but because this debate was successfully resolved and none objected, none did here.
6. As I noted on June 20, we have “successfully resolved all issues by this debate.” The debate ended successfully and amicably.
7. Thus, the consensus was that this should be renamed Category: LGBT-related laws and expanded to include laws from both sides.
8. Everyone agreed.
9. On June 28, Kbdank71 attempts to stir up trouble where there is not any with his re-write of history and writes no consensus (keep)
10. In informed Kbdank71 that, “It cannot be an archive because you have not recorded it correctly. I do not know your agenda here, but it is not the agenda of what was discussed on the CfD. I will continue to correct the record. --Noitall June 29, 2005 21:27 (UTC)
11. Kbdank71 then violates Wiki policies as above.

--Noitall July 1, 2005 23:23 (UTC)

This should go on a RFC, not here. --cesarb 1 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Thank you. In addition to standing on its own as a report of abuse, this is partly a response to an inaccurate report filed above. --Noitall July 1, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • You are overreacting. Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they are abusing anything. Please assume good faith. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

All the evidence points to bad faith. If you were not friendly with this editor, you would agree. Also, it is entirely irrelant if an Administrator has lots of good work and then steps off the deep end to abuse his authority. All those previous edits did not stop me from being victimized. In addition to my statements above, here is more: I was blocked for 55 hours at one location (not certain how he did it) and it did not end until 58 hours after my edit that he disputed. And I never violated any policy, including the 3RR that he accused me of. Here is the evidence:

10:15, June 30, 2005 Noitall (Kbdank71 is vandalizing this page, has reverted 3 times)
For continuing vandalism of the CfD archive, you have been blocked for 24 hours. When your block expires, please feel free to take your issues to the CfD talk page. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)
20:16, July 1, 2005, Kbdank71 blocked #26495 (expires 20:16, July 2, 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Noitall". The reason given for Noitall's block is: "CfD archive vandalism/3RR".)

--Noitall July 2, 2005 23:49 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That means that if you stick to the letter of a policy (e.g. the 3RR) but violate it's spirit (e.g. [9]), then an admin is well within his rights to block you. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 08:07 (UTC)
  • You have not addressed any of the issues that I extensively wrote about except to, strangely, argue that Admins are free to do anything they want to for any reason, no matter how unjustified or in bad faith. Needless to say, that does not seem to be a strong argument. --Noitall July 3, 2005 13:45 (UTC)
  • Very well, if you insist. In response to your points on policy,
  • 1.people can be blocked for the spirit of the 3RR even if they do keep to the letter of it. The 3RR does not give anyone the inalienable right to three reverts per day.
  • 2.KBdank's edits there are not vandalism. See WP:VAND for the definition.
  • 3.This is not a content dispute.
  • 4.Logged-in users with a lot of valid contributions are not exempt from being blocked. Nor, in fact, are admins, ArbCom members or even Jimbo.
  • From your second list of points, #4: You suspect would be acceptable to the other editors if asked. However, since you haven't asked, you cannot be sure. I'm glad that you and Dave worked out your differences, but you cannot assume from everybody else's silence that they agreed with you. If you want people to reconsider their votes, ask them.
  • Therefore, #7 and #8 are also assumptions. Since they are opinion rather than fact, it is not unreasonable that someone else may make other assumptions and reach a different conclusion. That doesn't make it bad faith for anyone. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 21:13 (UTC)

And my take, on Wiki policy:

  • 1. Your assertion is not supported by Wiki policy or by the facts, certainly as applied here. Kbdank71 had no knowledge of the facts on this issue, then disagreed with me, then reverted 3 times first. Then I reverted his, and he blocked me. A clear abuse of power, and now that I can reflect, it was simply a childish act.
  • 2. Ok, I'll accept it his actions were not vandalism, but neither were mine. We did exactly the same things, only he did them first (with the exception of the blocking, which was within his power).
  • 3. See 1 above.
  • 4. Well, he should have blocked himself then first, but as this was an abuse of power issue, that does not make much sense, does it?
  • 5. I don't need to ask, as it was a hypothetical that I am aware is not true, you are sticking up for him. It does not matter. I am over it. But it should not happen again.

--Noitall July 6, 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Look, can we drop this already? The issue at hand is over, you've renominated the category for renaming, and now you continue to try and spread blatant lies about me. If you have a true gripe and can back it up with facts, try an RFC. Otherwise, let's get on with building an encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)

As you will note, I was ready to drop this. But lies???? And it could probably have been dropped a long time ago if you had admitted your mistake (I am being charitable) and apoligized for what you did. --Noitall July 6, 2005 13:32 (UTC)


Rossnixon[edit]

Three revert rule violation on User talk:Rossnixon. Rossnixon (talk · contribs):

Reported by: brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User hasn't even attempted to contact me or anyone, just reverting my additions and ignoring my comments. User is also about to break the 3RR at Dinosaur, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, which is against his addition.
    1. Dinosaur revert 1
    2. Dinosaur revert 2
    3. Dinosaur revert 3
    • I've clearly let him know about the 3RR, and that his edits (and edit summaries) are contrary to the talk page discussion (which he has not been involved with at all), and he is freely reverting. Expect him to break the rule on this page as well. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

No, I've only done 2 reverts, I think; plus adding a new reworded edit in hope of a compromise. RossNixon 2 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

  • Listen: The process is: Go to the talk page, discuss it with everyone else, come to a consensus on the proper wording, add it to the article page. The process is NOT: Ignore the talk page completely, add in your own personal version that talk page discussion has been against adding, keep reverting and not discussing at all. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Question from RossNixon: Aren't I allowed to remove vandalism from my own User Talk page? (Brian had been leaving messages implying that my article edits were "sandbox testing" errors). RossNixon 2 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

  • As I stated on your talk page the 2nd time you reverted, you can edit your user page all you want, but you can't just delete other user's comments on your talk page. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
  • It's extraordinarily incivil and close to vandalism to accuse someone on their userpage of making a test in this way when this was clearly not the case. In my opinion, justified removal. Please refrain from treating RossNixon and others in this way. Rossnixon is guilty of a less major offence. User:Brendanconway
    • I didn't want to be harsh, but wanted to let him know that I considered the edit vandalism: without any edit summary or any other comment, he added evolution to the list at Pseudoscience. Maybe someone needs to make a more appropriate template, rather than {{test}}, but it doesn't change the fact that he kept deleting my comment on his talk page (not his user page), rather than doing the civil thing and replying to it. --brian0918&#153; 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)


User:Cognition (I)[edit]

Another LaRouche supporter has arrived: Cognition (talk · contribs), and he's trying to insert LaRouche POV into a number of articles, including that Bertrand Russell was evil; he's objecting to the FAC nomination of the Russell article on the grounds that it doesn't mention this. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Bertrand_Russell. A number of editors have been reverting his edits, but if it continues I'm going to start protecting. I've left a note on his talk page referring him to the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 05:29 (UTC)

The user is quick to delete materal and make reverts, but makes no attempt to provide valid reasons on talk pages or elsewhere. His latest exploit is to claim as evidence against the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ... wait for it ... a chatroom post about the World Wrestling Federation! Something probably needs to be done about this user. Tannin 2 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

These are all LIES. I am the only one who has backed up my edits with sources (**non-LaRouche sources**) on WWF, Chip Berlet, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bertrand Russell. Instead I am reverted without explanation. "Slimvirgin" even deletes my minor NPOV edits of Peter Camejo, which was essentially a copyedit, without explantion. On Chip Berlet, he even abused his admin powers to protect his version of the article, despite our dispute. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

You're remarkably familiar with Wikipedia's rules for a new user. You might want to try adhering to some of them. For the record, I have no dispute with you. Wikipedia has a dispute with you, and I'm involved in this as an admin, not an editor. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 06:05 (UTC)
Unlike you, I have not broken a single rule. And you are involved as an editor, reverting me on pages that have NOTHING TO DO WITH LAROUCHE, such as WWF and Peter Camejo. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)
I see these reversions of User:Cognition's changes undertaken by several editors. El_C 2 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
That's exactly why you're being reverted. The arbitration committee has ruled that material originating with the LaRouche movement may not be inserted into articles that are not directly and closely related to LaRouche. You're editing in violation of those rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 06:11 (UTC)
FALSE. I did not insert material originating with the LaRouche movement in the Peter Camejo, Chip Berlet, WWF, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bertrand Russell pages. Speak the truth and the truth will set you free. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)
They will revert you and then they will ban you. I'd suggest you don't waste your time. It's already been effectively decided that LaRouche editors aren't allowed here. Moreover I already see an allegation of sockpuppetry. That is an easy way to get rid of someone like you; it's what happened to the last LaRouche editor we had. Everyking 2 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
LaRouche is just one of many people whom I admire. In fact, no one would even know that if it weren't for the fact that he appears on my user page along with my opinions on dozens of other important historical figures. Cognition 2 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)
There are a number of editors who are familiar with LaRouche propaganda and can spot it a mile away. Even without your user page, your edits would have given you away. As I said elsewhere, I'm not prepared to continue arguing with you. If you're here to edit in good faith, and you're willing to stick to our policies and the arbcom rulings, you're very welcome here, regardless of your political views. But if you're going to insert LaRouche material into unrelated articles, your edits will be reverted and, if you continue, you may be referred to the arbitration committee. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 06:45 (UTC)
You're not doing a good job. The bulk of my edits have nothing to do with LaRouche. Cognition 2 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)


User:-Ril-[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Matthew 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -Ril- (talk · contribs)

Reported by: SimonP July 2, 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Comments


Rossnixon, again[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Dinosaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rossnixon (talk · contribs):

Reported by: brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Comments:

  • He has completely ignored my comments to him about the proper methods of having controversial content added to an article. He has completely ignored the talk page of the article, including not discussing at all, and ignoring all the discussion already there, which is completely against adding his view. This isn't wikinfo. You don't explain every minority view in every random article. He is now trying to play dumb, despite my constant notices to him on his talk page (he kept deleting the notices: see his other 3RR violation above). Expect him to continue re-adding this content without any discussion. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)


Chuck F[edit]

Chuck F, prolific edit warrior and problem user, has returned. Despite an ArbCom decision specifically banning him "from editing any article related to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology", he has returned to his favorite haunts: Ron Paul, Libertarian socialism, Libertarianism, and Liberal Democratic Party of Australia. A significant block, as authorized by the ArbCom, would seem to be in order. RadicalSubversiv E 2 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

The ruling says he can be blocked for up to one week for that. On the other hand it doesn't specify an expiry time for that penalty, which was instated in February, but I guess we can assume it's one year, so he's still subject to it. Everyking 2 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Seeing as the ArbCom specifically set expiry times for every other remedy, I think it's safe to assume this one was indefinite. And for what it's worth, he's also in violation of the "removal of content" and "required edit summaries" provisions of the decision. RadicalSubversiv E 2 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

Mmm. Indefinite usually means a year, on the principle that a year is just about forever in Internet time - David Gerard 4 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)
I was under the impression that one year was the maximum penalty the ArbCom would (or could?) impose. A year isn't really very long in my opinion, but it's good to limit it to that because then people can at least get second chances. Everyking 4 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
It's a "would", not a "could", but it is the convention. Note cases where someone racked up an over 1-year ban - the actual ban is then one year - David Gerard 5 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)

Man. Why you people gotta hate on that dawg? Ya'll admins abuse all us people who isn't one of ya'll own. BrowardPlaya 2 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)


User:Anonymous editor[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anonymous editor (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Those aren't diffs of reverts. You'll need to correct them. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. The user accompanied every single edit (revert) with a comment begining either with "rm" or "remove," as seen in the diffs. The user blindly reverted all new edits, as I was making them. For each edit I made (in a particular section of the article, the user made a corresponding revert undoing my edits. Perhaps I have some misunderstanding of the term "revert." --Zeno of Elea 4 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
As I understand it, it's more than 3 reverts of the SAME material. I don't think it counts if he's reverting individual edits, "blindly" or otherwise. --Calton | Talk 4 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
No, any three reverts. If I add four different things to an article, and you remove each one in turn, then you're in breach of 3RR. But if you wait until I've added all four, then you revert them all at once, that's only one revert and legal (if not always nice). Mark1 4 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)


User:Cognition (II)[edit]

I've blocked Cognition (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for disruption. Specific policies violated: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:No personal attacks, and the guideline WP:POINT. S/he's a LaRouche-movement activist or supporter, and since opening the account on June 29 has made mostly disruptive or inflammatory edits (158 posts, 76 to articles), with lots of WP:POINT and attempts to insert LaRouche POV. His user page is a clear example of LaRouche thinking: Aristotle is "possibly the greatest evil in distant times," John Locke "depraved," Adam Smith "systematically insane," Kant "pathological liar," Hitler "put into power by London bankers," Bertrand Russell an "evil" advocate of "genocide," and "Lunatic Isaac Newton."

Background for those not familiar with the LaRouche situation in Wikipedia: there have already been two arbcom cases that ruled LaRouche supporters must not use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, and may not insert material originating with the LaRouche movement unless the articles are closely related to LaRouche. The arbcom has ruled that material published by the LaRouche movement amounts to original research. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision.

Some of the disruptive edits:

  • Using an image to insert a POV: his first edit was to remove the Immanuel Kant picture and replace it with one that made Kant look ugly. [10] Kant's a LaRouche bogeyman and Cognition's user page calls Kant an "avowedly pathological liar."
  • Bad-faith objections to FACs: he has lodged objections against two featured-article candidates Bertrand Russell [11] and Carl Friedrich Gauss, [12] because LaRouche POV was not included in them. In the case of Bertrand Russell, he objected because the article didn't make clear that Russell was "one of the worst monsters in recent history."
  • Bad-faith VfD nomination: he nominated Chip Berlet for a VfD. Berlet is an investigative journalist who has written about the LaRouche movement. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chip Berlet
  • He's inserted LaRouche POV into Dennis King, another journalist who has written about LaRouche, including an anonymous Amazon review that said King had "no intellect" and "lesser morals." [13]
  • Abusive edit summaries e.g. "removing outright lies by barbarian POV-pushers." [14]
  • Deletion of links that contradict LaRouche POV. [15]
  • Deletion of posts on his user page warning him about the LaRouche arbcom rulings and 3RR, with the words "remove harassment." [16]
  • Personal attacks: He uploaded a rabid dog image and awarded the "rabid dog beast-man barnstar" to User:SlimVirgin and User:Willmcw with the words: "For working around the clock to defend fascism and synarchism." [17] [18]

Cognition shows too much knowledge of WP to be a new user (his first edit was to upload an image and tag it as fair use), though I'm not convinced he's User:Herschelkrustofsky, who's banned from editing LaRouche articles, because he's a little too manic for HK, and HK could spell, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were connected. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 10:08 (UTC)

Mine said rabid cat, but that was no cat. It was a monkey. Which made me sad. :( El_C 3 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)
Or maybe a lemurite or a lorisidae, I don't remember now. Sadly, it's gone now. El_C 3 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky was previously determined to have used sockpuppets in an attempt to deceive other editors. Here's the ArbCom decision:

If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2

While this enforcement may seem harsh I notice that, by way of comparison, P... V.... hasn't been around lately. Wikipedia wins in the end. Cheers, -Willmcw July 3, 2005 11:02 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that it's HK. There are elements of him in some of the posts on talk pages, and in some of the edit summaries. But there are also quite a few spelling mistakes, which HK didn't make, though that might be deliberate. It would be good to get an IP check, but apparently the check-user facility isn't available to David yet under 1.5. We could ask a developer. I'll leave a note about it on David's talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 11:14 (UTC)
The IP addresses known to be HK from the last arbcom case were 64.30.208.48 (talk · contribs), which resolves to Linkline Communications in Los Angeles, and AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Has this user made any uncontroversial edits? Everyking 3 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Most are controversial. The few that aren't are still firmly within the LaRouche POV. For example here [19] he added of The Beatles: "many criticize the Beatles for their role in launching the rock-drug-sex-youth-counterculture of the 1960s, which popularized harmful drug usage among youth," which is inching toward LaRouche's view that the Beatles were a set-up by British intelligence, sent out to corrupt Western youth. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking, what if a LaRouche editor didn't revert war but talked things over and reached compromises on what to include? Would that be acceptable even though it would violate the ArbCom ruling, which says no LaRouche material can be included? I would like it if the LaRouchites would discuss and reach compromises, but the ArbCom ruling seems, if I'm reading it correctly, to make that useless. Everyking 3 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

So as to avoid endless repetition. El_C 3 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
Say what? Everyking 3 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
He's not an economist per se., we've been through this already, Everyking. Now, where's that cat! El_C 3 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
Say what? I don't think he's an economist per se. I think he's a fascist cult leader. But what does this have to do with what I wrote above? Everyking 3 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)
No. First you stop saying say what, then I'll say what. Now, what I am saying is that your "discussing and reaching comrpomises on what to include" will result in endless repetition. Involving such edits and such discussion. El_C 3 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
As long as he isn't trying to force marginal views into articles, I think repetitive discussion is fine. I think that's a damgerous road to go down, to ban any consideration of content changes because discussion of such changes could be repetitive. Also I wish you'd be more straightforward. Everyking 3 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
And I wish you'd be more (non)linear, but regardless, I doubt the respective talk pages would benefit from that type of repetition. El_C 3 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)
Several editors tried that over many months, leading to 186,000 words on the LaRouche talk pages: see Template:LaRouche Talk. His supporters won't compromise. If you believe that Bertrand Russell (a well-known pacifist) was evil and genocidal, that the Queen is involved in the drugs trade, and that the British royal household wants to assassinate LaRouche, it's kind of hard to find a middle ground. Some say the Queen wants to kill LaRouche, but others say she doesn't? SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 15:53 (UTC)
Good job, counting all those words! ;-) func(talk) 3 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
I'm just saying that if we could steer them in that direction it would be an improvement. Get them to stop provoking controversy and do some serious discussion. If they are reasonable, I don't see why a reasonable solution to these various issues couldn't be reached. I'd hate to think a whole viewpoint, no matter how personally abhorrent I find it, is deliberately excluded from WP altogether. Everyking 3 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)
Everyking, you're more than welcome to try when he returns after the block. The only things you have to bear in mind is that LaRouche publications are regarded as original research, because they're not in the slightest bit credible and are never confirmed by reliable publications, and the inclusion in articles of LaRouche's tiny-minority views violates WP:NPOV. But if you can find a way to work within those limits, by all means give it a go. You can be the one to count the words on the next set of talk pages for the next arbcom case. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 16:11 (UTC)

We shouldn't sabatoge the integrity of this project in a misguided attempt to shape someone who thinks the Beatles are a British "psychological warfare" project into a legitimate contributor. We aren't here to "save" people, we are here to create an encyclopedia. While we should strive for openness, we also shouldn't hesitate to show the crazy people to the door. Gamaliel 3 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Calling me "crazy" is a personal attack. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I demand an apology. I also note that Socrates was called "crazy" and "criminal," along with his followers, but history judged those most loudly condemning him most harshly in the end. Cognition 4 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
I'm speaking of booting "crazy" people as a matter of policy. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The question I raised was whether someone with views you consider "crazy" can be a legitimate contributor at the same time, and work positively. You're dodging the issue by making the assumption that everyone you disagree with is automatically a bad contributor. If a LaRouchite was a good and well-behaved contributor, then would we have an obligation to work things out in a standard way according to consensus with the LaRouchite? Everyking 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
That is a pretty sizable if, actually. El_C 3 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. The suggestion that I believe everyone I disagree with is a bad contributor is preposterous and unproductive. If Congnition wants to be a good contribitor, then all he has to do is actually be one, and I'll gladly cut him some slack if he shows any sign of this. But I'm not going to succumb to the naive illusion that everybody from the lunatic fringe can be rehabilitated by patience and wikilove. Gamaliel 3 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
If a LaRouchie was a good and well-behaved contributor, we wouldn't notice s/he was a LaRouchie. It's the expression of the LaRouche POV that makes the contributions poor, and the strident insistence on their truth that makes the behavior bad. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 23:46 (UTC)
But the contributor could openly state it, and argue in a pro-LaRouche way, without actually behaving poorly. It seems to me the same thing could go for any political POV. I don't get it. It seems like the argument here isn't considering the full scope. It isn't just the LaRouchites; how do you handle people from any POV that you consider marginal? Can you put all those people in the same box? My view is, let people talk things over, reach agreements, regardless of where they're coming from, and in the most intractable cases we ought to have a content committee to make recommendations for solutions. I worry that this is a kind of test case for locking people out based on their views, rather than their behavior. Everyking 4 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
I listed the behavioral problems above: a bad-faith VfD, bad-faith objections to FACs, personal attacks, abusive edit summaries, deletion of posts from his talk page, revert warring. It's not a question of marginal views: the views are insane. Several of us (Adam Carr, John Kenney, Andy L, Snowspinner, Willmcw, Cberlet, and myself, among others) spent months seeking compromise with Herschelkrustofsky: all that happened was we ended up with 186,000 words on talk pages, and some of us ended up being woven into their conspiracy theories, including that I had a connection with the British royal family and had been placed in Wikipedia to protect them from LaRouche POV.
Bear in mind that there are no sources for any of these views other than LaRouche publications, or a handful of other similarly crazy ones that parrot whatever LaRouche says, and they're not even slightly credible, so putting the material in Wikipedia would violate WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Cite sources. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 02:25 (UTC)
The last thing I want is LaRouche POV infesting our articles. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't lock people out simply according to their views. That's the wrong road to go down. The last time we had a LaRouchite around he was banned by Snowspinner on a baseless charge of sockpuppetry. Clearly that was just a pretext to get rid of him, because he would have done the same to any LaRouchite. And of course the same thing is happening here. Let's get solid majority opinions against these LaRouchites to keep them from POVing the articles, instead of locking them out of the project altogether. Everyking 4 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)
As I've said many times, no one is being locked out because of their views, but because of disruption. We do have solid majority opinion against LaRouche POV being inserted, but there's no reason that any editor's time should be tied up having to deal with it. However, as you seem to want to do it, you're welcome to volunteer; what you can't do is volunteer on behalf of anyone else. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 02:55 (UTC)
Because, to finish my sockpuppets thought, it sounds as if you're saying let someone else engage them in endless repetition over whether he is, above all other things, an "American economist," to use but one example. The thing is, nobody wants to do that. You don't want to do that. El_C 4 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Apparently Ed Poor has blocked this user. Here is what Snowspinner had to say about the block: "Totally against policy, and yet entirely common sense. Keep up the good work."

Sometimes I feel like this place is being actively destroyed. Everyking 6 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Then perhaps you ought not aid and comfort the destroyers, vandals, and NPOV-pushers merely because they make handy clubs to use in your ongoing ArbCom is Evil, Admins are Evil, and Snowspinner is Evil campaigns. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)
In Everyking's defense, I am evil. I kill puppies. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 06:34 (UTC)
In Snowspinner's defense, puppies are evil. Don't get caught alone with one of those little yelping devils. func(talk) 6 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
If policy does not give us tools to deal with slam dunk cases like this, it is policy that is broken. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 06:21 (UTC)
If it is totally against policy, then policy should be upheld and my account should be unblocked. Also, my user page should be restored. The ghost of Cognition 6 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
Mercifully, blocking flagrant reincarnations is entirely within policy. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 06:25 (UTC)
So much useless talk. Everyking, I think I speak for everyone listening, when I say "If this place is being actively destroyed, you're playing one of the most noteworthy rôles." I never saw this page before today, but good God in Heaven. Never have I seen so much pointless unproductive sniveling and whining as by you. Dealing with the anonymous vandal whose activities brought me here today is at least a worthwhile way of spending my time on wikipedia, but your sole purpose here seems to be sassing the driver. You sound like a broken (and very bad) record. "You guys are being mean to the bad guy!" "You scraped his elbow when you threw the vandal out the window! You should go to jail!" You remind me of a lawyer who defends a burglar who happens to get cut on a knife while breaking in through a kitchen skylight (cf. Liar, Liar). Do you SERIOUSLY have nothing better to do with your time than sit around and make plaintive and pathetically friviolous claims in favor of every abusive would-be wikipedian? So you got sanctioned by ArbCom, and now, based on your incessant whining reaction, apparently thereto and for no other reason, I'm beginning to think their actions didn't go nearly far enough. Yes, I've never interacted with you, and I should say, "Yes, I've never had the utter displeasure of having to interact with you, thank the good Lord."... but seriously. GET A LIFE. proudly signed Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 08:26 (UTC)
Your comment here, Tomer, shows that you haven't really seen Everyking in action. If you take a look at the RC patrol you will see Everyking diligently reverting vandalism and pursuing vandals. He, like almost all the others here are working to prevent damage to Wikipedia. I don't agree with Everyking's mild stance on blocks and bans, he is typically willing to let troublemakers go much further than I would. But his stance is good faith and one of tolerance of other opinions (a bit too tolerant IMO, but that is beside the point), not one of actively wanting to help troublemakers pursue their agenda. Sjakkalle (Check!) 6 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)
All I ever say about this kind of thing is that I think people should be handled intelligently, and that controversial cases should ideally not be dealt with by one person, but through a consensus of serious editors. I consider myself fairly moderate (not particularly mild, except in some limited ways) when it comes to punitive measures. We would fall apart without them. On the other hand if you apply them wrongly you can exacerbate problems by turning a potential good contributor (sometimes an already existing good contributor) into a very bad contributor. We have some users who believe in the "too bad" approach to solving these problems, you know, spray gunfire all around and maybe you'll hit a few innocents, but you'll (probably) hit the targets too. And if the target wears glasses, shoot everybody wearing glasses. I suppose I'm exaggerating, but the point is that it's a simplistic (and perhaps opportunistic, in a way) approach. And it's not even inclusive, because usually a hardline admin will act individually, without consulting the rest of us—Snowspinner would call that the common sense approach (does he believe that I should handle these things according to my common sense? If not, perhaps he can see why I don't think he should handle them according to his). So I'd say I prefer intelligent and flexible penalties that have some kind of broad agreement behind them. (For this reason, I remain a big proponent of quickpolls.) Everyking 6 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
Actually, given your thoughtfulness and desire to always play devil's advocate, I think that most people would have no problem if you did use your common sense in dealing with troublemakers. Keep up the good work - Wikipedia needs someone to question the conventional wisdom. Guettarda 6 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)


CopyVio on Korea/Tsushima Strait?[edit]

  • Hi! Don't know the ropes yet on CopyVio, but a new map was loaded into two articles this week, that clearly looks like a work over of scanned copyrighted materials, and I suspect the editor to be on the young side. MgM Says Post CopyVio Concern here. One link cites the other, and a 'Merge' vote is also in progress where experienced guidance would be welcome. SeeTsushima Strait and Korea Strait. The merge discussion/vote is on the talk for 'TS'. Thanks. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)


Improper page protection[edit]

There is a dispute between two editors, User:Roozbeh and User:Zereshk, on Talk:Tehran. Roozbeh, who is an admin, then proceeded to protect the article. As Roozbeh is directly involved in the dispute, I request that the article Tehran be unprotected as this action was improper. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

I've done this - while there's a dispute it's not really anywhere near an ongoing, large-scale edit war, and it wasn't listed on WP:PP. It would be easier to see what was going on if Roozbeh could edit in one go rather than ~20 edits in an hour. I must note, though, that Roozbeh did protect it on the version done by the other user, so that, at least, is to his credit. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)


User:Adam Carr[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Semyon Budyonny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam Carr (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Ruy Lopez 4 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User violated 3RR. He definitely knows better than to do this. Although it's beside the point, he is violating 3RR to change NPOV into POV, or at least what I and User:Everyking perceive as POV. He also says in the comments of the edit history that the 3RR should be enforced, so.... Ruy Lopez 4 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
A typically shameless Lopez lie. My 3rd edit was very careful not to be a revert. In fact he reverted the article three times, but since I think the 3R rule is stupid I am not objecting. Adam 4 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
  • The first "revert" appears to be new content, not a revert. I can't find the same text in the history. Mark1 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
crony, dictator etc. are not new content. If we go four edits back[20] from this edit, we can see Everyking removing this POV, which AC puts back. So the ally/crony, leader/dictator content is not new with these reverts. Ruy Lopez 4 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
  • Pot, kettle, etc. The page is protected. --nixie 4 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)


User:Vasile[edit]

  • Vasile (talk · contribs)
  • July 4: 7 reverts.
  • July 1: 16 reverts.
  • June 30: 11 reverts
  • June 19: 6 reverts.

Apart from edits, reverts include repeated deletions of POV tags placed by other users. Gaidash 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

I can't find obvious reverts. The report doesn't provide diffs. The history over the last few days is fine. I change the second pair of dates to June, since we aren't at July 30th yet. I looked on the 4th, and I suspect the reporter is talking about Transnistria, but really, we should have diffs I would think. There are a bunch of rv POV labels for sections. Someone else probably ought to take a whack at this. Wikibofh 03:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


TonyTony[edit]

TonyTony (talk · contribs)

I came across this user when I was doing new page patrol. His only article contribution was to create Mayko Nguyen with the text "Hot Canadian chick who shows her tits in some movie." I have tagged this for speedy deletion. Looking at his other contributions, he has uploaded 10 photographs, all purportedly of female celebrities, with a certain exposure theme. These images don't appear to have been used in any articles. I'm posting this here because I'm not sure what further action to take. If a user is uploading photos without linking them into articles, is Wikipedia being used as a free webhost? Would Wikipedia benefit even if these images were linked to? Should they be deleted? Bovlb 2005-07-04 06:17:02 (UTC)

  • Just delete. They don't serve anything but a shock purpose. That, and they're copyrighted with a fair use claim that's dubious at best. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 11:08 (UTC)
    • I have listed them all on WP:IFD. Bovlb 2005-07-04 17:39:47 (UTC)
    • Would suggest that they are immediately deleted. I'd do it, but I'm at work and do not want to open the images. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
      • I deleted the porno screenshots, the rest can go through ifd.--nixie 5 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)


Suspected harassment[edit]

I am having difficulty with an editor whom I believe to be harassing another in an insidious way by making continuing accusations of misbehaviour at an old RFC. To my mind the accusations appear overstated and these in conjunction with weeks of critical editing of the "target" editor's contributions leave me uncomfortable. Please could others cast their eyes across Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard and associated edits. Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.—Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)


User:Miskin (I)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Extinct language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Angr/t?k t? mi 4 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Miskin is of the extremely fringe opinion that Ancient Greek is not an extinct language, but merely an earlier stage of one single Greek language, which is still spoken. The majority view among Wikipedians and linguists in general is that Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are two distinct languages and that the modern one is descended from the ancient one, in much the same way as Modern English is descended from Old English. He's already made three reverts at List of extinct languages over this issue and is in violation of 3RR at Extinct language. --Angr/t?k t? mi 4 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)
This is not a comment on Miskin's undoubted transgression: it is a comment on your "extremely fringe" remark. Apparently "extremely fringe" people sometimes get Nobel Prizes: "Dear friends, it has been granted to me to write in a language that is spoken only by a few million people. But a language spoken without interruption, with very few differences, throughout more than two thousand five hundred years". Duly reporting violations of Wikipedia policy is one thing, embellishing it with POV opinions is quite another. Best regards, Chronographos 4 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
Elytis was a great poet. But if he truly believed his Greek language had "very few differences" from the Greek of two and a half millennia ago, he wasn't much of a linguist. --Angr/t?k t? mi 4 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)
He evidently did, as he stated it in the most official way possible. His intimate relationship with the Greek literary heritage was such, that I would take his opinion over any non-Greek-speaking linguist: the latter remind me of a virgin sexologist. Chronographos 4 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
"extremely fringe" people sometimes get Nobel Prizes: Ah, the good old-fashioned Appeal to authority, except that the authority in question, well, isn't. --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)
The majority view among Wikipedians and linguists? Chronographos 5 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)


User:Miskin (II)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Demographic history of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs):

Reported by: VMORO July 5, 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Comments:

1) User Miskin is under the impression (or, to put it in other words, is firmly convinced) that the region of Macedonia comprises only Greek Macedonia whereas the other parts of the region (the Republic of Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia in Bulgaria) do not have the right to be included in the region. Consequently, he insists that the article Demographic history of Macedonia should include only information about Greek Macedonia and generally about the Greeks in Macedonia and wants to drop most of the material about other nationalities in the region. Again consequently, the settlement of Slavs and a branch of the Bulgars in Macedonia in the 6th and the 7th century, the descendants of which are the modern Macedonian Slavs and the Bulgarians, is not a settlement but only a "temporary invasion". He has quoted sources only about one of the changes he has made - the statistics of Hilmi Pasha, Amadore Virgilli and Golts - whereas the other ones are substantiated by statements that Macedonia is only the territory of Ancient Macedon (i.e. Greek Macedonia) and by allusions to football matches. VMORO July 5, 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Miskin asserts that Macedonia is only part of Greek history and that non-Greeks have no business there. It is impossible to discuss anything with a jingoist phanatic... Birkemaal 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • These are not diffs showing the reversions, but different revisions. Please correct. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 5, 2005 21:00 (UTC)
Fixed; I also changed times from UTC+3 to UTC. --Angr/t?k t? mi 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)


Miskin claims that he was blocked unfairly (i.e. unilaterally), and that after 30 hours his block is still in effect. Can somebody check this out? see User_talk:Dbachmann#Abuse. For the purposes of 3RR, it doesn't matter if he is a "jingoist fantastic". Everybody gets treated the same for breaking the rule. dab () 6 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

When did his ban start and how long was it supposed to last? As of 02:55 UTC, 6 July 2005 he was back as User:147.102.230.151. --Angr/t?k t? mi 6 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
he seems to be unblocked now. As for his claim that others were equally breaking the 3RR, but not blocked, I suppose he'll have to present the diffs, I don't care enough to spend half an hour investigating this. dab () 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)


Deep Impact article[edit]

I sincerely doubt I'm the first to leave a message on this (although I'm probably the only one to send it to what is likely the wrong place). Whatever the case, the article on the Deep Impact space probe has been tampered with in and certainly reads in a way that might be funny to a third grader but noone else.

Msg left by 216.52.163.226 ) 13:04, 5 July 2005
  • Because this article is currently listed on the main page, and because it is an ongoing current event, information on that page will change very rapidly. With the increased exposure, there will be times when it looks very unedited, and times when it has been vandalised. If you find material has been added or removed inappropriately, please follow the directions on How to revert a page to an earlier version and help us remove some of the nonsense. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for reporting this. Vandalism to articles is a common occurence. If you spot it, the best thing to do is to access an earlier version through the "history" tab, click "edit this page" and save. That will revert the vandalized version to an earlier version. If the vandalism to an article is really out of hand (constant, and repeated), you can request that it be protected at WP:RPP, but for articles regarding a current event, such as this one, protection is unlikely to be granted for more than a few minutes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)


User:69.209.239.161[edit]

This user, who has used many different IPs and userids, has spent a couple of months trying to force some text into the Apartheid article against a strong consensus. Having not gotten his way there, he has targetted me and a couple of other editors, making many personal comments about their alleged ethnicities and political beliefs. He is now reverting me apparently solely for the purpose of reverting me, e.g. [21]. An RfAR would be a lengthy procedure, and unlikely to be particularly effective, given the individual's constant use of differing IP addresses. Unsure how to proceed at this point. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

  • I'll throw in my two cents worth. An RfAr (woof!) could allow us to revert this guy on sight, without engaging in an utterly pointless discussion about it -- utterly pointless because he seems incapable of understanding basic principles such as "consensus". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

So you think an immediate RfAR is the way to go? Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

    • Revert his idiocy, remove his personal attacks, and see what he does. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 16:46 (UTC)
Isn't this the same editor who was trolling the David Irving and Anti-Defamation League talk pages a few weeks/months ago with different IP addresses and user names, and who became very abusive? He seemed first and foremost to be an Irving supporter. If he's doing nothing but make disruptive edits, perhaps he can be blocked for disruption for short periods until he either learns or leaves. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I guess we can see where your POV is. However, a NPOV editor is not "first and foremost" anything, and definitely not "trolling" or an "idiot" (unless you say so?). Please refrain from personal opinion, mischaracterization, and repeated personal attacks, Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. How hypocritical can you get? 69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

  • You're not a person, just a series of numbers. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same editor. He uses Ameritech Electronic Commerce in the 69.xxx range, where xxx is a number between 209 and 222. He's used at least 30 IP addresses, and at least 11 different userids. Blocking him is tedious because he simply reboots, gets a new IP address, and continues editing. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

I was just going through my talk-page history to find some of the comments. I remember he got pretty abusive, and I think I blocked him for it, as did several others, and he did eventually get fed up and stayed away for awhile. The arbcom could ban him, but he'll still be able to come back. I wonder whether it would make more sense just to keep blocking him until he gets bored again. He's made no useful edits that I'm aware of. All he does is disrupt, introduce POV, and leave snarky comments on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:36 (UTC)

See how easy redacting comments from an abusive user is? Snowspinner July 5, 2005 18:00 (UTC)

  • No need to look far for a valid reason to block: [22] [23] are the latest violations of WP:NPA.
Exactly, he's been doing this for weeks. Anon, I don't know where you get the idea that you've broken no rules. You constantly violate WP:NOR (by inserting your own idiosyncratic views of what's relevant), WP:NPOV (by trying to introduce tiny-minority views), and WP:NPA whenever you're thwarted, added to which there's the sockpuppetry. You're eminently blockable. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to all editors. Do not ban this IP address without a valid reason. 1) There have been unjustified personal attacks made upon me from the beginning. WP:NPA, perhaps those editors should be blocked. 2) The Googletest needs to be applied consistently henceforth on a constant basis, especially by those that are administrators. The WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies apply both ways. The constant idiosyncratic views on Wikipedia are apparent when the same few POV editors revert and censor others over and over, they have the exact same editing style and POV, they protect articles from NPOV and improvement, and they communicate to avoid the 3 revert rule. That's dishonesty.69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

It's all coming back now. This was the one who created User:FuckSlimVirgin and who left this message for me. [24] I think he was also editing as 24.30.67.158 (talk · contribs), though he denied it, and I recalling he was vandalizing Chameleon's page at one point using different IP addresses. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

--SHAME ON YOU. SlimVirgin, you cannot back that accusation up, and stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks. You are really digging really low now. Kindly stop defamation that you cannot back up. Whoever that person was, their actions are unacceptable, but one can see that controversy seems to follow you and Jayjg around.

To be fair, 24.30.67.158 (talk · contribs) was actually banned User:Alberuni, who felt he had found a kindred spirit. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Perhaps a conciliatory approach would be more effective here. Jayjg has a reputation as a difficult contributor who often aggravates things with his hostile approaches. It is not hard for me to imagine that he may have been marginalized and radicalized as a result of a conflict with Jay. Perhaps we should let bygones be bygones and focus on agreeable resolution. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

JayJG has a reputation as a contributor who brings needed sanity to topics that are continually overrun by trolls and POV-pushing lunatics like this one. That this gives him a reputation for difficulty speaks more of the people who complain than it does of Jay. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
As usual, we disagree. To his credit, I suppose his reputation is at least a little better than yours. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
This constant support for trolls and attacks on editors trying to deal with them is getting really tiresome, Everyking. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, you are the troll. Takes one to know one. It gets tedious for others to deal with you. You are divisive and controversy follows you. You are part of a little POV pushing team that jealously guards and restricts input. It's flat out dishonest. If you and Jayjg would stop censoring other contributors for one day and let others get involved, then you won't create so much animosity.69.209.239.161
I got tired a long time ago. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
His conflict is not with me, but with a dozen Wikipedia editors. No doubt they're all to blame for not being "conciliatory" enough. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
Yah. The mostly-now-archived discussion started back on May 2, when I removed a change the anon had made and explained why. From the very start, many editors have tried to get this guy to understand both the correctness of my deletion of his edit (which, certainly, is a fair subject for discussion), as well as the consensus nature of article development on Wikipedia. The anon seems to believe that pointing out that he's on the short side of an overwhelming majority of editors (some long-time editors of the article, others brought in through WP:RFC) is a personal attack; that he's right and everyone else is wrong and therefore his change must go in; etc, etc. We've done all the recommended conflict resolution steps; a survey is running right now at Talk:Apartheid, but it's pretty clear that the anon will not abide by the findings of the survey. Everyking is wrong here; we've given this guy lots of opportunity, many of us have tried to explain our positions -- but he explicitly discards any arguments he disagrees with, and states his own position over and over again. Someone else referred to it as crapflooding; I don't think it's really that -- I don't get a sense that the guy is trolling. But we're pretty frustrated. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
I have only recently become involved in the discussion on Talk:Apartheid by invitation, and have been denigrated elsewhere by this anon, for doing so. If s/he has any concept of consensus, s/he clearly has no interest in abiding thereby, and the same goes with WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I'm not frustrated with this anon, I'm conflusterpated as how it can be possible that we have, collectively, engaged in troll-feeding for this long. None of his (I'm going to now go ahead and assume the anon is a guy, henceforth, because without wanting to sound too incredibly sexist, I've never met a woman who's so pig-headed as this anon, when it comes to this kind of issue) arguments have changed from day one of the discussion, even after (literally) dozens of refutations of each and every single point he tries to make to back the purported legitimacy of his edit. This has long since spread from Apartheid to other articles, mostly related to Israel, where he has engaged in the same unproductive activities: making unsupportable claims and additions to articles that clearly back some POV, then making personal attacks and wild accusations on the talk pages. Not only are his edits useless, they're wasting the time of valuable wikipedians, who have to go clean up behind him. Tomer TALK July 5, 2005 22:57 (UTC)
  • Please stop the personal attacks and wild accusations, and pushing POV via reverts of legitmate contributions. That's called censorship.69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

Right, so since this guy is a personal attack making troll nut, I'm trying something new. He's blocked for 24 hours for disruption as of now. I've left a note on his talk page. But since SBC DSL lets you have a new IP address by unplugging your modem, there's not a lot of point in the actual technical measure of a block, so instead, I'm just going to roll back his edits for 24 hours regardless of content. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Of course, he's now using 69.219.55.251 (talk · contribs). Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
Of course he is. But the nice thing about a "manual block" like this is that it transfers to new IPs effortlessly. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 20:44 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours for block evasion. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 20:37 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't get it. Why dosen't Everyking try to do something himself as per conciliation. He seems fond of the approach so long as he dosen't need to do any of the actual conciliatory work. Which is getting tiresome. El_C 5 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)
Indeed. I encourage Everyking to actually do some work in the areas he's so quick to criticize others for - his criticisms would carry much more weight did they not continually come from the sidelines, and I think the lesson in the abject stupidity of certain elements of our userbase would be instructive. I know, for example, that I never truly appreciated RickK until I tried Newpages patrol. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 23:23 (UTC)
These criticisms you speak of are mild encouragements toward consensus and civility when I see people turning towards solutions that I see as possibly (not definitely, because often I haven't fully reviewed them) too harsh. They are emphatically not implications that I could do any better—in many cases I am quite sure that I couldn't. Everyking 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove this comment just so I can put it on BJAODN. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
I think that you must "fully review them," or please refrain from jumping to conlcusions, Everyking. Thanks. El_C 5 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
I don't think I jump to conclusions. Often I don't even draw conclusions about these things. Everyking 6 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
Please don't play with semantics, James. I am speaking of your reaction and its inherent leaning. El_C 6 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
Everyking needs to cease all the backseat driving and take the wheel, for once. RickK departure underscores some of the deep concerns I have for Wikipedia. And the encyclopedia is much worse off without him. El_C 5 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Not really. There are plenty of other admins who are willing to throw their weight around rather than try more constructive approaches, as we're seeing here. -- Grace Note.
If this came to the arbcom, we would almost certainly say something like "the admins don't need us to tell them how to deal with abusive IPs." - David Gerard 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
This is a serious and ongoing problem. Everyking's comments are useless. It is he who, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding, is jumping to utterly unsupportable conclusions. My conclusion: Everyking monitors this page all day long, which is why he has so little time to investigate the problems he so flagrantly and uninformedly comments on, all day long. Nothing he has said thus far in this discussion (nor in any other in which I've seen him involved today) is even remotely relevant, and not worthy of a split second's regard. If he thinks he doesn't jump to conclusions, then I have to jump to the conclusion that he simply doesn't think at all. That said, David Gerard is correct. If Everyking's silly suggestion that this should be brought to ArbCom were actually followed, ArbCom would probably ban everyone for a week. This is a clearcut case of violation of at least a dozen WP policies. This troll's edits need to be reverted on sight. Jayjg and SlimVirgin both blocked him today, Jayjg did so on, I believe he said 19 IP addresses and sockpuppets before Jay believed he'd quit for the night, after he'd told him that he was going to take 24 hours "off" whether he liked it or not. The troll has stopped crapflooding this page, to use Bcrowell's neologism, but is back hard at work with his personal attacks and unmitigated stupidity at Talk:Apartheid, now as 69.217.200.164 (talk · contribs) at the very least. I'm tempted to nominate myself for a speedy RfA just so I can get keep this troll under the bridge. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 08:41 (UTC)
I don't believe in squelching legitimate discussion, and so I fully support User:JohanL's vote in favor of this anonymous troll's positions, as expressed on Talk:Apartheid, eventhough I fundamentally disagree with his rationale. That said, User:Molloy appears to be a vandalistic sockpuppet of the said anon, and it's astonishing that this vandalistic edit has yet to be challenged by anyone. The edsum is a blatant lie, the [This] poll is a ripoff of the poll at Talk:Apartheid, and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 09:02 (UTC)
  • Upon further review, it appears my assumption that Molloy was a sockpuppet of this troll was in error. I had not thought it possible, but it appears Molloy is even more malicious. This doesn't change the fact that the edsum of [25] is a lie, and that the edit constitutes nothing short of rampant vandalism. I've invited Molloy to undo it at Talk:Anti-Defamation League. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 09:15 (UTC)
    • Upon even further review, I have retracted my accusations not only of sockpuppetry, but of lying and vandalism as well [26]. It appears that aside from some political and prejudicial views of Molloy's which I find highly objectionable, s/he is actually only guilty (at least in this case) of really..."bad" archiving and using a talk page to make a point. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 13:35 (UTC)
I strongly refute that claim, I am not his, nor anyone elses sockpuppet. I suggest Tomer produce some sort of evidence before throwing around vile accusations. Molloy 6 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
Yeah. Molloy's his own breed of Nazi (or, since he insists that only members of the NSDAP can be called Nazis, I'll just call him a notsi.) He does share an obsession with Jews and Jewish-related topics with the anon, but they're not the same guy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
I concur. Molloy is a unique New Zealand based Jew-bashing neo-Nazi, he's not our American Jew-bashing anon. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

I concur, jayjg is a Jewish supremacist and propagandist, and although American domiciled, he's a Zionist through and through.

Meanwhile, within hours he was editing (and reverting) again as 69.217.200.164 (talk · contribs). Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

/shrug. So we extend the block 24 hours, and this time when you see him doing it from another IP, revert him as a blocked user as soon as you see it. Or drop me a line and I'll do it. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

I have created a page which lists all this users Userids and IP address. You will find it at User:Jayjg/Jews did Apartheid editor. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)


Some trolls[edit]

User:Involved in trolling has been blocked as a sockpuppet intended for trolling. Yes, I know troll being in the username is not a reason for banning. However, saying you are involved in trolling is different from troll being in the username, and he went straight for policy pages about trolling. Similarly User:Lleague of Responsible Trolls is gone as the Entmoots sockpuppet he acts like. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

I am involved in trolling. This has been known, yet I am not banned. --SPUI (talk) 6 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
There's trolling and trolling. And I'm sure some admins would be quite willing to ban you, if it weren't for the predictable backlash that would follow. If you want a ban, you know how to get it.
Bottom line: you can't have an account named "involved in trolling" and go troll. If you can't do anything productive (defined in the narrow, boring, representing-the-sum-of-all-human-knowledge sense), you've got no place being on Wikipedia, and we're not required to accommodate you. If you can do something productive, you've got a ton of slack right there. Despite moans to the contrary and admittedly some notable and regretful exceptions, Wikipedia is still a very accommodating place. Especially if you take the size of its user base into account. JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
I didn't see any trolling by this account, just some edits to articles about trolling. There is a difference there. --SPUI (talk) 6 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
Yes, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not (primarily) a social experiment. Is someone with a username of "involved in trolling" supposed to become a productive Wikipedian? Is using "involved in trolling" as your primary handle something that should be taken in good faith? I'm not saying blocking the account was necessary, but I find it rather hard to argue it's principally wrong too. (Except for the IP autoblocker; I wish we could turn that on and off as necessary. I'd like this account name to be banned, but not the user behind it.) JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
I think a case can be made that it's best to let a troll edit under a "troll" name, so we know what we're dealing with. Furthermore I'm skeptical of the idea that a troll can't be a productive Wikipedian; SPUI seems productive, after all. I don't know a lot about trolling as a phenomenon, but I see two different kinds: the really obnoxious kinds, with the "shock" images, and the ones who like to edit policy pages and act as voices of dissent. I'm all for booting the former out the door but I think the latter can have a useful role to play, provided they keep it moderate. Everyking 6 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
As with regards to SPUI, be careful to distinguish trolling as an activity and trolling as a vocation, or primary purpose. I think many experienced Wikipedians can be said to have trolled, however moderate and minor; every bit of irony you secretly hope some dim-witted person to take literally and embarrass themselves over is technically a troll. Playing devil's advocate honestly (the way you often do, for example) is something you can still do more productively under a non-flammable account name. I'll admit there is often a thin line between clever criticism, deliberately provocative statements intended to zenslap people, and outright looking for trouble in all the wrong places, but any way you cut it, getting off on a good start by establishing you at least share the goals of Wikipedians seems to be a good idea. I don't think anyone expects a brand new account named "involved in trolling" to do that; even if it's just going to "offend those people who should be offended", to paraphrase John Cleese, it's still time wasted. Really, if your sole intent is really to troll and nothing but, you shouldn't be doing it here, whether you're being honest about it or not. The only reason I can think of to pick a username like that is to meta-troll: make the administrators look foolish by being so anal over an account name when they should only be evaluating edits. It's a nice idea, but it's been done, and it doesn't work. Or alternatively: anyone you want to make that point to has been convinced one way or the other, so go find a more useful way of expressing yourself. JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, it still works. All the troll needs to do to get someone in a froth (and to generate discussion) is use troll in their username. You'd think we'd learn to simply ignore it and, as you say, judge the edits, but there's always someone who thinks that it's of vital importance to creating an encyclopaedia that they aren't confronted with the word "troll". -- Grace Note


Blocked user DW[edit]

User:DW is an old hard-banned user who occasionally shows up with a new name, edits innocuously for awhile, and suddenly starts doing the same old things that always got him banned before. Since he's under a hard-ban, I understand that we can just simply block him when he shows up again, but I have always been reluctant to do this since he usually makes perfectly good edits for a long time. Well, now he is back as User:A. Lafontaine, which was completely obvious when he first showed up (being from Elliott Lake, editing the same articles as JillandJack, the previous incarnation, etc), but now he is starting to annoy people again. Should he just be blocked again? Adam Bishop 5 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

I remember a user, "Jack and Jill" or something like that, was banned before for being this user, but later an IP check turned up negative. So I would be wary of jumping to conclusions. Anyway, I wasn't around or wasn't paying attention when whatever this person did wrong got him/her banned, so could someone explain it to me? Everyking 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
You seem to continually forget that impersonating a banned user with excessive believability is also a bannable offense. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 20:54 (UTC)
Well, as you know, we disagree on things such as whether a sysop should be empowered to ban someone based on a superficial and subjective comparison of behavior, and so on. In general I prefer that an IP check should be done, and if it turns up negative the matter should be put through process. Everyking 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
And as soon as there's actually a procedure that lets IP checks be done, that would be a good idea. But right now, one sysop has checkIP powers, and I don't think they've been turned on with 1.5, making that something of a pie in the sky idea. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
As well as IP checks, I would like to run a DNA sample. Unfortunately, that isn't switched on in 1.5 either. Also, the IP check would only look back a week, as I've pointed out repeatedly - David Gerard 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
Actually, Everyking, JillandJack/JackandJill (the user had both names) was confirmed as a reincarnation of DW; you may be thinking of an incident right after JillandJack was banned, when I reacted in error to a suspiciously-timed followup edit to the last article JillandJack had edited before the ban. That user, Oirvine, was subsequently exonerated on an IP check. Bearcat 22:10, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Shoot to kill IMO - David Gerard 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
Ah, the project is in good hands. Everyking 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
Admins are to be regarded with the greatest of suspicion at all times, whereas trolls are to be treated as unique and beautiful snowflakes in the hope that this will cause them to magically transform into good editors, and have much greater claim to assumption of good faith than any admin ever will - David Gerard 6 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
No, but it would be good if both were treated with the same regard, Dave. Admins are treated with suspicion because they are empowered. Trolls can often just be ignored. You can't ignore someone who is blocking you. -- Grace Note


Mentorship issue[edit]

I've asked this at WP:RFAr but didn't get a response there, so I hope it attracts more attention here.... one of Netoholic's mentors has resigned a week ago, and the other two have not responded to issues with him lately. Thus it seems to me the mentorship is not presently active. How does this fit in with Neto's ArbCom restriction? Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 21:43 (UTC)

For god's sake, stop harassing me. Mentorship IS working, just not with Kim, who's on a break. The only reason you're persuing this is to discredit me and take the focus away from your recent admin abuses. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
I have to say, if you're making vicious and borderline personal attacks like that, I have to question what you mean by "working." Snowspinner July 5, 2005 21:52 (UTC)
This is staggering. Just a few hours ago you wrote on this very page about somebody that they are a "personal attack making troll nut"...how can you adopt this holier than thou attitude towards anybody? Everyking 5 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)
And when Radiant has gone through four usernames and as many IPs from being blocked, Netoholic is welcome to suggest that he may be a bit of a problem as well. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 23:05 (UTC)
If Netoholic has proof for the "recent admin abuses" on the part of Radiant, he should submitt the pertinent evidence. El_C 5 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

While Radiant's "admin abuses" are not extensive, he has made a few questionable decisions in the past few days, including editing a protected page to participate in the dispute for which it was protected, using sysop rollback in a content dispute, and blocking Netoholic, his adversary in the dispute, without discussing the matter with his mentors. (See the history of Template:Merge and my notes on his talk page.) He was kind enough to explain to me his reasoning in the matter (see here), though I can't really see where Netoholic's arbitration injunctions give administrators license to violate both the protection and blocking policies in such an egregious manner. — Dan | Talk 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Rdsmith4. I think it would be of benefit for us to hear Radiant's side of the dispute. El_C 5 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
Based on the comments Rdsmith4 linked to, assuming Radiant is factually correct that netiher Raul nor Grunt have been active as mentors, I think Radiant is outside of policy but inside of sanity. The fact that Netoholic drove off the one mentor who was actually doing anything and the other two are too busy to deal with him does not actually give him the right to behave in the manner that got him into trouble in the first place. If Radiant is dealing with a clear and present issue, I'm at least inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on the policy questions. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Both Grunt and Raul654 have been quite available to me prviately, and indeed do get involved when the need arises. Can Snowspinner, Radiant!, and everyone else please stop the feeding frenzy now? -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
Excuse me, this is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, after all. El_C 6 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
Hm. In that case, I have to ask Radiant why he says the mentors aren't involved, considering that both of them did take action today. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 01:43 (UTC)
As I said in my first post, I believe that he's simply engaging in a specific campaign against me. Perhaps the Mentors can see clearly through this. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
Perhaps, but you've played that card against enough people that I'm inclined to wait for the evidence. No offense, but I don't find it terribly hard to believe that you might have been edit warring over templates. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 01:47 (UTC)
Likewise, I was not terribly surprised when you jumped onto an opportunity to take jabs at me. This place is a fucking soap opera. Why don't you go work on the encyclopedia? -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
Netoholic, I don't know you, and you don't know me, but I can tell you, authoritatively, you gain absolutely nothing from comments like that. No pity, no understanding. Let the evil show itself. Don't stoop to its level. It will ultimately just beat you with experience anyway, if you do. Take the high road. Walk with the goats, and leave the trolls behind, under the bridge. Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
Because stage 5 hasn't started yet. Snowspinner
Nothing personal Snowspinner, just trying to help out with Netoholic's "mentoring"... Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
Okay, that's enough. El_C 6 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
Man, I've sucked at remembering to sign my comments today. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 03:03 (UTC)
Preview button = friend! El_C 6 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
Dude. The preview button is so small...and that show changes button keeps messing me up... :-p Tomer TALK July 6, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
I have yet to try the show changes button, I wonder what it does. Should I try it? What say you, Tomer? Oh, thanks for the indentations! Heh. El_C 6 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

On a related note, a new user, coincidentally namer User:Netoholic (look at that "e" closer) just changed the real Netoholic's RFA vote at Uncle G's RFA. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 00:23 (UTC) Dealt with below (but for the record, I mentioned it a minute before Rick!) --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 00:40 (UTC)

  • In explanation... around June 21st, I asked on Grunt's and Raul's talk pages whether Neto's mentorship was still ongoing. They never responded to that (Kim did, though). Some issues came up during that time, and they didn't respond to that either; and Kim claims (on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration) that he has been mentoring mostly on his own for the past couple of months. I felt somewhat uncomfortable taking only Neto's word for it that the mentorship was in function. If they have become active once more, that would be a good thing.
  • Regarding the block/protect issue Dan mentioned above - the content dispute is actually between Netoholic and Lifeisunfair, who have been revert warring about a number of templates. Consensus seems to lie on LIU's side, as indicated on the talk pages. I do believe revert warring is considered harmful even if people technically stay below the 3RR level. What I did at the time was 1) revert from Neto's version to what I perceived to be the consensual version, and 2) block him. I was unaware at the time that, out of the three templates involved in the edit war, one had been protected by Violetriga. I suppose that reverting or blocking would have been appropriate, but doing both is a bit too harsh.
  • Neto is taking it personal, but it really isn't. It is simply that I perceive him acting in precisely the manner that got him RFAred in the first place (e.g. disruption to prove a point, incivility, and revert warring over templates) - even after repeatedly asked not to by several people, and an earlier block by Kim. It would be preferable if the mentors had stepped in, but since I had informed them and they hadn't responded, I didn't see the point of being more lenient to a user under mentorship than to any other user. I should also point out that revert warring on e.g. Template:Mergeto and Template:Split seems to be ongoing. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 09:39 (UTC)