Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive336

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User talk:70.173.50.153[edit]

Take a look at this page and tell me what you think. Looks like the user removed some templates back on the 10 november and received vandalism warnings for it. It doesn't look like vandalism to me, certainly not simple vandalism that requires a template. Possible test edits, possibly good faith but clueless, but no matter. That isn't what is bothering me.

The user then tries to remove the vandalism warnings from his page and receives further vandalism templates and a block for doing it. This looks like major newbie biting to me. When an IP is clearly static, and when the IP is clearly not a vandal, why do we not allow them to remove the templates. Is it plain stubborness? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question. It may be that we need further discussion about this but there seem to be many who think removing warnings from one's talk page is vandalism. It is not. WP:UP#CMT makes plain that a user may remove such warnings. Of course, they still exist in the history of the page. Some users are embarrassed by the admonitions and wish to remove them. Such is not prohibited. I think there may be some confusion because that has not always been the practice. I believe we allow them to remove the warnings. We have much bigger issues to spend our time on. - JodyB talk 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As the protecting admin, I have an issue with removing warnings while vandalism is in progress, as happened here. The same policy page makes clear that removing a warning implies that you read it ... to me, removing warnings and then continuing the same edit pattern is a way to try to avoid the consequences of your actions by preventing other users from seeing how many you've already gotten.

Flip edit summaries and ownership assertions like this did not help this user's case with me. Perhaps it was edit war rather than pure vandalism, but the net effect is the same, as is the remedy. Daniel Case 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, seriously? If you take a look at the time line of the entire escapade, it should be clear what has happened here. I made an edit, specifically, removing a template which User:Fogeltje felt should be there. That's fine. He then proceeds to watch my user page. I blanked the page... I get it, I read the warnings... and it stayed that way for hours. It seems more like stalking my page with an attempt to humiliate than any kind of actionable page blanking on my part.
All of my supposed vandalism and edit warring at this point comes from doing exactly what everyone says I should be able to do.. removing content from my talk page when I've read it. Does anyone really believe that this is an important part of the encyclopedia which needs protection?
Did I behave like a petulant child on occasion? Sure. Most of it came from my pure incredulity that "protecting" a page intended for talking to me was such a priority... nevertheless, I accept that I am responsibility for my poorly thought out response. 70.173.50.153 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
See above. I don't believe anons have the right to remove warnings from Talk pages, as they are not "their" pages. Corvus cornixtalk 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Once a vandal, always a vandal, eh? Yeah, forget reform. Forget shared IPs. Forget giving anybody a chance. We need to block this guy, he's a major threat to the encyclopedia, removing all those critical {{test1}} messages from a page no one is ever going to read. I must admit I'm at a complete loss to understand why the contents of this talk page are important. Once the page was protected, did they really need to be blocked? Seems a bit much hurry. Don't we all have better things to do than play police with things that aren't even remotely a problem for the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Luna, Theresa, JodyB, and for the most part 70.173.50.153. No edits had been made in the previous week, the previous edits were all still (top) - there was no vandalism in progress. I can sometimes see the need for full protection at times like this to stop the RC patrollers edit warring on the user's talk page, but never the need for a block. 'Anons' are editors like you and me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. They can't create articles and can't move them. This was by design after those capabilities were stripped away from unregistered users. For good reasons, too.

Given that many anons are used by different users and are frequent bases for vandalism and sockpuppetry, we have every right and obligation to be less forgiving when they are used to edit in violation of policy and consensus, whatever misunderstandings are claimed later. That's why I keep the templates up ... other users who might leave messages have to be able to know what kind of user they're dealing with. And there is really no such thing as a truly static IP ... this was mine for a while but now it's not anymore. Nor do we have the reasonable certainty that the same person is behind every edit that we do with a registered user (how many times have you gotten an unblock request along the lines of "My brother started editing while I was out of the room!"?).

The blocking came first, then the protection. I was more than a bit annoyed when the page was blanked immediately after the block. That just flushes every good faith assumption I could have. Daniel Case 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you blocked him before you protected the page.For what?! He was a productive editor. You obviously didn't check his contributions because if you did you'd know that a) his only "vandalism" was to remove some templates back in November b) He isn't claiming that he didn't do it only that it wasn't vandalism. Or do we define removing of a vandalism warning itself as vandalism? If the IP changes and is no longer his why do we need the warnings? Your argument makes no sense to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So you blocked him before you protected the page.For what?! He was a productive editor.In real life, having no prior record when I beat someone up in a bar fight (not that I would) isn't going to get me off the hook entirely for it. I believe the same principle applies here.

He isn't claiming that he didn't do it only that it wasn't vandalism. While I agree this case may have been different from most that make this claim, the fact is we hear this one a lot. (BTW, he is also admitting that his actions were hotheaded).

Or do we define removing of a vandalism warning itself as vandalism? As I said, I very much do if it's removed when the alleged vandalism is in progress, and then the same edits that gave rise to the warning are repeated. It matters not whether the warning was for a good-faith edit or not. Just like it doesn't matter whether the police have real grounds to arrest you if you start running around and clamming up to make it harder to put the cuffs on — you are still resisting arrest under the law. Strict liability applies in that situation as long as the officers can demonstrate that they had every reason to believe they were effecting a lawful arrest. I consider this situation analogous.

The proper way to respond to a vandalism warning you believe you have received errantly is to immediately initiate talks with the other editor so that you both gain an understanding of each other and what your motivations were. It is not to begin edit warring on your talk page. And then, if the two editors have come to an understanding as people often do, then the vandalism warnings can be removed by mutual consent. That's the Wikipedia way ... this is a collaborative project, after all. In fact, I just did exactly that last weekend when I realized I'd warned the wrong IP on something.

Perhaps this wasn't vandalism, but it was definitely incivility. Daniel Case 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And here we see the inherent beauty of having a complex web of guidelines and rules which are largely known only to the enforcement community. If one charge can not be made to stick, another is right at hand. I have no doubt that I committed at least a dozen other infractions in my edits. For most of November, I largely refused to use edit summaries!

For the record, I don't claim I'm being singled out for persecution. I suspect that all so-called anonymous editors are treated with the same lack of respect with which I was. And, before anyone even starts quoting more procedure at me, I wasn't editing to make a point. Oddly enough, I was editing to make an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia which has enough respect for its readers (anybody remember these people?) to offer them a comprehensible and polished article. Yes, even if that means removing some mark-up which does nothing but encourage said readers to become editors.

I've largely given up on that quixotic quest. Instead, I've taken to hitting the random article page and cleaning up whatever I find there. Nowadays, I mostly leave the templates in place, so as not to incur the wrath of the people who somehow have time to place and "watch" templates, but not actually improve the articles.

I've learned a lot about Wikipedia in my short month of trying to contribute. I even created a user after an admin spoke to me like an actual human being. Since I had to out that user as part of this discussion, I have started yet another user. I really thought I was going to try to contribute. But my anti-authoritarian nature has kicked up.

The ploy has succeeded. You've sucked me into the morass of Wikipedia politics. I am now spending the majority of the time I've allotted for this project reading policies and writing these manifestos.

Is it clear, yet, that I've read the warnings on my page? I tried once again to clean up the page, only to have it reverted as vandalism. Imagine my shock when I discovered that it was Fogeltje's first edit of the day! He is right on the ball with keeping me in my place!

I don't want an apology. And I certainly don't want new justifications. I want the warnings off the page. In fact, I want everything off the page. 70.173.50.153 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

a complex web of guidelines and rules which are largely known only to the enforcement community. And which anyone can learn if they're patient enough.

If one charge can not be made to stick, another is right at hand. As is often the case in real life.

For most of November, I largely refused to use edit summaries! Well, why?

I suspect that all so-called anonymous editors are treated with the same lack of respect with which I was. I wouldn't call it quite a "lack of respect", but if you mean that some of us are more suspicious of anonymous edits, particularly those that come without edit summaries, you'd be right. We feel we have good reason.

But my anti-authoritarian nature has kicked up. Some people would call that an attitude problem. Yes, this project is open to all ... all who abide by the rules and policies that have been worked out and evolved from community discussion and consensus. And that inherently requires giving some people some authority to enforce those rules and policies. So if even that authority is one you're going to chafe at, you might want to reconsider how this will go for you if you don't want to accept that you are subject to that authority.

I am now spending the majority of the time I've allotted for this project reading policies and writing these manifestos. In the former case, you are hardly alone. Everyone had to learn these things, everyone who decided that they wanted to be a member of this community. As for the latter, that's entirely your choice. You could also have seen this as a learning experience, the sort of learning experience we all had at one point, and moved on and done the editing you wanted to, but for whatever reason you decided to make an issue of this. I do not judge here; I merely note that others might do differently.

I would also note that learning how things are done here is no different from what you must do anywhere you move, anytime you choose to start to become part of another community, virtually or really.

Concerning your issues with User:Fogeltje, I would note that I didn't find a single post from you to his talk page in its recent revision history. Do you honestly think you can expect him to be reasonable about this if you make no overtures to him? (And I do think he ought to be in this discussion).

I don't want an apology. And I certainly don't want new justifications. I want the warnings off the page. In fact, I want everything off the page. If you're going to use an actual account from now on, as you said on my talk page, as you said here, why would that matter? You could scarcely plead offense if someone looking this over began to think you were more interested in confrontation and settling a perceived grudge than actually contributing productively. And speaking personally, lay off the self-pity, it never does anyone any good. Daniel Case 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was the one making an issue of it. I approached him and asked if I could help as it was apparent that he was upset. Anyway enough of this. I will blank the IP talk page myself so that the matter is settled, but do ask that other users be less quick to label newbies as vandals, and more understanding when such newbies get annoyed abour being labelled as such, and start trying to deeascalate a situation rather than escalate it by adding yet more vandalism templates. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction I see that user:Luna Santin has already done it. Hopefully that is the end of the matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of user Ilkali on numerous pages[edit]

This user appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the change of case is appropriate and regardless of any consensus against him. He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again. He has done this most recently on the Misotheism page, where it became clear that whether or not he had a case, he was going to reapply his edits regardless. (Witness his repeated edits and reapplication of reverted edits on November 29 and 30.) This behavior has apparently been going on for months on numerous pages, with the most egregious incident apparently being his edits to the Derren Brown page back in September, where the page had to be protected to stop his behavior. Despite clear evidence against his position presented by others, he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV. On numerous pages, "other contributors have clearly and patiently tried to talk to him" to no avail, and his content "continues to add content that is disagreeable." When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it." Full disclosure: He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action. Craig zimmerman 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of these accusations have already been addressed elsewhere, but I'll provide a short response to each of them here.
  1. "appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia". Only when it is a common noun, as explained in great detail on the two talk pages.
  2. "He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again". I reverted User:Dbachmann's edits when he and I were the only ones involved. At this point, there was no consensus. When User:Craig_zimmerman joined, I ceased. The three of us discussed the issue (to varying degrees), mostly on the MoS talk page. During the process, three of four editors agreed that common nouns should not capitalise, with the fourth not making any clear statements in either direction. With the orthographic conventions largely cleared up, it fell to analyse the actual edits to see if the changes were appropriate. To this end, I presented arguments in support of specific edits ([1]). At this point Dbachmann and Craig_zimmerman both declared unwillingness to discuss the issue. I resumed reverting.
  3. "he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV". 'Common nouns don't capitalise' isn't a POV. 'Determiners are almost exclusively used with common nouns' is not a POV. etc.
  4. "When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it."". (Why did you paraphrase instead of just quoting me?) The only person to whom I responded like this is Craig_zimmerman himself, and this was because he repeatedly argued against a position that I didn't hold, ignoring what I had said elsewhere in the discussion. I was not the only editor to suggest that he didn't understand my position.
  5. "He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action". I'll let the WQA itself address this one: [2].
Ilkali 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a content dispute which got a little hot. I suggest some dispute resolution, since you don't need admins to resolve this issue at this point in time. --Haemo 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like that, but it's difficult to resolve a dispute when one side of the disagreement is unwilling to do anything other than revert changes. Ilkali 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Though this would have been more concise as inline comments...
  1. By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that his argument was soundly rebutted and summarily contradicted, but this did not stop him from continuing to cling to his POV on the subject. Those who rebutted and contradicted were deemed "unwilling to discuss."
  2. Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's, and this user has strong POV's that contradict both editorial consensus and documented English-language usage conventions as provided in great gory detail.
  3. The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general. This talk page section offers explicit examples of his language directed at multiple editors, including his tirade at dab in which he said "If you had any understanding of the distinction at hand, you wouldn't say that my edits were made through indiscriminate search-replacing." (Not that "the only person to whom I responded like this was..." would be any sort of excuse for such behavior in any case.) "I'm not obligated to teach you syntax just so you can talk productively about this topic but I'll explain how you're wrong" (followed by no real explanation of what was wrong with the original statement—perhaps it was he who was failing to understand?) is yet another example. Other similar texts appear in the Derren Brown disruption discussion.
Despite the fact that Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent, and despite the fact that his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed, and despite the fact that consistently he has failed to make the case that he seems to believe he has made, he continued his disruptive reversion behavior in the cases cited above. This behavior has occurred numerous times in the past with perhaps the most notorious and flagrant example being the Derren Brown article, where the issue of his behavior was apparently only resolved by protection of the page from his disruptive edits. I contend that this is a repeated pattern of deliberate disruptive behavior that warrants appropriate action. Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that
"this is entirely a content dispute related to these specific passages now and has nothing to do with general MoS on capitalisation. Misotheism is discussed as a position towards monotheism in particular in these passages, and hence God is capitalised. Ilkali, you are now, by your revert-warring, indulging in WP:POINT. Review WP:DISRUPT for possible sanctions that may be taken against such behaviour.
Craig zimmerman 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
"By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that [...]" - What I mean is that both editors declared unwillingness to discuss it. You on the WQA and Dbachmann on his talk page.
"Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's" - If my understanding of these terms is a POV, then presumably yours is as well? And by your own reasoning, your arguing for your favored version of the article means you are pushing your own POV?
It's a ridiculous claim. We're not primarily disagreeing over the information in the article, just the means used to convey it. This isn't a POV issue.
"The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general" - Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?
Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent" - Can you back this up?
"his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed" - Yadda, yadda, yadda. Even if the issue of who was right were directly relevant here, nobody is going to assume I was wrong just because you say so. Let them read the talk pages and decide for themselves. You don't have to fill every comment here with as much bile as possible.
"Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that [...]" - You forgot to mention that said administrator was Dbachmann, and wasn't acting in his capacity as an admin (rightly so, since that would involve a conflict of interest).
I hope that by now people are seeing a pattern in how CZ represents people and events. Ilkali 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that both editors declared unwillingness to discuss it. You on the WQA and Dbachmann on his talk page." There was discussion, authoritative sources were cited showing that Ilkali was wrong, there was only unwillingness to discuss the issue further beyond that point.
"It's a ridiculous claim. We're not primarily disagreeing over the information in the article, just the means used to convey it. This isn't a POV issue." According to this reasoning, all usage standards are really just POVs, I guess. And majority consensus and historical precendent on usage doesn't carry any weight in balancing which POV is right. Isn't that the ridiculous claim?
"Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?" Throughout his series of requests for clarification made to you that went unanswered. But that wasn't what the content of the comment refered to in any case. The direct quotations include remarks made to both dab and myself.
"Can you back this up?" Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun (e.g., refering to a group of people who are "Davids") in support of his opinions. When it was pointed out that this was a bad analogy to a situation in which the debate was about whether a word should be capitalized (he cited no instance of a lower case "david") he not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point.
"Yadda, yadda, yadda. Even if the issue of who was right were directly relevant here, nobody is going to assume I was wrong just because you say so. Let them read the talk pages and decide for themselves. You don't have to fill every comment here with as much bile as possible." Yadda, yadda, yadda indeed. Does saying that another person's arguments are flawed constitute "bile?" I didn't think that was the case. In any case, let's move on.
"You forgot to mention that said administrator was Dbachmann, and wasn't acting in his capacity as an admin (rightly so, since that would involve a conflict of interest)." Fair enough. He wasn't acting in his capacity as admin at that juncture. He was simply noting that your behavior, in his opinion, was in violation of WP:DISRUPT and that sanctions against you might be appropriate if you continued engaging in it. This is a POV shared apparently by many people about your behavior on Wikipedia. Is it just another POV, or is it one that has merit? That's the question we're trying to answer.
"I hope that by now people are seeing a pattern in how CZ represents people and events." I sincerely hope so. Craig zimmerman 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"There was discussion, authoritative sources were cited showing that Ilkali was wrong, there was only unwillingness to discuss the issue further beyond that point." - If you predicate your arguments on the presupposition that you were right, they're going to fall flat. I can do exactly the same thing. We all believed we were right, and we all acted accordingly.
"According to this reasoning, all usage standards are really just POVs, I guess" - My words: "This isn't a POV issue". But if you insist that my analysis of these nouns is a POV then yours is necessarily so as well. Which of our analyses is correct is a matter for another page.
""Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?" Throughout his series of requests for clarification made to you that went unanswered" - I expressed refusal without even answering? I have put more effort into resolving this dispute and building understanding of the viewpoints than anybody else ([3], [4], [5], [6]).
"Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun" - No I didn't. I showed that 'David' can function as a common noun, through widely-documented twin syntactic and semantic processes of proper->common conversion ([7], [8]), whereby it can take modifiers and a determiner (syntax) and denote a set of entities (semantics). You don't understand what this means (which of course isn't shameful - like the majority of people, you just haven't studied linguistics), but the real problem is that you don't realise you don't understand it.
"not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point" - ...while requesting that you post the same comment below my text rather than inside it. The first time you did it, I spent time extracting your replies manually and asked you not to do it again. I did the same here. I don't accept an obligation to do it every time. Ilkali (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I will attempt to summarize the issues focusing on the disruptions rather than dragging the content debate here:
  1. If you predicate your arguments on the presupposition that you were right, they're going to fall flat. I can do exactly the same thing.
    In fact, this is exactly what Ilkali did do. When his arguments were countered with historical precedent and common usage guidelines from authoritative sources that flatly contradicted him, he again ignored those rebuttals and claimed unilaterally that he was right, usually going back and unreverting his changes that were deemed inappropriate. This has happened in a number of places on Wikipedia over the period of several months.
  2. My words: "This isn't a POV issue".
    Meaning his POV is right and everyone else's, no matter how well documented is wrong, and any effort to dissent from his POV and call it wrong is labeled a failure to understand, a dismissal of the rebutter's intellectual abilities, or a personal attack heaping "bile" upon him. This is also a repeated pattern.
  3. I have put more effort into resolving this dispute and building understanding of the viewpoints than anybody else.
    If by "effort" he means deleting people's comments that contradict him, unilaterally unreverting changes in acts of blatant edit-warring, and dismissing the counterarguments of critics as personal attack, then and only then I would agree. The resolution that is the unilateral goal of this effort seems to be the foisting of his opinion on others.
  4. "Ilkali attempted to use the notion that the word "David" could be both a proper name for a person and a common noun"
    - No I didn't.

    Without dragging the actual content debate here, it was shown that his example was a poor analogy that did not accurately reflect on the "God vs. god" issue being argued, and rather than address the arguments against this failed analogy, more contempt was hurled at those who rebutted him (in this case, me).
  5. You don't understand what this means (which of course isn't shameful - like the majority of people, you just haven't studied linguistics), but the real problem is that you don't realise you don't understand it.
    I must admit, here in this thread at least, Ilkali goes to great lengths to bend over backwards to appear gracious, with his parenthetical remark injected here. This has hardly been the case in the actual discussions we are refering to. No such parenthetical retreat from outright contemptuous dismissal occurred outside this thread. In any case, is it possible Ilkali doesn't realize he doesn't understand the counterarguments being addressed to him? I think not, I think he knows they are valid and just doesn't care. Whatever the truth of the matter, the edit-warring and other violations of Wikipedia behavior guidelines manifest some kind of stubborn refusal to participate rationally.
  6. "not only did not respond, he deliberately deleted the text containing this point"
    - ...while requesting that you post the same comment
    below my text rather than inside it. The first time you did it, I spent time extracting your replies manually and asked you not to do it again. I did the same here. I don't accept an obligation to do it every time.
    This is simply not true. My comments (responding to individual bullet points inline to save space, taking great care to ensure that flow was preserved and that attribution was clarified) were summarily deleted, without response. Here, as with the injected parenthetical graciousness, his behavior is quite different.
Craig zimmerman (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't think I need to put up a defense anymore. Ilkali (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lostinlodos[edit]

Lostinlodos (talk · contribs) did a cut and paste copy of Burma to Union of Myanmar. I reverted him and explained that 1-there was no consensus for the move, and 2-that his move was a copyright violation because the edit history was lost by his cut and paste move. He replied with several legalisms. On the Talk:Burma page, he's claiming [given that [The} Union Of Myanmar is a member of the United Nations, it opens Wikipedia's site host and administrators to international LEGAL action by the government of The Union'], and is repeatedly trying to claim on my Talk page and on his own, that the cut and paste move didn't violate international copyright law, and therefore it was perfectly legitimate. I have no intentions of getting into an edit war with him, but this is just a heads up that he'll probably try to make the move again, since he sees nothing wrong with what he did. Corvus cornixtalk 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to have the article at the right place, but there's the specter of legal threat there, and he's being uncivil, and he DID do a cut n paste. Maybe an admin do the move and redirect properly, and issue a warnign for legal jargon being unfriendly, as well as a general incivility warning? ThuranX (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
But where is the "right place"? There is no consnesus to move it, that I can see. Corvus cornixtalk 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
UNtil the revolution begins, it should be at the UoM page. The Burma page can deal with the historical location, the prior nation and people, and the struggle to free it from tyranny. The UoM can deal with the torture and human rights violations, the radical politics of the Junta, and so on. In other words, 3000 years at burma, 18 years at UoM. Let each article cover the proper subject matter. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The move has been discussed to death, and there is no reason for it to spill onto ANI, aside from discussing Lostinlodos's actions. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Corvus cornixtalk 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Talked to death, but ultimately, POV. Arguing that the title 'legitimizes the junta' is absurd. Wikipedia's far less a journalistic endeavor than most of the newspapers using Myanmar. Write the article using NPOV sources, and you'll find that most people will quickly figure out that it's a bullshit Junta of bullies thieves and monsters. But it is the name that that absurd mess self-identifies by. Use the Burma location for the history of the nation before that government, and solve the problem. Let the articles tell the story. That this has made it to AN/I shows that this is not settled. As for LostinLodos, his actions were wrong, and I've supported a warning against him. However, this issue needs to be addressed. I recommend that those most involved open an RfC on the matter. Wikipedia isn't a political action group to condemn or 'legitimize' the government, just to write up the facts. The fact is, there was a nation by the name Burma. That nation needs coverage. There is currently a government called the UoM, which occupies that nation currently. The occupation government (junta) needs coverage. SPlit the 125K article into a history of Burma and the occupation nation, and be done. at 125K it's too large anyways. There's a mioddle road, IAR/BOLD and be done. ThuranX (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, not only talked to death, but talked to death in a 100+ kilobyte discussion involving over 50 editors (that's where I stopped counting). An RFC is unlikely to resolve anything, but neither is discussing it here. ArbCom might be the right stop for this if there is still no consensus. Bold IAR actions should be avoided when it's a given someone will revert it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In my own defence; that notation was posted on the article's talk page a full day later after reading a notice update I received by email regarding /another/ incident elsewhere. I am not threatening anyone. Honestly it really doesn't affect me where the page is and the single cut and past, as I've stated to the point, was inadvertent, and accidental; and would have been changed by myself if noticed it stuck prior to Corvus cornix reverting back. I have not now nor ever taken part in anything remotely considered an "edit war" by wikipidia's definition; on this site or any other. As for civility; if anyone is being uncivil I'd charge that it was Corvus cornix who's very first statement regarding the REDIRECT was to focus on the accidental save page click rather than show preview click, and the charge the HE/SHE made that I violated copyright law. A quick look at the raw version of my user talk page will show that I only RESPONDED to HIS/HER claims about copyright violation, not asserting the lack of violation first. You'll also note that the edit and revert to the page this user refers to came at 17:14 and 17:20. Hardly enough time given my stated intentions of the REDIRECT; which was to untangle the three dozen or so dead link multi-redirects. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Mistakes happen; to even the most seasoned editors. Had Corvus cornix simply noted something to the regard of 'hey you did a copy and paste, that's naughty' and posted a link that would have been the end of it. I would have said sorry, oops, ... and corrected the error on my own, tagged an apology to the discussion page and THANKED CC for pointing it out. Instead he/she posted this as the very first comment notice "Edit warring over a country name is a good way to get blocked. And cutting and pasting the Talk page from one name to another is a copyright violation. Please don't move the article name again without consensus": (bold added to emphasize) which to me is spiteful, uncivilized, attacking and aggressive in nature; and also factually WRONG. THAT is why I strike up the no CRA violation defence. I realise out of context my statements can be turned against me; IN CONTEXT I believe it sheds more light on the situation and shows that I was attacked rather than ignoring 'rules' and 'regulations'. User_talk:Lostinlodos#Burma Lostinlodos (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In a more stable location and more in direct line: my intentions were to:

A) correct the title and information of the page by a redirect or move (whichever was easier in the end) to the correct LEGALLY RECOGNIZED term for the plot of land under the various names (legally Union of Myanmar). Calling the country by any other name is, factually, at it's most bare level POV.

B) untangle and update the outward spread of redirects and links so that they all completed, something that desperately needs to be done. On some browsers (Opera/older Safari)and (on others, eg FireFox/Netscape) plugins/add-ons the pages fall dead after the first redirect. Others, such as the UNet browser, AOL Browser, and 'Zaa Browser the pages stop on the second redirect. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)[edit]

I noticed this very nasty personal attack made by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frisbyterianism, I also noticed a consistent basis of personal attacks from him like [9], [10]. He was warned for the last link here, but he quickly blanked it. I'm close to giving a 24 hour block for this. Any objections. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I shan't comment on the other topics, but the one "personal attack" mentioned is actually a fairly apropos play on the deletion subject at hand, and clearly intended as humor; I laughed, at least. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is another, he was asked to refactor and I believe did so. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see any personal attacks. The accusation of puppetry might be, if thoroughly groundless, but it looks like there's some back and forth there, so ...eh. As to the 'very nasty' one, it's funny, and clearly intended as humor. one in four is a maybe isn't much of a record of horrible incivility. I'd object to a block. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No block, I don't think any offense was intended. Neil  11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design sockpuppet attack?[edit]

Suddenly, a number of different editors have taken to deleting whole sections of the Intelligent Design article, all using the same language. If somebody puts the section back, a different editor appears and deletes the section again. I'm not a regular there, so I don't know who's who, and I was told to report this suspected sockpuppet attack here. If it is not a sockpuppet attack then it is an edit war. Please help. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's a mass of obvious single purpose accounts, you should try to assume good faith. There is an ongoing content dispute on the article's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
plus the suspected sock has over 3500 edits! One of the other "puppets" has over 15000 edits! Raul654 (a 'crat) is the most recent editor... he didn't protect the page...Balloonman (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Grant Chuggle is back[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for 1 day by Tonywalton

I would normally file a suspected sock puppet case, but since he admitted to being a banned user here: User talk:41.241.73.254, I thought I could get him blocked, again, faster this way, since he admitted being blocked and using the IP to evade the block. Thank you.IrishLass (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mid-scale puppetry - second opinion requested[edit]

Hey, I was hoping someone could give this a quick look, I think I'm dealing with around 20 socks but would appreciate some fresh eyes on the deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern for my adoptee[edit]

This edit, and the one after it on my page, lead me to think (no, believe) that my adoptee has been using sock puppets to disrupt the Wikipedia. I am now going to A) talk to him about the policy; and B)label the other accounts that I know of as sockpuppets. I just don't know if any other action needs to be taken. I am deeply concerned that User:Iamandrewrice is never going to learn how to be a positive contributer and am at my wits end. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the behavior of Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) since the initial thread on ANI. In his 3 weeks on Wikipedia, this user has managed to violate most of the core policies, including making legal threats, using sockpuppets and gross incivility to numerous editors. Jeffpw has had remarkable patience with Iamandrewrice, mentoring him and attempting to mold him into a productive user. However, this experiement has failed as the user is eithe[r unwilling or unable to follow the advice given to him by Jeff and many others. He's been blocked twice (legal threats, vandalism) and has recently implied that he's created multiple sockpuppets to evade blocks. Since there's no sign that Iamandrewrice's behavior is going to undergo a miraculous change, I'm requesting that this user be blocked indefinitely. I believe that a review of his contributions will lead other editors to the same conclusion. Chaz Beckett 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been following this carefully and yes, Jeff deserves a very large chocolate barnstar. I'd agree that an indefblock appears to be warranted. I've asked Iamandrewrice for an explanation of the edits Jeff has concerns about, so far with no response to be told that I am not the person on the account (despite the edits Jeff brought up) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I too have followed this from the sideline since being in dispute with him. That episode resulted in Jeffpw's adoption of Iamandrewrice. He has since shown significant progress as an editor and has worked hard on several articles. However, the amount of incivility towards his mentor has been astounding as has Jeffpw's patience and goodwill for which I awarded him a barnstar and some encouraging words. If this is the path that Iamandrewrice has now chosen, as it would appear, then I guess an indef block is the only solution to this. That said, it really all boils down to how much Jeffpw can continue to mentor someone who at times seem more eager to prove himself right regardless of Jeffpw's firm warnings to stop acting out. I don't think anyone would blame Jeffpw for simply deciding to back out of this arrangement. EconomicsGuy 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a fairly unambiguous statement that Jeff's done just that (and no blame to him) Tonywalton  | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thats not true! i have not purposefully vandalised as you will see! My edits were all with good faith! and I was learning very much from jeff... Iamandrewrice 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are constantly incivil to Jeff, as in these edits [11] [12] [13]. This is how you're treating someone you're "...learning very much from"". Sorry, you've been informed that this type of behavior is not acceptable, but the inappropriate behavior has continued and possibly even worsened. Chaz Beckett 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am basically crying now! I put my trust in you as an adoptee... and was hoping you felt the same level of care... I was, and still am trying so hard... if you look at my edits, none of them are vandalistic ... EVEN that Monkton one, as that with good faith! Iamandrewrice 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have an inability to see past yourself. Jeff took on the responsibility of adopting you when others thought you were a lost cause. He has attempted to put you on the right path. Instead of being grateful you demonstrate a selfishness that is totally out of line with the way Wikipedia works. Then when you are challenged on your behaviour you attempt to put the blame back on the one person who had faith in you. "Crying"? My ass! You are one of those kids, for whatever reason, thinks it's always someone else's fault. Your behaviour is your fault, no-one else's. --WebHamster 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick observation. Is it not more likely that User:SpidermanHero is a sock of User:Joeseth1992 - especially given User:SpidermanHero claims his name is Jose? Yes, the first message left on User:SpidermanHero was from User:iamandrewrice but that is arguably to be expected given User:iamandrewrice has claimed to know User:Joeseth1992 in real life. And User:Joeseth1992 did have his recent block extended for using socks to get around it. Also (and I haven't the diffs at the moment as I'm in a rush) User:iamandrewrice did claim User:Joeseth1992 wanted to improve the grammar on Wiki and User:SpidermanHero did make such an edit (albeit an incorrect one, capitalising a direction)[14]. I am convinced User:Joeseth1992 and User:iamandrewrice are separate people in real life (and they have left enough personal information about themselves on their user pages to make it apparent they are friends on MySpace and Bebo, for instance. My only main concern is that User:iamandrewrice has created the account to disparage the person his username suggests he is. That person does exist, and is connected to the person behind User:iamandrewrice on Bebo if nowhere else. Given all that can be obtained from the details both left (mainly email details in userboxes) is this not more likely to be a group of school friends that have got out of control, rather than socks? Whitstable 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
this diff would support that assertion. Someone came complaining that Iamandrerice had taken their name to use here. I expressed concern at that time, but it was decided Iamandrewrice could keep the name. Jeffpw 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The sockpuppets are actually a very minor (and recent) part of the problem. Let's assume they're not sockpuppets, but a group of friends. Now we have a situation where Iamandrewrice is playing his usual game of creating drama and then playing the "I didn't know any better" card. This card made its first appearance when he made legal threats then, when blocked for this behavior, claimed to not know the definition of "legal action" (despite claiming on his user page that English is his native language and that he's studying English language and literature). So he's either lying about using sockpuppets or he's using sockpuppets, neither one is acceptable behavior. Chaz Beckett 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree completely with that - and would also point to [this edit] to suggest that even if the two accounts are no the same person, they have been known to work together in such a way that is disruptive. I nearly filed a CU yesterday because of the amount of blocked users user:iamandrewrice had been contacting, but opted not to. But socks or not, I think the way user:Jeffpw has been treated by someone he has gone beyond the call of duty to help is so unfair that I am fuming about it, and I'm only looking at this from the outside! Whitstable 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just had a thought regarding checkuser - since the socks (or !socks) seem to admit to being pupils at the same school, isn't a checkuser likely to prove very little? The IP will be either the school's proxy or at least should be expected to be in the same IP block in any case. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
He posts at times when one would normally expect a UK school to be closed, therefore it may be he logs in here from school and home. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point, well made. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts: This | section here also makes me suspicious. And User:Christine118500 has been chasing around for adoption in a similar manner to how User:Joeseth1992 did. Whitstable 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, Whitstable. And SpidermanHero is doing the same thing now, as well. It does seem as if they are one user with split-personality disorder, or a group of school friends who have decided to make Wikipedia their target for fun and games. It will be interesting to see what the checkuser report says (I filed it a while ago). Jeffpw 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Whitstable, and this edit might be seen as ill-advised at best, under the circumstances. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) They (User:Iamandrewrice and User:Christine118500) both pass the duck test and are obvious sock/meat puppets of each other. I'm going to indef both and suggest that one of them may be unblocked only on stringent parole. — Coren (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The other two do not seem quite as obvious to me, however (but very likely). — Coren (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As per my comments above, User:Joeseth1992 and User:SpidermanHero appear to be the same person. Similar style, and the second account, created after Joeseth is blocked, claims to be named Jose? Whitstable 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For information Iamandrewrice has now posted an unblock request (with a rationale 873 words long!) on his talkpage, in which he admits that SpidermanHero is a meatpuppet. I strongly feel that this editor has been told often enough about policy and had it explained point-by-point where it applies to his edits without success. (Leaving aside questions of possible puppetry) I support the retention of an indefinite block. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with maintaining the indef block. There's a pattern of Iamandrewrice creating drama until blocked, then claiming it was all a misunderstanding, followed by being unblocked and then quickly returning to the inappropriate behavior. There are two possibilities here, either he's playing games seeing how much he can get away with or he's truly unable to understand how people are expected to behave here. Either one should result in an indef block. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Chaz Beckett 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and would mention that Christine118500 has the same pattern. Tvoz |talk 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As does Joeseth1992 Whitstable 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Endorse the indef block. He had plenty of second chances and pretty much blew them all by arguing with Jeffpw rather than pay attention. There is no reason to believe that he will not simply return to his old pattern of disruption and acting out. Fact is he got a second chance that 99% of users who start out like he did never gets and he basically wasted that chance. EconomicsGuy 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Preliminary checkuser shows that the account has been socking. I need a second opinion on the Christine one, hence it's not completed, but Iamandrewrice certainly has - Alison 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As Christine118500's former adopter, and having observed Jeffpw's admirable attempts with Iamandrewrice, I endorse both blocks. I would add that Christine118500 admitted prior to being adopted that he had been blocked in the past (Christine118Maureen is clear, and others apparently); I discussed the matter with Isotope23, the admin who blocked the previous account, who said in reply that he was willing to let Christine118500 edit and try to reform. Sadly, he has not, and a block is warranted on that ground at least. I do not know whether Christine118500 and Iamandrewrice are the same individual. CU or a more detailed comparison of edit times and styles may reveal more, but it may matter little. BencherliteTalk 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the CU Iamandrewrice, SpidermanHero, Joeseth1992 (and, interestingly, Radiation111 and Narnia101) are confirmed. The result on Christine118500 is pending. Tonywalton   Talk 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Following another unblock request (which I declined) and yet more verbose "apologies" and promises, I've blanked and full-protected User talk:Iamandrewrice. Tonywalton   Talk 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A new one just arrived. Blackhouse123 is claiming to be friends with Christine118500. He also made this edit which isn't very helpful. IrishGuy talk 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another? Just seen this edit by User:Burningandrew within four minutes of account creation. Whitstable 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
And another Dom58 the Second. They're kindly signing up at Petition to unblock User: Christine118500 (twice deleted). BencherliteTalk 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Plenty more socks now identified by checkuser. I blocked a bunch of them already and the checkuser case has now been updated - Alison 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think, by now, any illusions of good faith are reasonably ignored. Block-protect-ignore. — Coren (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh my God. I was out seeing clients for the last few hours, so missed these latest revelations. I said to Tonywalton yesterday that I thought I had adopted Rosemary's Baby. Now it is clear I really adopted Sybil. Oh well, it was a good learning experience for my next adoptee. Thanks to everyone who gave me support throughout this. Jeffpw 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One Two Three Four,
How many More?
Five Six Seven Eight,
Well you'll just have to wait!

)

Christineandrew 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet more, it seems. User:Andrewsclone just made this edit Oh, and see above post by User:Christineandrew Whitstable 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another just created: User talk:Andrewsbaby to quote user page

you know who i am people

back from the dead? or already dead ;)

laterz yeah? yeah...

Sigh Whitstable 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
confirmed / blocked the underlying IP - Alison 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A static IP, I hope! Tonywalton   Talk 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A look at suspected puppet User talk:Dom56! also suggests the following are puppets: user:Guys09, User:Toast123 and User:Dr. Reeves Thanks Whitstable 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dom56! for some more possible ones. BencherliteTalk 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For information Further from Andrewsbaby (on their talkpage, now a protected redir to the userpage):

ok people

theres just one thing i want and then this will all stop... seriously... I want you to unblock my IP address... that is my only request... then I wont bother you with these accounts anymore... but doing that is just unfair...

Tonywalton  Talk 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't unblock the IP address unless the sockpuppeteer reveals which IP address is being used. We also know that more than one address has been used. --Yamla 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, (and I'm not sure about "can't". Would doing so be a good idea?). If they're complaining about collateral damage (for instance, and I'm speculating here) perhaps the reason they seem so keen to have an IP unblocked is that one of the autoblocks is going to hit something like a school proxy, with ensuing awkward explanations from themselves as to how their activities got it blocked. If they're on a dynamic IP then meh? they can easily get another one (as I'd guess they are doing). I'm not sure whether this, followed immediately by this may be of interest. Someone didn't log in. Tonywalton  Talk 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again everyone... remember me now? ;) WiArthurWho 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... the sad thing here is that you don't seem to understand that you weren't banned (yet!) just indef blocked. You could have just started over and no one would have blocked your new account had you stuck to good faith edits. Once again you turned out to be your own worst enemy here. EconomicsGuy 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry continues, I've reopened the checkuser request. I move for a formal ban on this vandal. --Yamla 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pr this our friend Iam... is but one puppet among many and not the puppeteer (I suspected this last night). Try Wiarthurhu, I too would support a ban, of course. Tonywalton Talk 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Though I know I should outraged, I can't help but feel sorry for the guy. If you can believe anything he has written, his MySpace says this is his birthday. Instead of spending it celebrating with friends, he is waging a one man war against a group of strangers on the internet. That's just plain sad. I don't mean to imply he should not be banned, I just still have an element of compassion for what is obviously a very troubled young. Jeffpw (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And I posted this on Tony's page, but I will post it here, too: This user, whoever he is, has emailed me with a full explanation of what has transpired. He asked me to post it here, but I refused. I did, however, promise I would forward it to any admin or other office people who might wish to read it. Jeffpw (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Support the ban. This ban is the very last option - he blew the second last chance in spectacular fashion when Jeff had to give up on him. I really thought that this was the exception to the rule - that he really could be turned into a constructive good faith editor very eager to learn. I even felt really bad about having assumed bad faith about two of his uploads and really wanted the guy to succeed. Now that we know he was just a sock himself I'm really disappointed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently debating this with him on User talk:Benniguy. I support Tonywalton's indef block of that account as a preventive meassure but unless everyone else have given up on him maybe we can work out an arrangement where he is allowed back on one account with full disclosure and a strict civility parole and no arguing with people when he is told rather firmly not to do so. He needs to understand that and if he does I'm willing to assume good faith one very last time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The user has repeatedly lied. See the below, for example, where Alison shows that the user falsely claimed an innocent third party was a sockpuppet account. Additionally, the user has claimed here to have a very limited number of sockpuppet accounts but elsewhere, claimed to have "thousands". --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of the checkuser result when I posted this and debated with him. I agree, the lying is continuing. Full support for the community ban. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with a ban. This vandal has been at it a for months now. They've been given several "second chances" with various accounts. Ban, block, and ignore.--Isotope23 talk 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fettes-Additional sock[edit]

Hi, I've reverted a few actions by the self-admitted sock, on one of their comments they also confess to a few other socks; could someone please check into these and block as appropriate? Benjiboi 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I'm more than a little dubious. --Yamla (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey-ho. FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Iamandrewrice and Christine118500 are not the same person. The initial link between them is probably me, in this way: I decided to stand down as Christine118500's adopter after this, and told Christine118500 so. The next day, I reviewed one of Joseth1992's unblock requests and refused it. I think Iamandrewrice saw my name on Joseth1992's page, saw this message on my talk page and came across Christine118500 that way. However, as far as I'm concerned, both of them have messed around far too much and fully deserve their indef blocks. BencherliteTalk 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The original checkuser result explicitly indicated them as being separate but both socking - Alison 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 Confirmed - This guy is messing everyone around. Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs) = Fettes (talk · contribs) = Eastort (talk · contribs) = Orangestreetcat (talk · contribs) = Logitechfan (talk · contribs) = Donatenowkid (talk · contribs) - underlying IP blocked. Needless to say, the "confessed" accounts here ... aren't - Alison 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Smells like a community ban... MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I support a community ban for both. Christine118500 had his last chance some time ago when he was allowed, by kind permission of an admin, to try and edit constructively with this account. He failed to do so. Iamandrewrice's behaviour is here for all to see. BencherliteTalk 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I too support a community ban for both. This has burnt enough time that could have been used productively, has upset enough people (I'm not easily upset but I'm now getting paranoid about completely reasonable requests for assistance from new editors), and has just been too plain unpleasant, to be allowed to continue. Tonywalton Talk 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Benniguy, an admitted sock of Iamandrewrice, made an extremely verbose posting here prior to me blocking them. The posting was subsequently blanked (quite correctly IMV) and Benniguy's talkpage protected. Before this was done I made a summary from that posting of what Iamandrewrice's actions to date had been. Those considering whether a ban may or may not be appropriate may care to see the summary and their response on this revision. Tonywalton Talk 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A message to Iamandrewrice[edit]

The trouble is - you are now in a position where nothing you say can be trusted. Good faith efforts by both myself and (especially) Jeffpw to explain how this was going to crash down onto your head were ignored - then rebuffed and ultimately, scorned. Go back and read my posts to you on my talk page (archive 7, I believe) - you'll see that I gave you fair warning of how this would turn out - you arrogantly told me that you could create more accounts - I explained how that wouldn't work for long - and guess what? It didn't. You've lied and back-stabbed those who offered help and broken so many rules that we simply can't believe a word you say anymore...not one single word. So how can we tell that Joeseth1992 and SpidermanHero aren't really you? We have no proof of that and we certainly can't take what you are saying on trust anymore - that boat sailed away long ago. *IF* they aren't you, then you have some explaining and apologising to do to these friends of yours who are innocent victims in the war you started. There is a lesson for you here for your future life - and that is to treat others as you wish to be treated - to be kind, straightforward and truthful above all else - and to recognise when someone is trying to help you. In a way, you're lucky - you've learned your lesson in one of the gentlest ways possible. You've gotten kicked off an encyclopedia writing project - there are worse things that could have befallen you. There are other ways that lesson could have been learned that would have resulted in school expulsions or losing your job or jail time. So, take the lesson away - have a good hard think about how this came about and why it spiralled out of control - and apply that to your future life. And maybe - just maybe - if you quietly made a new account a year or so from now and were the very model of a perfect Wikipedian, we might not notice that it's you - but for now, that's definitely not a good idea. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm this, as being in personal contact with these vandals (hence why they have attempted to drag me into this affair. -_-). Joeseth1992 is certainly not Iamandrewrice, Lol, I know these two people, HOWEVER it doesn't matter the band of them are as bad as each other and should be banned... seriously, they've spent their time being sadacts creating accounts at home and at school for the good of nothing plus: attempting to get me involved (which was the height of their stupidity - didn't work). I don't know who SpidermanHero but I suspect his real name is Ben. Seriously, if I had been notified of this sooner I could have helped clear a few things up. That's of course if you don't suspect me a sockpuppet of any of these people. Fishyghost (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear this up: There are three boys, all with the intent of fooling you around in an immature manner, all should be blocked. Fishyghost (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar actions of apparently non-vandalist editor[edit]

Resolved

This editor M1ss1ontomars2k4 has a number of perfectly ordinary edits under her(?) belt; but look at the last couple of articles created (including the deleted article now a redlink). Unless there's a secret nasty Mozart I don't know about, this is some kind of wack vandalism that seems uncharacteristic, complete with a really nasty Durova quip in the edit summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That's just ... odd. I've deleted the (English redirect) articles as CSD:R1, and will drop a note on the user's talk page. BLACKKITE 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Beat you to it. I've indef blocked the account as it appears to have been compromised, and left a note on both the user's talk page and by email. This way, the editor will be able to reestablish his identity, change his password, and resume editing. — Coren (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah - the only reason I didn't block myself was because the edit immediately after the article creations was in line with the user's normal editing interests. Still, better safe than sorry, and we'll see what they say. BLACKKITE 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a legit piece in the Mozart canon. We have an article on Leck mich im Arsch. Gimmetrow 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) Don't jump to any conclusions or hasty blocks. Mozart wrote several canons with obscene lyrics for his friends. This was highlighted in a way by the Durova incident, as Durova and Guy have made baseless accusations against !! and Giano for discussing those canons. (That's what "obscene trolling, knows German" was about.)
I haven't looked into the edits thoroughly yet, but if you blocked someone just because you don't believe the thing about Mozart, you should (a) unblock immediately and (b) give the user a thorough, sincere apology lest you become the next Durova. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've followed up by looking at the article. It was completely legit. It even had references so that you could tell it was legit. What we've seen is a prime example of What Not To Do When You're An Admin, especially the week after Durova. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Support immediate unblock. This appears to be K233/382e. Gimmetrow 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted article appears legit -- see the German Wikipedia Article. The edit summary may have been a little uncivil, but certainly not grounds for a block. Pastordavid 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The German version does appear to be legit, however I deleted the two English redirects because they appeared unnecessary and I think that was a correct decision (doesn't the idiom mean "Kiss my ass" anyway?. BLACKKITE 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec x3)Roughly translated, yes based on what my German friends tell me. Strictly translated: Lick me in the ass. I had to ask after I saw that one created. spryde | talk 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've heard multiple people refer to the piece as "Lick me in the ass nice and clean". I wouldn't be able to spell the German version if I were looking for it. There's no reason to delete the redirect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Usually we'd just mention the English title in the article, but I don't have any real objection to restoring the redirects (they might be a target for vandalism, though). BLACKKITE 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary looks like it was intended as a needed warning to make sure an admin wouldn't rush in and do exactly what Coren did anyway. Reading it as anything else is assuming bad faith. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren isn't responding, so I've unblocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • And I've restored the German titled article, minus the revision with the incivil edit summary. BLACKKITE 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, whatever indicated this account was compromised? I would like to know for future reference. Gimmetrow 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the original editor looked at the rather incivil edit summary involving Durova together with the titles of the English language articles, then looked at the the user's previous contributions and thought they didn't match well. I can see why they thought that, and certainly when I first looked at the user's contribs (by then, the German titled articles had been deleted, just leaving Lick me in the ass nice and clean), I was a little surprised too. BLACKKITE 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope that for you there's a difference between "a little surprised" and "reaching for the indef-block button". When a good editor does something odd, you can always ask them about it on their talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what I did. By the time I'd left a note on their talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M1ss1ontomars2k4&diff=prev&oldid=175778804), though, Coren had already blocked them. I tried to contact him on IRC to say I didn't think it was compromised due to the following edit, but he wasn't responding, and by that time the legitimacy of the article had been pointed out. BLACKKITE 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
      • For the record, an immediate indef block is the only proper response to an account that appears compromised (and given how... uncharacteristic those edits appeard to be for an established editor, that was a reasonable conclusion). If the account wasn't compromised the editor suffers a few moments of inconvenience while things are sorted out— if it was compromised then damage gets limited and the editor's reputation doesn't suffer needlessly. You'll note the block reason makes it very clear the block was put in place not because of behavior, but because the security of the account was in doubt. At no point did I presume, or state, or act in a way consistent with my believing that M1ss1ontomars2k4 was anything but a good faith editor. Drama much? — Coren (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So, whatever indicated this account was compromised? I would like to know for future reference,, because I don't see it. The editor didn't go on a vandal spree. A hair trigger seems to risk offending an editor. Fortunately, the editor didn't get offended, but if he did, it would have been a lot more difficult to undo than a couple bits of vandalism. Gimmetrow 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • See [15] and User:!! for context. Although probably done completely innocently, it cannot be overstated how inappropriate an indef-block was here. Perhaps bring it to the board before a block next time? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A temporary indefblock of an account that seems to be compromised is not such a bad idea. The user can be easily unblocked if it is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with the preemptive indefblock; it's much easier than reverting a bunch of articles. I've always been away for the entire time I've been blocked, seeing as people tend to unblock me before I even know I've been blocked. So I'd like to know what exactly can be edited by a blocked editor, because it wouldn't make sense if an editor couldn't explain his/her own actions in order to be unblocked. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For exactly the reason you mention, when you're blocked you can still edit your talkpage, in order to post an unblock notice. BLACKKITE 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and undeleted the redirects and the article creation edit of Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber. I think it's important to preserve history. Before my undeletion, a non-admin could have suspected that the first sentence came from nowhere. The edit summary was uncivil but it didn't reveal any personally identifiable information - there is no reason that non-admins should not see it. Graham87 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock is fine with me[edit]

Geesh. Stay away for ten minutes and see what happens! :-) I have no objection to the unblock. I blocked for the benefit of the editor, not to prevent him from editing.

For the record, the very nasty Durova crack screamed vandalism, but it was only normal to assume the account was compromised and not that a good editor suddenly went rogue. — Coren (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...looks like you guys have figured it all out, so I won't put much explanation here. I cannot tell a lie; 'twas I who made those uncivil comments. Sorry for all the confusion, as it's mostly my fault. If you need additional proof that my account has indeed not been compromised, please feel free to ask! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry BLACKkite, I'm a guy. The m1ss1on is just that--mission. My username refers to the Spirit and Opportunity missions. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops :) BLACKKITE 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Single issue poster, multiple accounts[edit]

Rachalupa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 71.170.220.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) These accounts appear to be used by a single issue poster publicising their dispute with Interactive Brokers by posing as them and posting derogatory information. Examples - spam links to their website interactiveBrokersSucks.com - [16], false information and vandalism (category) - [17], creating an alternate similarly named (spoof?) article [18] -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You only seem to mention one account - Rachalupa. 71.170.220.213 isn't an account, it's an IP address, otherwise known as an anon. While the edits certainly seem as if they should have been reverted (which they have been), and the link to the spoof website might be classed as defamation, I can't quite see what administrator intervention could be made here. the vandalism is the issue here and I can't see where admin interventoin is required. As far as I know there's no specific policy against a registered editor who isn't blocked editing as an anon. I've given Racahalupa a warning about placing attack links in articles. Tonywalton Talk 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the user account. A review of the edits show it is a vandalism only account. The IP I have blocked for 72 hours. If you or anyone wishes otherwise they may make the change. - JodyB talk 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly recommend you list this link for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎. Any admin there can do this for you. Otherwise, most hard-core spammers will just get other accounts as necessary to keep adding their links; blocking has little effect. --A. B. (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice, following/harassment[edit]

Hi, I'm a quite new user on Wikipedia.

I had some problems, with another user, from before I had even got a user-name on Wikipedia.

I was only having an ip-address, for a signature.

But even so, one user, kjetil r, knew that my usual username, for message-boards in Norway, was 'cons', and contacted me on Wikipedia, using this nick/user-name, when contacting me on Wikipedia, before I had got a user-name on Wikipedia.

(At least this is how I remember it).

And then, later, I was editing a page (grandiosa), and then another user, plased POV tags, I think they are called.

The other user and me, reach a compromise, like the other user refered to it as.

And then, seemingly from nowhere, the kjetil r user, suddently appeared, on this, the other page, and now on English Wikipedia, and not on Norwegian Wikipedia, where our first 'encounter' was.

And then the kjetil r user, placed new POV tags, almost imideatly after the first user had removed them, since consensium between me and the first user had been made.

So kjetil r wasn't involved in the discussion, but seemed to me to be surveiling me, and as soon as the first user and me had reached consius, then the kjetil r user appeared, seemingly from nowhere, and placed new tags, and disapeared again seemingly.

At least this is how it seemed to me.

I know I'm new on Wikipedia, but regardless of this, it seems to me that I have been followed and harassed in 'cyberspace' (that is, that the user must have been finding my user-name from somewhere on the internet, possibly a thread on a message-board, which I was linking in the beginning of my writing, before I understood all the things with the citations), and on two different Wikipedia editions.

This is how it seems to me.

So I was wondering what other people think of this.

And if I am on the right page, for this.

And how I should go forward regarding this.

So I hope that this is the right place to mention this, and I would be very grateful for advice on to go forward with this.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean your edits to Grandiosa such as this one, you appear to be using message boards and the like as sources - but they're clearly not acceptable sources, so it was entirely correct that this information be removed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And please learn to use the preview function - you've filled the edit history of that article with hundreds (literally) of tiny changes. Please add or remove content in one (or for complex cases, a handful, if really necessary) of edits, not a run of dozens. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the advice for the questions that I wasn't asking about.

I know I'm a new user on Wikipedia.

I'll continue to try to learn the learn the rules and the procedures.

The reason I was writing here now, was regarding possible advice on the following and harassment.

So thanks in advance for help regarding this!

Johncons (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You've not presented any evidence of following and harrassment. A review of your edits shows you've edited only one article, and repeatedly added inapproprate content to it. It's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia editors to remove that, and (as you've repeatedly added it back) to caution you and remind you of Wikipedia's rules. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the case that I'm writing about here.

I appreciate, that there are several things that can be talked about.

But I was thinking in the ways of, everything to it's time.

And now, I was thinking that it was time for the following/harassment episode.

And this was on the Norwegian message-board.

So if it's alright to focus on this case, with the user kjetil r?

Because if one mixes in to many cases, then it gets difficult to get the overview.

I'm not sure if this is making any sense?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens on the Norwegian wikipedia is none of our business - complain there. What happens on some message board is none of our business - complain there. There is no evidence that kjetil or anyone else, other than you, have behaved badly on the English Wikipedia. On looking at Talk:Grandiosa it seems everyone has been very patient with you, but you've been consistently making the same baseless claims for days, and everyone has been very patient with you. It's becoming difficult to believe you're interested in solving disputes constructively. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I don't really see what the point is, with me writing anything at all, if you don't belive what I'm writing.

Could you please confirm or not, regarding if there is any point at all that I write anything more?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)



You might also want to consider abandoning your current username and starting a new account here under a different name, as long as you understand the basics of editing here. Skål! --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Okey, that might be a good idea.

I'll try to learn more about the basic rules.

I'll also see if I can find some of the evidence, with the intitial post.

So, if it's alright then I'll just bring that later.

Since I'm a bit new to this yet, then it could maybe take me some time to find this.

So if it's alright then I'll just return later, within a day or two, with the mentioned diffs.

If thats alright.

(Skål tilbake ja, selv om jeg ikke skal påstå at jeg har så mye øl her nå, men det får jeg heller ordne senere anledning.)

And sorry if I'm a bit harsh in these post, I think I need a break from Wikipedia, and then return tomorrow or something like that.

So sorry about this, and thanks for the advice! Johncons (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Response by involved party User:Mayalld[edit]

This is becoming somewhat tiresome! User:Johncons has been involved in major league POV pushing (200+ edits over 3 days), which interested editors had attempted to tone down. They were faced with a stubborn insistence on adding the POV text.

I arrived as a disinterested editor, having noticed an unusual amount of activity on a single article from a new user account. Having spent a good deal of time reviewing 200 edits, to determine whether we had POV pushing or a case of established editors WP:OWNing an article, it became clear that this was POV pushing of a fringe theory. Accordingly I reverted back to the last good revision.

User:Johncons;

  • Has an agenda. He believes that inconsistencies in accounts from a pizza maker as to whether they use soy protein or pork gelatin as a binder is obvious proof that they are actually using dead people.
  • is convinced that the fact that a user on wiki spotted who he was from his POV pushing whilst he was editing as an IP is proof that he is being stalked
  • believes that chatrooms are reliable sources
  • demands that he should be able to add what he wants and that people should discuss removing the additions
  • writes voluminously on talk pages, demanding that people answer his questions, and dismisses any response that tries to poinbt out that he is asking the wrong question.
  • Is now engaging in wikilawyering by this vexatious report, and a similar report on WP:WQA. I believe that he hopes to drive away anybody who seeks to uphold policy against him.

Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire‎[edit]

Resolved

... blocked for 12 hrs Miranda 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Robscure doing a cut and paste move to Ivory Coast trying to bypass WP:RM. Also Ivory Coast is listed in Category:Protected redirects but is apparently no longer protected. --Polaron | Talk 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He broke 3RR also. Miranda 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
...and got blocked for it. - Philippe | Talk 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the Ivory Coast redirect is semi protected, not fully. Since this is a one time event, I don't think full protection is warranted. -- lucasbfr talk 11:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I think full protection is warranted, and have instituted it. Attempts to (non-consensually) get this article to "Ivory Coast" are common; the article text had already been pasted over the redirect once before. In the case that a real consensus to move the article back to "Ivory Coast" emerges, it should be an admin making the move anyways, so this protection won't get in their way. Otherwise, there's no need for edits, since it is a redirect. Any objections? Picaroon (t) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies[edit]

Hello, I'd like to know if there is any way of stopping banned user User:Mmbabies. He has created a ridiculous amount of sock puppets and does not show any sign of stopping. What can we do to stop him? Thanks. This has gotten really out of hand. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI is currently the only thing we can do, given other, often more drastic, measures that have been taken (and pretty much failed). —Kurykh 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
...or we could just block the /8 on those IP ranges... it's not like Houston has anything worthwhile to add to the discourse.--Isotope23 talk 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move-Protect Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt[edit]

Can I get an admin to move/rename-protect the article Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt? Another editor keeps moving it (here and here) to Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to make a WP:POINT regarding a discussion on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the use of the term "occupied" when referring to the Israeli-occupied territories.

I made the mistake of pointing out that other Occupied territories are referred to as "occupied", citing said article as an example (here). The article was promptly re-named in a "ta-da! problem solved!" kind of way (here and here), without even bothering to change the first line in the article itself, which still referred to the territories as "occupied".

I undid the move (here), only for it to be moved again as soon as it was noticed (here). I recently moved it back (here) and would like it to be protected to avoid this kind of WP:POINTish edit-warring.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:19

i agree that the page should be protected from moving, only while keeping the "rule" word insrtead of the word "occupation" - pedro here, has been extremely aggressive with his POV and i don't quite yet see why it is of higher value than the one i am advocating for. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
p.s. here is the main page where we are "bickering" on [19]. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(EC2) Well, he's done it again (here)... I'm not really into edit-warring, so could any admin please move the name back and move-protect the article? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:50
BTW, the same type of WP:POINTynes is being used on the article Gilad Shalit by the same editor regarding the use of the term "hostage" (latest revert here). I'm not sure if this warrants admin action, but it's along the same lines... Changing one article to make a point in a discussion regarding another article. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:53
i really don't want to bring down the level of conversation by linking to diffs of how you're "negotiating" your preferred version. no normative admin would implement "his version" before protecting a page. please consider resolving disputes within' the proper channels of WP:DR rather than "POINT" fingers at a person who's challenging your POV reverts. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Amnesty International refers to him, in the linked source, as a hostage. What is your NPOV reasoning for not using the same language used by this commonly pro-palestinian group, Pedro? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) An admin will invariably protect the wrong version. And you're both at fault for not seeking dispute resolution, as you're both revert warring. Start a seperate discussion just about this, start an RFC, get some third opinions. There's no point making an edit you know will be reverted. Please don't let content/wording disputes spill onto ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, WP:DR is the right way to go and there is a RfC going on at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The problem is that User:Jaakobou is using edits on other pages to push a point. What does he do, exactly?
  1. In the dispute regarding "occupied" vs. "disputed" I point out that many other articles, e.g. Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt (look at the nice list on List of military occupations for more examples), use the term "occupied". User:Jaakobou, in response, renames the article to Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt to not have to concede that point in the argument.
  2. In the dispute regarding the use of the word "hostage" for Gilad Shalit, I point out that in the article Gilad Shalit the term "POW" and not "hostage" is used, as discussed on Talk:Gilad Shalit. User:Jaakobou, in response, replaces "POW" with "hostage" in Gilad Shalit adding a reference to a one-liner in a BBC article referring to all prisoners in the conflict as "hostages". A few days later, the use of the word "hostage" in the Gilad Shalit article is used as an argument for using that term.
Again, I'm all for WP:DR and we are currently involved in that process, but these edits are being used as a weapon in those discussions. Whenever I make an argument of the type "but article XY says that...", User:Jaakobou goes and changes article XY. This is not the way discussions should work. Editors should not go and modify articles with the sole purpose of pushing their line in a WP:DR.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:39
please stop "POINT"ing fingers, you have nothing that is not content based and the request tha an admin revert to your version and block the page shows a lack of understanding on core policies. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
POW is not fitting. Was Gilad captured by the Palestinian Authority? No. He was captured by a gang of thugs. I reviewed that talk page and found no evidence of a discussion to use "POW" to refer to this hostage. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

His status as a POW/hostage is a red herring/straw man. This is about modifying an article to make a point in a discussion elsewhere. Please stick to the topic. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:59

No, you bring something up on ANI, expect that your own behavior will be questioned. You're a party to the mess on these pages just as much as Jaakabo is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Move protected by Future Perfect at Sunrise. I added the {{pp-move}} tag. The problems with dispute resolution failure alleged above are not surprising, and I think we as an administrative community need to kick a lot of this mess up to the ArbComm, little as they will want to see yet another Israeli-Palestinian case. GRBerry 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to some of the above, I recommended starting a new RFC just on this issue, on this article's talk page. That existing RFC is a sprawling debate of "stuff," and this relatively minor debate over one word in an article's title might be better served if seperated entirely. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion thread here. I would like to insist on the point, though, that this is not a content dispute -- it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This goes pretty much in the same direction as the problems surrounding the "Allegations of XY apartheid" debate (here). Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 06.12.2007 07:05

New sockpuppets of Bason0[edit]

Resolved: blocked and tagged

Hello administrators. A new suspected sockpuppet of Bason0 was confirmed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bason0#Bason0 (7th request). As a result, I request to block following user:

Onlyonlyrules has been blocked indefinitely, so above confirmed 2 accounts should be blocked as same. For Moneyisalldesune in the report, I file a WP:SSP with rational reason later. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You really don't need to report here as a RFCU clerk like me will take care of it if the CU didn't. I just blocked them.RlevseTalk 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Windsor, Canada - Persistent vandalism after 5 previous blocks[edit]

137.207.238.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) More vandalism. 5 previous blocks have failed to prevent vandalism/disruption. Please block indefinitely. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't block IP addresses indefinitely. This one seems to be associated with the University of Windsor. It was previously subject to a one month schoolblock. There have been two recent unhelpful edits, as well as a number of good edits. My impression is that the IP is shared by many students. This should not be blocked unless there is a stronger sequence of bad edits. - Jehochman Talk 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)To get some perspective on this, the 5 previous blocks were between April 2006 and April 2007 (a 1 month block). No blocks since. Sporadic vandalism does occur, but given that this appears to be a proxy with, potentially, hundreds or even thousands of users behind it the level of vandalism seems quite low. Between November 1st to date there were 10 edits, only three of which appear to be vandalism. I would not support an indef block or in fact any block at this time. Tonywalton Talk 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, long-term blocks are only really a good idea if the significant majority of edits coming through are vandalism. If recent editing has been mostly good, a block is only going to keep out good editors. Short blocks (an hour or two) can be very effective if one bloke gets bored at a lab terminal. Appreciate your bringing it up here for review, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive Sock Problem[edit]

We have a major sock problem on our hands, Peter zhou/JackyAustine has a stock pile of prebaked sock accounts lying around. I had a private ckeckuser done yesterday and I thought I had them all til now when it turns out there are more...

These are the following that have been confirmed by the private checkuser last night (EST):

  • Peter Zhou = Ie9ue7o8 = E oa4ai3 = Quagliu = Ui9eo u0 = Crau = Ua0oe6
  • Faeprao = Bievuigrei = Sibuikroiwia = Tlutrao = Lin7ba = Traoprerao
  • Wreegau = Eiionoeoie = Eauiaeoe = Sliucrei
  • Dliekruazia = Ie4 = O5ia5iu3
  • Seajion = A2ao1 = Ue7ui5u4a3 = Io4 = Ai3eo0ia7 = Ea ei2u9oi6 = Oi4au2ao5 = I8ai9ea0oe =

Ei0ai1 = Dlu4mua4klea5 = Dre6biu7 = Ciepiuhu = Wiabiejiutlion = Paobroe

  • Didopad is also confirmed

The following the most recent diffs of PZ/JA socks on the article China and Names of China:

Now, compare them to Peter zhou's contribution:

We need to deal with this as its causing much disruption on these two articles. nat.utoronto 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter zhou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been blocked indefinitely. Are you requesting a community ban? - Jehochman Talk 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That and consensus for a temp. range block. nat.utoronto 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by the format of your results. Are these all Peter Zhou, or is each line a different sockmaster? —Random832 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
They are all PZ socks...that's how the checkuser's email message was formated. nat.utoronto 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support ban from wiki. Ask the CU that did the check to do the block of the IP. Why wasn't this at RFCU?RlevseTalk 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a followup to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou which was only just completed. The guy returned almost immediately, created another bunch of socks and got back to doing the exact same thing again. All of the above accounts are confirmed as being PZ. Indeed, it looks from this morning's edits that there are yet more still. Note that the underlying IP addresses are now also blocked. - Alison 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A ban seems appropriate now that we have confirmation from checkuser. If no admin objects by the time this thread closes, we should add User:Peter zhou to Wikipedia:List of banned users as banned by the community. - Jehochman Talk 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone collect up the latest socks and file a report over on RFCU? There are quite a number of new socks already making their presence felt and it would be best to avoid confusion and log the case. Problem is, there are so many of them and it's happening so often - Alison 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Admin action needed

It would be nice if a few more administrators could watchlist China and Names of China. The sockmaster only edits the Etymology section of China, and the Zhongguo section of Names of China. If the edit contains the words "Renowned sinologist Boyé Lafayeete De Mente" then that's the sockpuppet edit. Mr. DeMente has written some (I am sure quite useful) etiquette books but this sockmaster is determined to make him into an international scholar. See the edit, ban the sock. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Harassment[edit]

Both User:Funeral and User:Scarian, but mostly Funeral have been harassing me. They keep putting a template on my page saying I am a sockpuppet of another user. They all keep arguing on my page and i'm sick of it! I just want them to all leave me alone. I don't know if they should be punished, or how that works, but I just want to be left alone from their dispute. They obviously have serious problems with each other. Funeral also broke 3RR on my talk page. Deathbringer from the Sky (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over user/talkpages isn't a very good idea. If someone feels you are a sockpuppet, a request for checkuser or sock investigation request would be more appropriate. In the interim, try reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Deathbringer from the Sky, or I predict your time editing here will be short.--Isotope23 talk 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:82.33.153.39 please block[edit]

Resolved

The anonomus use is tehre for no other purpose that to be a vandal no constructuve edts can reasonably be found. Most recent edits have been vandalism only. [21] [22] --Lucy-marie (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be blocked for the death threat if nothing else. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a "death threat"; it is just a misplaced angry rant of a person who confuses wikipedia with message boards. `'Míkka>t 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no indications that the handful of edits are coming from the same user. No reason to block itih IP yet. In such cases you have to post a warning it user's talk page (User talk:82.33.153.39); please take a look how it is done and please do it yourself next time. `'Míkka>t 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassing username[edit]

Resolved: blocked account per WP:USER and as a WP:SPA used for harassment only - Alison 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This person apparently doesn't like me and thinks, well, see the user name User:BetterThanIrishLass. Comments harassing me were removed earlier from an anonymous IP address that he claims to be his. Regardless, his username is harassment and his only post was on my talk page harassing me. Thank you for your speedy attention to this. IrishLass (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, reported this in wrong place. I moved the report to the proper section (I think). IrishLass (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 Done - account blocked - Alison 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible stalker?[edit]

The IP 71.194.213.253 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) made two edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation today, insinuating that he or she stalks an underage girl, presumably from the same general area. I haven't done a WHOIS to determine the IP's location, but I'd like to ask the community to keep an eye on this, as it may require contacting local authorities at some point. Edits in question are here and here (they're identical, it was reposted after I reverted the first time). Thanks very much. GlassCobra 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:ArielGold has requested that these edits be Oversighted, which is a good call; however, I would still appreciate more eyes on this IP's activities. Thanks! GlassCobra 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a fixed ComCast IP address, probably just a kid messing around, but it's best we keep an eye on it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for a serious privacy violation - although it looks like it's been oversighted so you'll have to take my word for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw it. It was correctly oversighted. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
good non-inflammatory block summary. I saw it before the oversight, and nobody could possibly have disagreed with doing that. I agree with the Cavalry that it is probably a stupid joke only, and overreaction might not be appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for the opinions, and while the information perhaps did not fall under the strict letter of the oversighting policy, the content was inappropriate, even as a joke, which is why I requested it be removed. I would like to thank the oversighters for their swift action in removing both of the edits from view. I too, think it is most likely a kid messing around, but as there is no way to know, I think the short block is an appropriate action, given the situation. ArielGold 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, did anyone ensure that there is some form of information that can be provided to police in case this *is* a serious stalker incident? I'm all in favour of oversighting, but there are a lot of stalkers who've been written off as "just kids" that turned out to be quite serious. Risker (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If needed, the admin who oversighted it can view the info. And yes, there was enough information given that it would be possible to at least narrow down the town, if necessary. ArielGold 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rock Soldier keeps adding personnel sections to album articles, and without the consultation of those who wrote them[edit]

Resolved: content dispute

This specific editor above keeps insisting that personnel sections are added to album articles, just because WP:ALBUM has a guideline. This guideline has not been voted on by Wikipedia at large, yet he insists to invoke it as though it is official policy. I am not aware of any WikiProject guidelines having any official authority.

He has added personnel sections to three FAs I have written, and one GA, and plenty of other album articles. He does not major contributors to the articles, no nothing. Despite the fact the three FAs passed FAC without personnel sections, he still insists on adding them to FAs I have written. I am frankly fed up of having to revert him, and want this to stop. He needs to stop adding personnel sections to articles others are major contributors to, and without consulting them. These articles he is adding personnel sections to he doesn't contribute to whatsoever. He is being a disruption. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we fully protect once it becomes an FA? I don't really have an opinion on the content dispute, but there definitely appears to be some ownership issues here. --OnoremDil 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ownership issues? There is absolutely no ownership issues whatsoever, for the record. If you would like to insinuate as such though, then feel free to say. I take such false accusations very seriously. Some of these articles passed FAC without personnel sections, so they need none now. Also, when this "editor" is adding these sections he isn't even consulting the contributors. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no requirement to consult people before making changes. Would it have been appropriate? Absolutely. Is this appropriate as your first attempt at discussion with him? How about your second attempt? Absolutely not. And yes, without question your comments here and some of your recent edit summaries lead me to believe you have ownership issues. --OnoremDil 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I left him a note on his page. For future reference, dispute resolution is a more appropriate venue than WP:ANI for content disputes. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't more appropriate, actually. I have no time for that, and no time to deal with disruptive editors like Rock Soldier. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not "disruptive" — he disagrees with you over a content issue, and it's only "disruptive" because it consumes your time disagreeing with him. He appears to be acting fully in good faith. Admins are not necessary here. --Haemo (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
He isn't acting in good faith. This is utter rubbish. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How are Rock Soldier's edits any more or any less disruptive than your edits, LuciferMorgan? Remember that there are always at least two people involved in an edit war. What SomeGuy1221 has told Rock Soldier applies to you as well: "Revert warring over edits that don't obviously violate official policy is never an acceptable behavior (even in such cases where you feel it is appropriate ..." This is a content dispute, and both sides should use talk pages and perhaps the help of a relevant WikiProject to come to a consensus, but there's nothing that requires admin intervention (yet?). AecisBrievenbus 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing my edits of being disruptive? That's an utterly disgusting accusation, and I don't welcome it in any way whatsoever. Also, your suggestion to use the help of a "relevant WikiProject" is rather silly. WikiProjects are mostly inactive, and it was me who wrote those three FAs, who researched them and so on, not some WikiProject. It's replies like yours that are disruptive. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan, I understand it can be frustrating when someone makes changes you disagree with, but you are in fact bringing this problem to the wrong board. There is no policy requiring other editors to check with you before editing any article including articles you've worked on extensively. You have licensed your contributions under the GFDL, which gives other people the right to edit them. It's also the basic foundation of Wikipedia. Because Rock Soldier is not doing anything patently against the rules, there is no need for administrator action here. You need to pursue on the steps listed at dispute resolution. I'd suggest you try to talk to the other user about his changes first, if you haven't already. If you have and have gotten no where, mediation might be helpful.
Administrators do not have any special authority to arbitrate content disputes or determine whose changes are worthwhile and whose aren't. All we have are a handful of tools that are not available to other users, and the use of any of those tools in this situation would be inappropriate. Natalie (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AIV[edit]

The following was copied from WP:AIV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Anonymous Users (IP addresses):

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bran_Castle&diff=175932409&oldid=175913851
is the same text from http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/turism/c_bran.html complete with the original typos in that text
b) - page created by him: Trei_Ierarhi_Monastery
is the same text from http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/orase/manastiri/trei_i11.html
c) - another page created by him: Suceviţa_Monastery
is the same text from http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/turism/m_sucevita.html and so on... Galaad2 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Gave him a warning about this. It really is better handled at WP:AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fmatmi's user page[edit]

I would like some additional input on a dispute over whether or not User:Fmatmi should be allowed to state "The internet is to the Mormon Church what the printing press was to the Catholic Church" on his user page. This statement seems to me to be a violation of WP:SOAP: It is a confrontational statement of opinion unrelated to internal Wikipedia operations. I removed the sentence twice and said that it could be reinstated if it were reworded to be less divisive and confrontational.

Fmatmi has reverted my changes twice, stating that "Indepent third parties do not think it is an attack, it is an attack in your opinion only because you are an apologist. Move to your talk page or requrest arbitration."

So, what do you think? Is it a violation of WP:SOAP or not? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't say for sure (I personally think it's soapboxing), but given what is stated above, someone needs to give him a bit of clue on civility here. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's just one line, then no. If it's part of a major section of his/her page then yes. Either way I would have thought it more appropos of the Scientologists rather than the Mormons! ;) --WebHamster 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
His entire user page consisted of "The internet is to the Mormon Church what the printing press was to the Catholic Church" followed by his signature. He later added slightly more content, but this statement was still the main thing that people would have read. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Most modern scholars point to the printing press as the midwife of the Reformation and hence the downfall of the Catholic Church not its base of power. Just clarifying. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to let this one go. I don't see any significant harm. - Philippe | Talk 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott Keeler[edit]

Resolved: User blocked by