Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive367

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

Noticeboard archives


NYScholar block overturned[edit]

NYScholar edits at four times the rate of most of us, but has a Wikibreak notice permanently on his user page, and a talk page header that basically says "Please don't put any messages on my talk page; I'm too busy to respond". If anyone posts on his talk page, even for matters that really do require a considered response, such as asking him to prove or withdraw a false accusation of personal attacks, he accuses the poster of harassing or upsetting him by ignoring his request not to message him, and then he archives the discussion, i.e. deletes it from his talk page, copying it into an archive which others are not permitted to edit. If anyone pulls the thread back onto this talk page to continue the discussion, the cycle repeats - accusations of harassment, followed by an immediate archive.

Sarah put his modus operandi like this:

"you make false accusations and then archive quickly before your victim has an opportunity to respond, forcing them to leave it unchallenged in your archive so it looks to anyone not aware of the truth that it's true, or your victim restores the thread and responds, only to be hammered with more false accusations and lies.... "

Yesterday I warned NYScholar that his management of his talk page was disruptive, and asked him to stop archiving active threads. A number of other administrators chimed in with support. NYScholar subsequently archived that very thread three times. I therefore applied a 24 hour block, expressing the hope that this would convince him to find a method of managing his talk page that is in line with community expectations.

In my absence, Sandstein overturned the blocked, characterising my block as "you blocked this user for archiving or deleting content on his talk page", claiming that NYScholar's behaviour is in line with WP:UP, and asserting that my block was punitive because it did not prevent NYScholar from editing his talk page.

I cannot understand how Sandstein cannot see that this behaviour is disruptive. I cannot see how s/he can imagine that WP:UP endorses this kind of behaviour. And I don't see how s/he manages to function effectively with such a narrow, technical interpretation of preventative - in my view the whole point of punitive v preventative is that blocks should be applied not when a user has done wrong, but when they are likely to continue doing so. There is no requirement that the block must directly technically prevent the action being censured, else we would never again bother to block for block evasion, sockpuppetteering, or anything at all that happens on a user's own talk page, no matter how awful.

All in all, I find Sandstein's rationale for unblocking to be so bizarre that I don't think we can work it out between us. That is not to criticise Sandstein, who is operating in good faith according to his/her own understanding of policy. But we seem to be so far removed in our respective approaches that there can be no meeting of the minds. I would like to hear some outside opinion on the correctness of my block and Sandstein's unblock.

Hesperian 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think NYScholar should stay blocked, preferably indefinitely. He is consistently rude and tendentious, and has in at least one case forced a false and unnecessary license tag onto an image because of his own inaccurate interpretation of the statements of third parties. Wikipedia would be better off without him. *** Crotalus *** 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hesperian, on what basis did you block? You used "disruption" as the reason. Please provide diffs for that disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, in this as in most cases, disruption is a pattern of editing that is difficult to capture in a few diffs; I probably can't do much better than Crotalus below, although I could provide a hell of a lot more such diffs. What Crotalus' diffs are missing is context: If someone accused you of making a personal attack, and you asked them to prove or withdraw that accusation, how would you feel if they simply deleted it unreplied, then accused you of harassing them by ignoring their request that people not post on their talk page? That's what happened to Moondyne. If you were trying to hold a serious discussion with someone, and they kept replying with false accusations, then immediately archiving, so that the discussion ended with their false accusations ensconsed in an archive that is not supposed to be edited, how would you feel? And if you decided to bring that discussion back to the talk page to respond to said false accusations, only to be accused of disruption and harassment for doing so, how would you feel? That's what happened to Sarah. And if that user deleted that discussion within a couple of minutes of it being brought back, over and over again, how would you feel? That's what has happened to everyone who has tried to engage this user over the last two day. The warning I gave was "I'm now giving you a formal warning that your management of this talk page is disruptive, because it is likely to cause anger and frustration amongst your collaborators." And that is exactly what has happened; that page shows reams and reams of discussion from angry, frustrated people, who want a redress that NYScholar is denying them through what amounts to a low down dirty trick. If this is not disruptive, I'll eat my hat. Hesperian 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are not punitive, but preventative. A user's talk page can be edited by a blocked user, so blocking NYScholar will be punitive as it does not prevent him from doing what he was doing before. Encourage the user to follow WP:DR, or, if the behavior iwarrants it, start a user WP:RFC, so that the community can give him feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've already gone through this punitive-preventative issue above; didn't you read it? You don't seem to be addressing what I said about it. Hesperian 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See [1], [2], and [3] for some examples I found in the past day or so. He simply refuses to discuss issues with other contributors and instead accuses them of disruption, using this as an excuse to "archive" (delete) comments from his talk page. Ability to work in a collaborative environment is necessary for Wikipedia editors, and this one gets a F- on that score based on his repeated actions. *** Crotalus *** 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See also his block log which contains an extensive record of misbehavior including repeat 3RR blocks, legal threats, and trolling. *** Crotalus *** 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
He should have been blocked long ago for disruption on Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg and related pages. I've fixed the license information on that image, and I would appreciate if an administrator could go and undelete the old, high-resolution version, since it meets Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Crotalus, I read the diffs, and I do not think that you can block an editor on that basis. I support the unblock. Invite the user to pursue WP:DR instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not an administrator and didn't block him. But I think he should remain blocked because his presence is a net detriment to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Sarah's summary of things, with an emphasis on false accusations. Any attempt to correct the record is promptly deleted. One example - NYScholar strikes through a comment I made, and when I point out that such actions are expressly verboten per WP:TALK, s/he deletes both the original comments and my reply, leaving instead a post claiming that s/he had to delete it because I reverted his/her strikeout. Patently false. S/he also claims to know my motivations, as when s/he claims that I am only doing so to "upset" him/her. Quite frankly, I find this user very difficult to work with; s/he insists that other editors should read his/her "N.B." to understand his/her editing summaries, user had made claims that using citation templates introduces "vast problems," and continually refers to the opinions and edits of others as "ridiculous." Add to this the tendency to make huge numbers of small edits (which several editors have likened to not useing the "show preview" button), and it becomes almost impossible to work collaboratively with NYScholar. Pairadox (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As with any privilege, when abused, it needs to be curtailed. If NYScholar is going to abuse the privilege of archiving talkpage comments, then he needs to be placed on some kind of probation in that regards. --B (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree - a probation of some form should be the minimum expectation here. While policy allows archiving of talk pages, doing so mid-discussion as a move to end scrutiny of one's actions is downright disruptive. Furthermore, on principle, I would have declined the unblock on the basis that the unblock request itself contained a personal attack. Orderinchaos 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with OIC and Hesperian about the talk page disruption and I was particularly disappointed to see the block unilaterally overturned on a page which contains numerous attacks against multiple users, false accusations, and incredibly disruptive userspace practices, without so much as a warning or obtaining an undertaking to cease the attacks. UP is a guideline that has limits and says so. If people's userspace practices are disruptive and it gets in the way of the project (as is most certainly the case here) then they need to stop or be stopped. Sarah 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[ec] NYS is possibly the most frustrating editor I've come across here. His/her talk page (history, don't bother just reading the current content or the selectively updated archives) and block log is littered with warnings from exasperated admins and non-admins. And thats not counting the still unresolved false accusations of personal attack against Sarah and myself. In this context I was amazed that a nominal 24 hour block was hastily overturned by Sandstein without any of the other admins currently communicating with NYS (Hesperian, Sarah and myself) having time to respond. Why the rush? A better course of action would have left the block in place rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to a known disruptive user at least until until an involved admin could comment. —Moondyne 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • So, without any comment on the block itself, it appears that Sandstein overturned a block without any attempt to contact the blocking admin? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, an attempt was made here. —Travistalk 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that Sandstein didn't contact the blocking admin. —Moondyne 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Contacted in the most perfunctory manner - the sensible action to take would have been to communicate with the blocking admin. As it turned out, he would only have had to wait a further 3 or 4 hours, and none of this drama would have been necessary. Orderinchaos 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another bad block, and another admin that needs to review our blocking policy. While admins are supposed to use their good judgement in situations, they are not to replace policy with that judgement. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And IAR doesn't cover "well, we don't like this user, so we'll look the other way". -- Ned Scott 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why you think it's a bad block? Pairadox (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean the part where a user was blocked for rapidly archiving their talk page? -- Ned Scott 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is easy to make something look wrong if you simplify it until it is. Hesperian 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And your IAR comment too please? Who was that addressed to? Who's trying to invoke IAR here? Hesperian 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(to Hersperian) No one, it was a bit of a preemptive comment. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems we agree on one thing - IAR is the most over-invoked policy on Wikipedia... unless it be second after POINT. Hesperian 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But Ned, you're wrong if you think this will be cleared up by me reviewing the blocking policy. I believe that the block was proper, both in policy and common sense terms. I opened this thread to get some feedback, and your feedback is welcome. But it isn't constructive unless you take the time to explain why you think this was a bad block. Hesperian 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just undone the "archiving" of this thread by User:Jossi. Way out of line shutting down an active discussion that you're involved in and want to have stopped. Orderinchaos 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out WHY this had been archived. A bad archiving, and a bad unblock. Archiving all talk page activity and continuing with bad practices isn't the purpose of the 'if they delete it, they saw it' rule of thumb for Talk pages. IF you're approached about stuff repeatedly, and always make a show of ignoring it, then you need to stop editing here till you CAN work with others. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. This is exactly my belief, too, ThuranX. Sarah 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by the unblocking admin: I acknowledge that I should have been more diligent in contacting Hesperian, and I apologise that I did not wait longer for a reply by him or her before unblocking. As to the merits of the block I've presented my point of view on my talk page, at User talk:Sandstein#NYScholar. To summarise, I fail to understand how someone can be blocked merely for the act of deleting or archiving content on their talk page, a practice that – although it may be impolite – is explicitly allowed by WP:UP. This is not to say NYScholar could or should not have been blocked for any other misconduct she or he may have been guilty of, just that a block merely for deleting things on one's own talk page is inappropriate. Sandstein (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar makes a baseless personal attack against Moondyne. Moondyne posts a message asking him to prove it or withdraw it. NYScholar blanks the request unreplied two minutes later.[4] You may have your own opinion on whether or not this is appropriate, and you may have your own opinion on whether or not the modus operandi of doing this to virtually every post, irrespective of the state of the discussion, constitutes disruption. But to assert that WP:UP affords NYScholar carte blanche to do what he is doing is an insult to the good people who wrote that page. Hesperian 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
But WP:UP does allow this. A great number of times people have pointed out that a user's talk page is for messages to that user, not from that user. There's nothing stopping anyone from talking to him. If they want to leave the discussion open the can make a copy of it on their own talk page. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of where this came from appears to be located in the following, and after reading it, I am now even more convinced that a bad call was made here. This should explain why such behaviour is disruptive. I believe Sandstein should have read this and taken it into account before making such a controversial decision. Quoted in full below from NYScholar's talk page. Orderinchaos 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I've been very concerned about NYScholar's use of this page for a couple of months now and have kept his/her page on my watchlist as a result. I had to contact NYScholar because the foundation was contacted by the brother of a man NYScholar claimed had died but in reality was still alive. The brother hadn't had recent contact and was distressed to learn of his brother's "death" via a google search of his name. He wished to talk to NYScholar to find out the details of his brother's "death". Only NYScholar declined email contact saying s/he prefers all contact to be on site (fair enough, I suppose). This forced the brother to register for an account specifically to come to this page to talk to NYScholar but a couple of hours after responding, NYScholar archived his/her talk page. [5] It seemed rather rude to me that NYScholar would claim a man had died, causing his family great distress only to immediately archive the thead. Do you think someone who has never used Wikipedia before and who came here to address such a matter would have seen NYScholar's reply in the couple of hours it was posted? Would he have known where to find the archived reply or would he have thought his message had simply been deleted without response and then given up in disgust? Makes you wonder what kind of message people unfamiliar with Wikipedia must get. I had to apologise to the poor man several times. Sarah 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) (reposted in AN/I by Orderinchaos 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
But NYScholar responded to this person. He apologized and explained himself. NY didn't anticipate that the guy might not see his message, and that is all. That is certainly not a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
He even left the guy a note on his talk page, User talk:Aachtert. Clearly NYScholar wasn't trying to be disruptive. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) This post was on NYscholar's lengthy talk page at the time of his unblock request, but it was not cited in his block reason, and for that reason I did not acquaint myself with it specifically. If this account is true, NYscholar may have it made rather difficult to communicate with the brother, but it seems from this account that he did respond to him. If this episode was the basis for the block at issue, not just NYscholar's practice of deleting talk page threads in general, the blocking admin should have said so and should have cited this (and possibly other) specific incivilities. That's not to say the block would have been justified then either, but at least it might have been possible to evaluate it more thoroughly. Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The Achtert issue is a red herring and really has nothing to do with the block that I'm aware of. I only raised it when I did to explain the point that I personally became concerned with the way NYScholar was conducting the page with hyperediting and controversial claims and false allegations about people followed by rapid archiving, effectively preventing them from responding. I am very concerned and upset by his personal attacks, and utterly false claims and accusations. This is just exacerbated by the fact that he rapidly archives so that the 'victim' can not respond. They can't edit the archive where the claims are and if they attempt to repost on his talk page, he accuses them of harassment and of causing him upset etc etc. His talk page practices are massively disruptive. Also, I might add that I never claimed that NYScholar didn't respond to Mr if y'all are getting that idea you're barking up the wrong tree. What I have claimed is his talk page practices exacerbated that very unfortunate situation and it did. Sarah 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Bad judgement is not a reason to block. Intentional disruption is. I can't speak for other situations, but it's very clear that NY meant no disruption when he responded to the brother's message (he even left a message on that user's talk page). Not only that, but for that specific issue it seems that NY was not attempting to make some kind of "zomg, false accusation" to hurt anyone, but made an honest and simple mistake, one which he corrected and apologized for, before this incident even happened. The brother found the comment on a talk page archive. NY could be the biggest asshole in the world for all I know, but I'm getting tired of you guys trying to make him look like a monster because of the Achtert incident. Even assholes have a heart, and I have no reason to believe that NY was doing anything in that situation with the intent on being misleading, sneaky, or any other form of disruption. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Ned. Red herring. As I said. The Achtert incident happened months ago and it had nothing to do with the block...I don't know how many times it needs to be said that he was blocked for disruption. You don't seem to be understanding this and have been sucked into a red herring tangent. And "you guys" is a bit rich given that I was the only one who had mentioned the incident and was, in fact, the only one who even knew about it since I was the one who handled the OTRS complaint and I never discussed it with anyone else or raised it on-site until I noticed the dispute at the weekend on NYScholar's talk page about his problematic editing practices. If you have a complaint about the Achtert issue then it's all me. I'm the one you should be taking issue with and accusing "you guys" of making NYScholar "look like a monster because of the Achtert incident" is extremely unfair on the others involved in this. You're tarring them with my brush, they've never had anything to do with it, never even knew about it, and never opined about it at all (except, perhaps in OIC's cut and paste of my comment above). So if you have an issue with it, take it up with me but trying to dismiss the entirety of this dispute which had nothing to do with Achtert because of it is very silly. You also don't seem to understand that this block evolved from a dispute in which NYScholar accused Moondyne of making personal attacks, refused to retract the accusation, refused to provide proof of personal attacks and, in fact, stood by the accusation and quickly archived the discussion, declaring it "unnecessary discussion". That's what was the starting point of this dispute. You're stuck in a red herring, Ned. Furthermore, I take issue with this: "Bad judgement is not a reason to block." If I thought otherwise, I would have blocked NYScholar months ago when the Achtert incident happened. You seem to think that you're arguing against me on that but you're not. Please try to understand that the Achtert incident had nothing to do with the block. He was blocked for disruption after several warnings from multiple administrators. Sarah 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how things change. A little while ago the prevailing attitude was that users might be given a little latitude in how they manage their user and talk pages, but ultimately those pages belong to the project and were subject to the various rules, expectations and even vagaries of the community. Perhaps this mode of thinking was a product of the userbox wars. I must have nodded off for a moment, because the sudden change of attitude has come as a surprise. All of a sudden a man's talk page is his castle, and he can do whatever he damn well likes on it, no matter how outrageous, no matter how it pisses people off, no matter how disruptive. I suppose this change is a backlash against the ridiculous warring over the removal of warning messages. This had become a real problem, and I'm glad it has been resolved. But methinks the pendulum has now swung way too far. Hesperian 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how that's the "prevailing attitude"; only two people here have expressed that attitude. -Amarkov moo! 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hesperian - that's certainly not an attitude I would support. You can't attack someone on your talk page. You can't violate copyright. You can't put someone's home address and telephone number. But archive it "early", when we have no guidelines about how long message should stay there? I can't see that as a disruption. I'm sorry it wasn't convenient. Frankly, I think NYScholar was pretty irritating with it. But I just don't see it as a blockable offense. - Philippe | Talk 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I haven't been clear about this: I'm not talking about "archiving early". I'm talking about deleting a active thread in the same minute as the previous contribution to that thread.[6] Or within two minutes.[7] Or four.[8] And accusing people of harassment when they restore the thread in order to continue the discussion. That is a far cry from "early archiving", and the fact that people here are choosing to characterise it this way, is, I think, inconsistent with how we would have responded two months ago.
Furthermore, it is indicated above, clearly and repeatedly, that you can't block someone for making an attack on their talk page, nor for putting a copyvio on their talk page. The logic is that blocks don't prevent people editing their talk pages, so such a block would not be preventative, so it must be punitive, and therefore forbidden. Hesperian 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hesperian's general point. I've noticed some users (usually the more disruptive ones) create special "rules" for their talk pages and then get mad when users don't follow them. Talk pages, both user talk pages or article talk pages, are for communication and discussion. Inappropriate material should be deleted from either but appropriate material should not be removed whether by deletion or by overly-rapid archiving. If folks can't or won't deal with other users they should find a non-collaborative project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hesperian's block, although I have no confidence that it will have any effect. NYScholar has been a difficult editor for some time in almost every regard. He has treated article and project page archives in the same way, making personal attacks then archiving so that no one can respond, and if they unarchive and post a reply, he will post several very long (unreadable) responses, then archive again. He's difficult in the same way when editing articles. I'm afraid I agree with Crotalus that an indefblock might have been the best thing some time ago. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a guideline change proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving. —Moondyne 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Offensive title sockpuppet and/or confusion[edit]

Resolved: Offensive talk page heading refactored, confusion about sockpuppetry solved on talkpage. Fut.Perf. 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
offensive title.Numbered user seems to be sockpuppet of Dodona user(and if he isnt he mirrored his actions and while reading the talk it seems they are the same and they he forgot to change usernames).He copy pasted the same material and material belonging in the talk page in the article page and discusses as being both users but at the same time denying it.Also refuses to understand given position on article and the fact that he added a pseudohistorian(s) quote already removed along with his long comment on the talk page.Admin and other users rejected these positions in the past as well but to no avail.Megistias (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Said(dodona and/or numbered user) we are or making "greek propaganda in wikipedia",called on ethnicity and other elements said:they are most originally Albanian but they loath everything Albanian , you know what I mean it is just “schizophrenic". Megistias (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddly-named accounts maintaining legitimate articles in user space[edit]

Extreme confusion here: I just removed an entry from WP:UAA about a few accounts which are maintaining (what appear to be) legitimate hockey game log articles in user space. The accounts/IP involved so far are (and yes, these are real account names):

Does this behavior sound familiar to anyone? I've asked all four for clarification but have heard nothing. They are active -‎ edited one of the user pages a few minutes ago - and a couple of them have made legitimate edits elsewhere (although a couple haven't). I couldn't find where the articles had been deleted from article space so it's not a WP:CSD#G4 end-around. Template space pages have been modified and created to link to the user pages [9][10]. I'm tempted to ask for a checkuser but I'm not sure I care since nothing particularly malicious is going on. I'm thoroughly confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are legitimate and are not CSD-eligible, why not move them to the article space (if no article space copy exists)? Pegasus «C¦ 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That's part of my confusion. Why don't they move them to article space? And why did they need to name their accounts after the user page/articles? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If User:2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season were made into an article, previous consensus would like hold up and it would be deleted. See examples:
Although the other content could be useful in mainspace. Flibirigit (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
General consensus thus far hasn't supported minor/junior league team season articles. Rather than put them in main article space, perhaps point them to the ice hockey wikia, where such articles would be most welcome? Otherwise, I've seen a couple around making edits, and they seem to be fine editors thus far. Resolute 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been recently unblocked from a block that stemmed from his edit warring after recently being unblocked from an indefinite block that stemmed from myriad others blocks resulting from the same problem. Got that? In more simpler terms: he hasn't got the message. Here is a relevant discussion on these same noticeboards not month ago about his disruptive behavior, which led to a two week block. He was blocked indefinitely prior to that for being wholly uncivil and an unrelenting edit warrior. His block blog affirms that. It was most generous of User:Haemo to unblock his indefinite block indeed, and quite generous of the succeeding blocking admin to block for only two weeks instead of going back to indefinitely. The terms on which he has been allowed to edit here have been laid out rather robustly by various admins and he has made various promises or commitments to these terms and standards, which leads me to my reason of posting all of this. On Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User:Callmebc has been edit warring again, though just to the brim of making it within WP:3RR. However, given the past discussions on this user, I think it is safe to say that there should be zero tolerance for him to edit war. A now it seems he has been (disruptively?) canvassing other users (see contribs). I'll let the powers that be decide what ought to be done. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this complaint is being filed by a persistent anti-science POV pusher, who himself has been blocked repeatedly for incivility. In this case, the edit warring Uber refers to was him reverting to preserve the wording changes he made during CallmeBC's absence. I've asked Raymond Arritt and William M. Connelly to weigh in on this one, and we should defer to what they say. Raul654 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd advise all interested admins to ignore the above comments, because they are useless and not germane to the discussion. I would delete them under the just pretense of WP:NPA, but invariably I'm sure that would lead to my block from this unneutral administrator. Let me remind the interested administrators that this is about the aforementioned user's behavior--that is to say I'm not here as part to resolve a content dispute. I'm confident that can be resolved reasonably by educated editors on the GW talk page, because it is rather clear it is Callmebc's edits that lack truth to them, and I was merely undoing his mistakes to at least keep the article accurate as possible. Me, the so-called "anti-science POV pusher" has pushed nothing but factually accurate science since being here, so not only are the above comments wholly uncivil and contrary to WP:NPA, but completely without regard to the truth. A careful examination of my edits and blocks show this to be true, with blocks only coming from the above administrator because of some mislead biases and vendettas he has against me.[11] So again, I reiterate, ignore the above as the content of the dispute is easily resolvable, but the behavior of the user is what brought me here. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's a pretty aggresive response. I assure that I, for one, will not be ignoring the comments of a trusted user who also happens to be an administrator, a bureaucrat, a check-user, etc. In this case, the content of the dispute and the behaviour of the users involved are intrinsically intertwined. - Philippe | Talk 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, appeals to authority tend to lead to folly discussions. Raul654 has but demagogued the issue. I'd be glad to discuss the content, because I can assure you that Callmebc has been inserting inaccurate information (and I have but removed it). If by "intertwined" you mean that typically his edit warring is over the insertion of inaccurate content (as is the case for Killian and GW articles), then, sure, I could agree. But I think it would be best to discuss the content, in this case, at talk:Global warming. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
UBeR has indeed demonstrated in the past what some might consider to be some hostility towards me and perhaps what might be seen as a little fudging of the truth, and this thing here appears on the surface to be only more of it. His actions in this situation are mostly outlined via these two links here and here. The basic background is that I had one time posted, after a Talk page discussion, a graph on Global Warming with I thought was a pretty good description. During a later block on me, UbeR changed the wording to what I felt was something not nearly as clear. I recently created a new Talk page section on GW to discuss changing the wording back to its original, and evidently UBeR saw this mostly as an opportunity to get me blocked again by provoking me into a revert war by being untimely and unresponsive to the Talk page discussion and automatically reverting me after I had allowed for more than ample time for discussion. I have since requested comments by other GW regulars: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. I think UbeR's actions and mine in this particular situation, once you take a look, speak for themselves. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence is presented here that Wikipedia needs to take aggressive steps to protect scientific integrity in it's articles, and to protect especially editors who work to advance real science, free or political, social, of religious nonsense. Perhaps another look at scientific point of view is needed, to keep the lunatic junk science under a harness. Lawrence § t/e 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No block needed; some form of dispute resolution or mediation should be done. If mediation and/or dispute resolution is conclusive in its findings, and ignored by one party or the other, then ArbCom may be a next step. However, other than some perhaps short-term 3RR blocks, I see no evidence of bad faith or foul play against either side that requires the drastic measures called for here. 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree if it were not for the user's exceptional history. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My "exceptional history" seems to consist primarily of trying to improve articles by adding updated, well ref'd, clearly written content, removing dubious, POV'd, poorly sourced (if at all) stuff, and bumping heads with editors apparently not so much keen on such activities. I don't think dispute resolution is needed at the moment -- given UBeR's somewhat less than congenial behavior, and not wanting to risk 3RR, I had already solicited comments by other Global Warming regulars on their Talk pages. I'll let however that turns out to be the guide. Also Lawrence does have a point -- the hot topic science articles like Global Warming regularly draw editors of a not-too-scientific inclination constantly trying to "massage the message" by either trying to add blatant nonsense, slipping in borderline fringe stuff, giving very minor alternative theories way, way too much space, attempting to marginalize mainstream scientific consensus; misusing scientific terminology to make concepts less clear, and trying to WP:GAME Talk page discussions about removing the bad stuff and adding in the good. It's a testament to Wikipedia that articles like Global Warming somehow manage to not deteriorate to being not much more than a conservative radio transcript. But I think there really ought to be at least a periodic "science audit" of sorts on article like Global Warming -- despite even that article's high visibility, you are still really dependent on just a handful of watchful, responsible editors to keep things from deteriorating. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your exceptional history, to contrary, seems to consist of no less than 15 blocks, one of which was supposed to last indefinitely, relating overwhelmingly to edit warring and incivil behavior, the last of which just ended a few weeks ago. Your record of ever being accurate on global warming has been shoddy, given recent inability to understand radiative forcing and earlier mistakes of confusing temperature with greenhouse gases. You may chide me for removing your mistakes, but it seems the levelheaded editors at least agree with me. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that particular matter. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
UBeR, you're not one to be pointing out anybody else's block history. Corvus cornixtalk 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure I am. I only have one or two legitimate blocks, which is more than quite a few people who've been around as long can say--though I don't tout that, especially not as a good thing either. But who I am matters not as much the problem user in question. Like I said earlier, when we engage in silly fallacies our discussion is reduced to folly, and that seems to be going in that direction indeed. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no block. If anyone is being uncivil, its Uber, whose comments on t:GW appear deliberately provocative. The assertion that C's edits are untrue or mistakes is silly - this is just a matter of wording. Both versions are "correct", which makes this a silly edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No block needed. CmBC gets in plenty of trouble on his own, we know. Working to get him into more disingenuously, while working to push an anti-sci agenda doesn't make for a good case for blocking him. I'm with Lawrence regarding pseudo-science and science denial. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with anonymous user evading 2 week block using multiple ip's and engaging in edit warring.[edit]

Ip Special:Contributions/ had been blocked for 2 weeks earlier this morning (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_with_repeated_incivility_from_IP_user). Since then, he has used multiple ip's to vandalize talk pages, and engage in edit warring at Talk:Binary prefix. The multiple ip's are Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ I'm asking for an sprotect for Talk:Binary prefix, and for someone to look in to more drastic measures against that ip's dial-up service as this has been an ongoing problem for months with this person (see user:Sarenne, User:NotSarenne, User_talk:, User_talk:, User_talk:, etc.) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, this IP user is getting out of control again and it appears to be a regular cycle of abuse. Fnagaton 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This may be in need of a Range-Block, since the nature of the drifting IP address indicates that individual whack-a-mole blocks may be futile and ineffective. 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
For starters, I have semi-protected Talk:Binary prefix for 48 hours. — Satori Son 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) *Breathes sigh of relief* Fnagaton 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And I have blocked for the same length. Black Kite 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayron32, since the IP user has continued to evade the block and has now started to blank this section many times [17] [18] [19] [20] I have to agree that a temporary range block for the user's IPs seems to be a prudent course of action. The range for User:Sarenne and User:NotSarenne would appear to be 217.87.* and so far. I realise this course of action is not to be taken lightly. Also please can I have semi-protection on my talk page as the same IP user keeps on reverting comments on there as well? Fnagaton 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite, another IP from the same ISP is doing the same thing ( User talk: ). [21] Fnagaton 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Block tweaked to Black Kite 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
ANI semi protected for 48 hours... Feel free to shorten it if you think the vandal won't return. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Another range of IPs which appears to be 217.237.* with the IP user vandalising my talk page. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and many more in the edit history. Please can I have a semi-protect? :) Fnagaton 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
SirFozzie took care of it.[27]Satori Son 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to recreate a banned page[edit]

As a favor to the author of a web cartoon, I have been recreating the Wikipedia article about his cartoon. Unfortunately I cannot create the page by moving--it gives a message

"You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation"

The author said he had "given up" trying to create this article, but could not remember the specifics or which administrator was involved. I feel that I have written an article that is acceptable for Wikipedia, meeting the NPOV, format, and citation requirements.

The title of the original article was "Retarded Animal Babies". I would appreciate some attention to this. My email is Thank you. Eric Barbour (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eric - I'd suggest posting the article in your user space and linking to it, so that we can evaluate whether it's worth unprotecting the page to create it. I confess that your statement that you're doing this as a favor to the cartoon's author doesn't strike me as a good sign to begin with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've dotted out your email because it's not necessary and that might stop you getting a little spam. Hope you don't mind αlεxmullεr 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The article was deleted via AFD on the grounds of being non-notable web content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retarded Animal Babies). The proper venue for this is deletion review, where you should link to your new version so that editors can decide whether it alleviates the concerns raised in AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I agree; deletion review is for cases in which the closing admin didn't correctly determine consensus. In this case, Eric seems to be saying that the article that he's written - as distinct from the one that was deleted - is policy-compliant. I don't think WP:DRV is the right place for a case like that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That is only one of the four criteria for listing an article at DRV. The point here is that the AFD acts as a pre-existing consensus that this subject does not deserve an article, and the proper place to contest that ruling is at DRV. It actually sounds to me pretty much like Eric is making a claim (unwittingly) that that consensus is incorrect. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In general, an AfD only establishes that the article, as it existed at the time of the AfD, does not meet WP's requirements. If someone had written an article on Green Day in 1988, and it went to AfD, it would have been deleted. However, by 1992, the band was notable - they had an album and a world tour; someone re-writing an article on the band then should not need to go to DRV. Note that I don't know if the AfD for the subject article has established that; and the page protection raises suspicions - but DRV may not be the place to go - as Wildthing suggests, WP:RPP might be better. Argyriou (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the correct place for this then be WP:RPP, since the page is protected from recreation? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review has been used many times to successfully validate a new version of a deleted article, particularly if said article had a messy history. Given the extensive deletion log of that entry, a community consensus prior to recreating the article in mainspace is wise if for no other reason that to prevent an over-zealous G4 speedy deletion or a potentially-needless 2nd AfD. Eric Barbour should take the new article at User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox to WP:DRV and be sure to include any secondary coverage since the initial deletion in this case. — Scientizzle 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't aware that DRV had been used in this way in the past (I spend very little time there). I defer to more knowledgeable admins than I. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem--I wasn't aware of it myself until I participated in one of the same type myself about 6 months ago. — Scientizzle 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Actually, this venue is as good as any. If the new version created in the userspace meets WP:N any admin can use his or her own good judgement and unsalt the page. There is no need to jump through pointless beurocratic hoops. Lets see his new version of the page, and then we can judge for ourselves if it should be unprotected. 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 11. Feel free to add a comment there or be bold yourself in whatever you think should be done. Directing people to a forum in which analysis of past AfD results and present content is routine isn't bureaucracy, it's organized discussion. As I stated, if this article has been a problem in the past, why not get a consensus on its proposed reinstatement? If a bold admin unprotects/restores, there's a decent chance this will end up at AfD again...that's just my gut feeling given the article history and a reasonably-perceived COI. — Scientizzle 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The exception to the 'unilateral' theme being, of course, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (requires explicit consensus to restore). Daniel (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Not relevent since the article being restored here is not a BLP. No BLP, no need for insanely complicated beaurcracy. But, it looks like the DRV has started, so no need NOT to see it through. 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I posted a complaint at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts against User Quizimodo. He responded to reasonable comments by me at Talk:Dominion with incivility. I took my complaint to his talk page, where he continued to be rude. I made my posting and informed Quizimodo at his talk page. Not only am I personally affronted, but his incivility makes it impossible to conduct a useful discussion. User:Soulscanner also posted a complaint about his incivility. User:GoodDay offered to be a go- between. Quizimodo has not responded, but has told GoodDay he does not acknowledge the complaint. I do not want him blocked. I do not want an apology even. All I want is for him to conduct himself with some dignity and respect. Could an Admin pop over to his page? The history of the complaint is at Wikiquette alerts.--Gazzster (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What good would an admin do? We carry no special weight in the matter; any user may respond to the Wikiquette alert, and their opinions should be taken with the weight of any other user, including an admin. If no one is to be blocked at this time, there is nothing for us to do... 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my query. I have never made a complaint before and don't understand the process. So are you telling me that if Quizimodo doesn't respond to the Wikiquette alert, there is nothing we can do? Myself and other uses must suffer his rudeness?--Gazzster (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As has been suggested at the Wikiquette alert section, I'd strongly advise going to WP:RFC/U to get some other perspectives on his behaviour. If everybody seems to agree that it's inappropriate, he would be well-advised to change it or he might ultimately be blocked. I'd be happy to help you with the process; just contact me on my talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll do that.--Gazzster (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
To reply Gazzster's earlier comment (Edit conflict): Not at all. All I am saying is give the WQA report some time to work its course. Perhaps mediation will work, and the user will reform their ways. All I am saying is that until there appears to have been some serious attempts by outside users to get this guy to straighten out, blocking should probably not be the first course of action. Also, Sarcasticidealists suggestion to follow up the WQA with a RFC is a good idea, since the more editors that find this users behavior inappropriate, the greater justifcation there is for a block should the behavior continue. A block may well be appropriate in the future when all other attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted, but lets not throw around a plan to do so until those avenues turn out to really be dead ends... 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right. Thank you.--Gazzster (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting checkuser results[edit]

Would someone mind having a look at this historic checkuser and clarify something for me. The last line doesn't explicitly say that the six or so users are socks of User:Wikinger, but each has been blocked with that as the reason. Is it therefore the case that the socks were socks of Wikinger, even though the RFCU report doesn't say so in as many words? Thanks. GBT/C 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Various users stalking and harassing User:Charles[edit]

Hello. Over the past few weeks, several people have been harassing User:Charles, calling him a sockpuppet, troll, and various other things, impeding his ability to work on the encyclopedia. I have dealt with this situation twice, short blocks had no effect whatsoever. Please see here and User talk:Keilana/Archive2#Complaint about a stalker for more information. I do think there's a possibility of sockpuppetry between the users mentioned (not Charles), and would recommend an indef block on Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) and I vonH (talk · contribs). Thank you. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this report, Keilana. Tfoxworth initially was the subject of a report here a year or so ago (my memory is a little fuzzy on that matter), but it didn't go far because the report was not really noticed (much more must have been going on at the time) a pattern had not yet really developed and it certainly appeared then to be a content dispute. However, over a period of weeks and months it developed into stalking behaviour involving this user, another user who claims to be his wife (I vonH, and therefore his meatpuppet, at the least, on the basis of tag-team reversions and stalking) and a number of proven IP addresses, all of which can be viewed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth. Initially, the sockpuppets were all tagged and categorized as a means of organizing a report which was filed more or less at the same time as a previous WP:AN/I report. Over the passing weeks and months, Tfoxworth's and I vonH's behaviour has been consistently disruptive and aggressive and has usually been targeted at me but now also at others who may or may not share my viewpoint. More specifically, I should say people who oppose the two users' viewpoints are those who are targeted. This is a long-term abuse situation that has been steadily going on and I truly feel it should be dealt with accordingly with a final ban, discussed here as a record of the situation. There have also been a number of other similar stalking editors in the past that seem to arrive in a cascading effect but I have not been able to make as clear of a connection between any of them as the obvious connection between the presumed Mr. and Mrs. Foxworth. Charles 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Both Tfoxworth and I vonH have *just* turned up reverting a lot of the changes made to a number of articles. Charles 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, see Jorge de Bagration. Tfoxworth has removed newspaper citations. Pairadox (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Trying to get some more comment here. Charles 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Very ugly situation, this… It appears to be a clear case of stalking and, given the warnings and blocks that both Tfoxworth and I vonH have received, an indef block for both would seem in order. —Travistalk 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A persual of both accounts' histories shows that there is no doubt that User:I vonH is either a sock or meatpuppet of User:Tfoxworth (editing days and times, article choice, stalking of users and edit summaries), I have blocked the former indefinitely and User:Tfoxworth for a week. I invite review of these actions, and if any admin wishes to extend the latter block, please feel free to do it without informing me. Thanks, Black Kite 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Wasn't there a recent discussion on this page where it was stated that I vonH has claimed to be Tfoxworth's wife? Corvus cornixtalk 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A possibility - but given their edit history, that would still be meatpuppetry. And I would be dubious of that anyway - their editing styles and summary are very similar. Black Kite 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)



The bot owner is aware of the situation.

This report has been moved from WP:AIV

  • User:Snowmanradio has left a message at the talk page of the bot owner, but I wanted to bring it here in case they're not around to see the message. Caknuck (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A random sampling of the edits shows the bot is functioning (mostly) correctly. Some of the find/replace routines needs to be tweaked to account for spaces, etc... Caknuck (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have recieved the message and stopped the bot. The issue was that the bot didn't recognize parameters with extraneous spaces (Many of them cut-and-paste of the exact same template text). I am fixing the bot so that it will remove such spaces and fix the errors it has generated. Thanks for not just killing the bot as the vast majority of it's edits have not produced this error. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is also some discussion on my talk page at User Talk:Snowmanradio#User:BoxCrawler Snowman (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

several things.[edit]

Look, I want to leave Wikipedia. I don't want to stand around several months [[Wikipedia talk:Request for comment/Vanished user|waiting for Wikipedia to fix bugs that mean I still show up on google

To that end, will people stop insisting that my real name feature prominently in Wikipedia's bureaucracy and google? The Request for comment, the Arbcom case - let me leave, alright? Don't poke me with a stick. Just rename nmme, like I asked, buut which is evidently being delayed until the arbcom get off their arses and approve it - oh, gee, sending it to the group that have buggered me over at every turn! I'm so glad that I can trust them to do a good job at doing things at a timely point, and not to lose e-mails left, right and centre.

I just want to leave. User:Hiding is my precedent. LET ME.

Oh, and don't include me in the damn signpost, alright? Vanished user Adam C. 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User: and Cartoon All-Stars 2000's[edit]

Please do something about these edits, I'm pretty sure this special doesn't exisit! --Hailey 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove an edit?[edit]

I sent an e-mail to Oversight about this; but I appear to have done something wrong, since I got some sort of bounce message back. Could an admin please delete this edit, which appears to include someone's phone number (the area code matches the area where the IP is located) in both the edit and the summary? Deor (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did it... twice because I messed up the first time. --Haemo (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Deor (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Something might be broken with this bot. See User talk:ShowToddSomeLove. --NeilN talkcontribs 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the large print edition of the usual warning, customized for those who have the "vision-impaired" flag set to TRUE in their preferences. Pay it no mind. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

CSDWarnBot is leaving gigantic icons on user talk pages...[28] [29] [30]. It looks like it's been doing it for the last few days at least...Is this normal? --SmashvilleBONK! 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't really a bot error. The image has been deleted at en.Wikipedia some hours ago, and the image displayed afterwards was the larger scaled one from Commons with the same title. I've restored the image for now, even if the bot's code is changed for future messages, all messages that were previously made would display the large scaled version. --Oxymoron83 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Craigtalbert blocked due to vandalism on Justine Ezarik[edit]

I have just blocked User:Craigtalbert for one month due to perceived repeated vandalism to Justine Ezarik's article. Over the past few months, a number of anonymous IPs have repeatedly tried to add/change Ezarik's signature phrase to "Deposit me in your spank bank", while masking them with deceptive edit summaries, (the following diffs are a sample of the disruptive edits: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]). Craig was the first registered user to vandalize the article in this fashion, which gives me strong reason to believe that he is the anon-editor who has been disrupting the article for a while. Based on this user's edit history, he is somewhat of an established user who has been involved in a number of editing disputes, which is the reason I'm bringing this up to AIV. Most of the anon edits come from the Colorado area (a state Craig claims to be from), which makes me feel that the editor is one and the same. If possible, I would like to have another editor take a look at this situation, possibly a checkuser. --wL<speak·check> 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, that all the IPs in question (or nearly all) were from one university. Note sure if this would be valid for RFCU, just throwing it out for discussion. For BLP reasons this article probably needs it's Semi-protection reset. Lawrence § t/e 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This would be better listed at WP:SUSPSOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a fairly clear cut case. The IPs all resolve to University of Colorado at Boulder, and Craigtalbert's userpage states that he is a student at that university. It also says he is a resident of Denver, Colorado (~20 miles from Boulder). No need for SSP reports for such a case. Endorse block - auburnpilot talk 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unrelated to Justine Ezarik, I perceive issues with article ownership that have led to edit disputes and personal attacks.
I had not been aware of Craigtalbert until about 25 hours ago, but for no reason that I could discern, our interactions in our brief acquaintance were threatening to erupt into a full-scale edit war. Fourteen of Special:Contributions/Craigtalbert Craigtalbert's last 17 edits after vandalizing Justine Ezarik were directly related to me, including reverting changes I had made to articles that he has had an interest in, responding to my questions and comments on talk pages, and accusing me of being a troll. Since the majority of his edits seemed to be thoughtful and responsible, I was taken aback by the vehemence of his disagreements with my edits. (It was clear that he vehemently disagreed with me, but his reasoning was not communicated nearly as effectively as his vehemence.) I was surprised to see that he had been blocked, and that the block had nothing to do with me.
In retrospect, I guess that I must have triggered something several days ago, when I saw the AfD for Schizophrenics Anonymous, reviewed the article and its topic, and commented that I thought it should be kept. As it happens, this is an article that he had earlier proposed for speedy deletion. Subsequently, by editing Schizophrenics Anonymous and a couple of related articles, I seem to have wandered deep into territory that he considered his own.
I hope that the block helps him cool off and return here with a more cooperative attitude. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus appears to support the block, but the original reason for the block was because of the vandalism. Other issues have come up as well. Should they be taken into consideration. Also, the reason I have blocked for a month is because Craig tried to justify his vandalism because of Ezarik's "attention whoring" [sic], which in my view showed a complete disregard to Wikipedia:LIVING. Is the length of the block proper? --wL<speak·check> 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the 1 month block length given the user's recent history. If he wouldn't have been a productive editor before, indef may have been more appropriate, but he seems to have contributed well in the past. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
He's invoking WP:RTV, and his user page was deleted while I was viewing it. I don't think he'll be back, but it might be a good idea to keep an eye on Justine Ezarik for a while. Horologium (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
He made a post in the Wikipedians community on LiveJournal, in which he explained he was afraid of losing his job over the incident (apparently he was editing from work). That post is now deleted. I think he is spooked and won't be editing in the near future. --Ginkgo100talk 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I just recieved an email from him asking to have his username changed. I've forwarded his email to the unblock mailing list. Being that he is/was an established editor, I would say yes. But being that this is a serious offense, I won't do it myself. --wL<speak·check> 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have found out that he has changed his username to Scarpy (talk · contribs), however he is still blocked. and I have rejected the CSD on his usertalk page, pending further decision here. Your thoughts? --wL<speak·check> 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be a one-off and the guy is spooked, as said above, since he used his real name to vandalize. Lets just leave the Ezarik article semi-protected, and the next time someone "spank banks" it we'll know who may be responsible, and it's an easy RV and possible block them. Let him RTV. Lawrence § t/e 07:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad protected, yet again[edit]

I appealed to the protecting admin (whose only editing periodically now) and posted an unprotection on WP:RPP about this (at which point I was referred to ANI), so I'm here... again. Essentially, without repeating everything I said a few days ago and which was said by others on the talk page of the article, this article is not really being subjected to (much) edit warring. We mostly have a variety of a drive-by editors removing the images without any willingness to participate in the ongoing discussions on the talk page and/or heed past (even recent past) consensuses. As a result, most of these editors have been blocked (or they have merely stopped). That appears to be the most sensible route to take, especially because the level of disruption is dwindling; we currently have a manageable number of drive-by removers. We should just leave this article without full protection (but with semi-protection), then refer drive-by image removers to the talk page of the article. If they still persist in removing the images without any discussion whatsoever, they can be blocked. A similar proposal was made by, among several others, Daniel (talk · contribs). His proposal is mentioned here, but none of these proposals has every reached a solid conclusion. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to come to a perfect consensus, but I !vote that the article remain semi-protected unless we see 4 day old accounts starting to edit war, then full protection. Wikipedia is not censored, leave the Muhammad images there. We don't have to fold to any religions, activist groups, or any other crowd that wants to change our goal: provide information to the world. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Useight entirely. Horologium (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You should remove the images , this website might get a "message" from some crazed out Islamic radical group or something. Does Jimbo Walles or the Foundation has a protocol for "anything" like that.Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't censor out of fear about what some un-named radical might or might not do. While I personally would probably have removed the images out of my personal sense of propriety (so as not to offend someone's sensibilities), the community has decided that they're important to the article and should stay. No faceless, nameless, potential threat should deter us from intellectual honesty. - Philippe | Talk 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So Wikipedia is going to stand there if OBL(Osma) or some crazed out nutjob makes threats to Wikipedia or the Foundation on that article here. Someone should removed the pictures. It the same thing with people putting pictures on paintings of the death of Christ. People dont want to see SHOCK. Is there a policy for this. I thought we cannt show images of the Prophet because we might get sued or get threats from Mr. OBL or his "buddies". If you pics of the Prophet Wikipedia is going to be in the news or in hot water just as that Danish-Cartoon BS in 2006.Rio de oro (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's actually made any credible threats, to my knowledge, so that's a theoretical argument. If they did, I feel certain we would involve the Foundation's legal counsel and appropriate law enforcement bodies. - Philippe | Talk 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Something tells me Osama has more important targets to blow up than some website he's likely never heard of. The apparent threat that random, unknown people will somehow harm Wikipedia's servers because the project won't bend to radical Islamic thinking isn't going to affect change. As far as the original topic goes, I'd support going back to semi-protection, if it hasn't already been done. There are plenty of eyes watching it, and we are weeding out the sleeper accounts. Resolute 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:NOT#CENSORED, by-the-by. WilyD 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Osama's got better things to do with his time, and he's frankly far more likely than many of the so-called radicals that hit that page, to be aware of the variations in Islam that led to devout Muslims making that art. A lot of the 'radicals' here are likely to be teenagers in their middle eastern nations, finding that it's easy to vandalize WP, not much different that any other vandals. The few 'true believers' arent' the highly educated ones who could carry out any sort of attack. If they WERE educated, they'd understand the controversy. But how often do they assert that the 'wrong branch' of Islam made them? rarely, if ever. It's never a theological argument, just dogma. ThuranX (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Osama is dead [37]. In any case, this section is to decide whether we want to unlock Muhammad or not per Tariqabjotu's comment above. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the main article can be unprotected at the moment unless we plan on biting more new users than a swarm of blackflies. But one can always try for an hour or two to convince themselves of this. WilyD 13:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


I just noted a page in AfD called List of fictional barefoot characters that rang a bell -- I can't pin it down exactly but I remember reading a report of a persistent vandal who inserted references to the barefooted status of various individuals into articles. Could User:Darkfighterman possibly be a sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler? I know there's someone out there who knows more about this than I do, and I'm sorry my memory is so poor. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Creepy tends to focus on creating categories for comic book characters and soap opera characters, usually using capital letters to begin each word. Pairadox (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like BorisTheBlade (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems correct judging by previous contributions -- he may have disappeared upon suggestion of sock-puppetry, but if he pops up again, I think I know what to do. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page edits[edit]

Continuing issues here [38] and here [39], from who makes similar and sometimes identical edits as the following:

I have been enlightened by this information regarding the puppet's scope: [44]. Maybe an administrator can help. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Duke53 edit warring and being uncivil[edit]

Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been perpetuating an edit war at Phil Ford, continually restoring material that is questionable under the WP:BLP policy. However, he has not crossed the 3-revert threshold in his recent edits. A short while ago, Duke53 left a rude note on the talk page of an anonymous user who reverted him at Phil Ford, which I view as a violation of the civility policy.

He has also recently edit warred at UNC-Duke rivalry, though a resolution to that dispute was reached by some patient editors. Duke53's behavior is worst at articles on whose subject he has a strong point of view: these two articles, for example, are related to Duke University, of which he is a strong partisan.

This comes a few months after a Request for comment on Duke53's behavior stalled, which happened after he basically dropped off the radar for a month or so. Upon his return he showed some improvement in his behavior, but this is a serious relapse.

I'm not sure whether to re-list the RfC (which was never resolved), to escalate this to Arbcom, or to let an admin here take whatever action they deem proper. Advice in this regard would be appreciated. I will notify Duke53 of this thread as a courtesy. alanyst /talk/ 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, alanyst, here you go again ... why don't you acknowledge exactly why you keep stalking my every move here at Wikipedia?
I view your continual haranguing of me as harassment ... you can call it whatever you choose. Did you ever stop to think that I make those edits because I am correct? Seems to be like the pot calling the kettle black; your behavior is worst on the pages where you expect everyone to accept your edits as gospel, even when there is much disagreement about what is factual.
We both know that this all goes back to the 'issues' at Temple garments and Undergarment and my not kowtowing to your attempt at censoring items because of so-called 'sacredness'.
Again I will tell you: "you do what you have to do and I will do what I have to do". What I don't have to do is accept any guff from you, so don't expect me to take it lying down. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
p.s. as far as "dropping off the radar": look to your own house first. Your M.O. seems to be 'attack & disappear'. Duke53 | Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
p.p.s. I am just waiting for your usual 'gang' to start swarming this page. Have you notified them yet? Ho-Hum. Duke53 | Talk 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not your edits are correct, you are edit warring on Phil Ford. I would suggest that you actually try to discuss the sentence in question on the talk page rather than continuing to revert, as you will be blocked if you continue. I have no comment on the claimed incivility - the diff seems borderline incivil at worst, but obviously others may have a different opinion. Your comments here, however, are quite incivil and completely fail to assume the good faith of another contributor. If the two of you have problems this is not the place to solve them. If you do not, then I am at a loss to explain Duke53's hostility. Natalie (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from arguing anything here. I'm asking for admin advice or at least a look into the issue. If you want to start discussing things you know where my talk page is, and there's also the RfC page. If an admin has any questions for me, I'd of course be happy to respond here or on a talk page. alanyst /talk/ 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block[edit]

I indef blocked Crapitsalec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for attack page/inappropriate page creation as a VOA. Please unblock or reduce block if I was overly zealous. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block based on the deleted contributions. Also, the user name is rather inappropriate so either way, that account's future isn't a bright one. --B (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Another block review: User:CBMIBM[edit]

I've blocked CBMIBM (talk · contribs) (former User:Wikinger) for a week for this and related stuff. This is a bit of a complex history involving various forms of disruption, a lot of sockpuppeting allegations (some true, some not), and difficult to see through for the outsider, so I decided to take the quick route and do the block myself, even though on a different unrelated level I'm currently involved in some content disagreements with this user. Therefore submitting for review here. Will gladly provide more background explanation if needed. Fut.Perf. 09:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request reads"admitting that my retaliation was totally wrong, possibility of editing articles" DGG (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is: he was ostensibly insulting another user who some people believe is in reality a sockpuppet of himself. The suspicion is that he made those insults only in order to demonstrate they are not the same person. So, either it's a rather schizophrenic but quite elaborate sockpuppeting scheme, or it's a case of quite egregiously losing control of himself. In either case, it's a very deep-rooted personality problem. This guy reminds me of another disruptive user I used to be dealing with, who it later turned out suffered from Asperger's... Fut.Perf. 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird contributions[edit]

Can someone have a look at this users contributions starting from the beginning of this month. Something seems a bit fishy looking at some of the contribs. Could another user/admin look at the contributions and see what they think? D.M.N. (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How very strange, few of this users edits seem legit, but they don't seem malicious. Perhaps a small child?--Jac16888 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Um. This AFD creation stands out to me as it is not formatted properly, yet they can create pages, for instance Slowinski's Corn Snake‎, Red Owens‎ and Zeke Zawoluk. Maybe more than one person is controlling this account? D.M.N. (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really get that impression. It's a tricky one - one one hand, it looks as if all the edits are made in good faith, but on the other hand, much of what they're doing is disruptive (albeit in a fairly minor way). Maybe we should encourage them to apply for adoption? Waggers (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. However, the user has a lot of CSD warnings on their talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Some which have now evolved into at least usable stubs, others of which include a notable settlement in Senegal (but mis-spelled) and a reference to a Pokemon character, which arguably could have been at least stubified. The others, well, they are just nonsense redirects and come across to me as good-faith attempts to contextualise some local slang. I'd support adoption if the editor is willing, because some of his more complete articles have potential to be useful additions. * Meanwhile have advised editor of this conversation here --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, my apologies, I forgot to do that. While scrolling through some more of the users contributions, this article creation seems bizzare to say the least. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. What I see is a new user, keen to get on with article writing, but unfamiliar with our policies and ways. Some of the templates may seem to him to be a bit bitey, but he's still here. Other users might have given up in frustration. The above edit says to me that he's not familiar with {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} and wants to defend against having his article speedied. Hence the misplaced stub. I say he should have a chance, preferably with adoption, but once he knows what he's doing a little better, I see him being a useful editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the repeated creation of articles solely for the purpose of nominating them for AfD a bit concerning. On February 9th, s/he created Forest Avenue Plaza at 1:45 and created an AfD for it within a minute. (Itself since deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Avenue Plaza). At 5:43 that same day, s/he created Rockafella records. At 5:45, s/he created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockafella records(also since deleted). The AfD s/he opened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Bomb for the article s/he created, Tiger Bomb (February 7th) is still ongoing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfamiliarity with {{db-author}} would explain this.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • CSD is usually within an hour; AFD gives the author five days to get it into shape. Desperate, perhaps, but I don't think it's useful to speculate further until we've heard from the editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That is partially the reason why I think the account is being used by 2 different people. S/he created Zeke Zawoluk, which seems to be a solid stub article a month ago, yet now seems to be creating what look like test pages, hence my concern about two possibly people using the account. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's something that needs to be looked at, but I don't see any need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it's possible that the user misunderstands the purpose of deletion discussions and is trying to confirm rather than delete the articles? I had a peek at the deleted AfDs, and neither of those nor the existing one actually indicate a desire to see the article deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly a possibility, although it would be a pretty masochistic editor who understood AFD who would do this. As I say, speculation is unhelpful, but it may be that the editor, having had a few articles CSD'd already, is trying to have their articles peer-reviewed, using the wrong process. Can we see what the editor has to say before getting into too much mind-reading, as I'm trying to work towards the best outcome here? I don't see any need for admin intervention at this stage. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anyone here is not trying to work towards the best outcome here. Indeed, it seems possible that we all are. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Anglepush (talk · contribs) is known for his POV and propagandist material pushing into different Armenia-related articles. Currently that user made a redirect from Andranik Pasha to the Andranik Toros Ozanian and attacked me at the Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide ("modifications of the Andranik Pasha"), made some denialist statements and then deleted a large part of sourced text and bibliography on Armenian genocide denial [45]. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Resolved: user unblocked, but placed under community ban against uploading images files

User is requesting an unblock to their indefinate block. The block was instituted for repeated image copyvios, and repeated refusal to abide by Wikipedia's image policy. They have been blocked for months at this point. I have proposed that he be unblocked if he agreed to a community ban on uploading any files at all, since that was the particular problem that led to his block. The user would be allowed to edit articles in good faith. Would other admins agree to endorse a conditional unblock, under the specific rules that this user is not allowed to upload any more image or other media files, and that doing so would result in a return of the block indefinately... Comments? 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse unblock - Per WP:AGF. Agree to the terms. Tiptoety talk 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

*Decline unblock but implement the 2nd chance template. D.M.N. (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    • What good would second chance do? The user wasn't blocked for bad editing of articles, but for image violations... Second chance proves nothing with regard to reforming their prior behavior? 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Totally with Jay here. Plus, 2nd chance sucks, it's impossible to review those unblock requests, and it's asking people to jump through aggravating hoops for no reason. Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, he was blocked for image copyvios, not articles. Tiptoety talk 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse unblock - Seems like I was wrong. I thought 2nd chance would be better so that he can prove himself before unblock, but either way I guess it doesn't matter. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse unblock. The user clearly still has no understanding of WP:IUP and so any image uploads are pretty much guaranteed to be problematic. But I think it is entirely reasonable to unblock provided the user refrain from image use or uploads. --Yamla (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse unblock - After reviewing the situation, I have to agree with Yamla that the editor does not understand WP:IUP, however if the user agrees to stop the problematic uploads I am all about giving him another chance. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse unblock - His comments still show a lack of understanding of policy regarding images (promotional photos ok for living people). Let him edit articles instead. Woody (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on the above consensus, I have unblocked the user in question. They have been informed that they are under a community ban against uploading any more image files, and have agreed to abide by these terms. 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef block review of User:TlatoSMD by Rlevse[edit]

I personally agree with this indefinite block, but I think because TlatoSMD has made some contributions worth keeping and has been an editor on the English and German Wikipedia for some time the ban should get wider review. Avruchtalk 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It's hard to disagree with the blocking admin's rationale left on User talk:TlatoSMD. The disruption and incivility needed to be permanently stamped out. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I fully support this block, and would have advocated an indefinite block on Tlato long ago. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this block. Just as 3RR isn't licence to revert an article 3 times, everyday, no matter what, DRV isn't a forum to rehash every XfD that closed against one's interests. Also, the continued incivility from this user WP:NPA and his attempts at WP:GAMEING the system are a major issue. MBisanz talk 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly endorse the block per the sound rationale left by the blocking admin. TlatoSMD is a disruptive SPA who has tried so hard to game the system for weeks now, and has repeatedly disrupted deletion processes in an attempt to push a POV. The incivility is just icing on the cake. --Coredesat 03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per my comment on the user's talkpage [46]. Disruptive and combative user. WjBscribe 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the indef block. An indef block is excessive - I would recommend a temporary block. (The following rationale for this has been copied from TlatoSMD's Talk Page)
While it's true that TlatoSMD can use a bit more tact in his commentary from time to time, indef blocking seems wildly inappropriate in this situation. His confrontational and "snappy" responses and exclamations are a result of what this individual perceives to be unrelenting attacks and POV-pushing by both regular editors and admins. Although he may have stepped out of line several times with his tone and heavy-handed words, I can't say I completely disagree with his interpretation of what has been happening on Wikipedia, especially in regards to PAW articles and their editors, for the past year or so. A great deal of misrepresentation is occurring, biases are clouding both editing and discussion, and a multitude of editors are refusing to engage in direct debate, preferring to completely disregard positions they personally disagree with. The fact that a number of admins have been either apathetic to TlatoSMD's situation or, in fact, engaged in the very same nonconstructive practices just mentioned has frustrated TlatoSMD quite a bit. Placed within such a hostile environment, and ignored by many regular editors and admins alike, TlatoSMD began to pick his words with less tact than is expected. Although some may be correct in asserting that some sort of block is in order, maybe even longer than several days or a week, indefinite blocking this individual would not benefit the project as a whole. Wikipedia will be hurt if it loses yet another intelligent, well-read, and usually civil editor, who's not afraid to speak his mind and to point out policy violations and POV-pushing when they occur, even at the risk of opposing many influential Wikipedians. A temporary block may be in order, so that TlatoSMD rethinks his approach to commentary and regains appreciation for civility, but an indef block will do nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia or its articles. The controversial PAW articles will definitely suffer, and an indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, to respond quickly to the reasons provided by Rlevse for the indef block. First of all, I fail to see any conclusive evidence that TlatoSMD is a single purpose account. Although a great deal of this user's recent edits have focused on PAW articles, his contribution history, via both his current and previous accounts, clearly shows that he has edited a variety of articles. Besides, being an SPA is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for indef blocking. Next, his "snappiness" and (what can be deemed by some) uncivil behavior can be addressed with a temporary block - no indef block is necessary. Besides, this is only the third block this editor ever got, and all the blocks were recently received in regards to the ongoing discussions surrounding the deletion of the "Adult-child sex" article and of the various drafts that attempted come up with a quality representation of this controversial subject. Then, even though this is a very "icky" topic for many, TlatoSMD followed proper Wikipedia procedures in contesting the deletions just mentioned. Thus, his actions to this regard should not be grounds for an indef block. As for the supposed "canvassing," this behavior can be addressed by warnings or a temporary block - once again, no indef block is called for. Lastly, this editor is quite capable of editing articles constructively and civility, as his editing history clearly demonstrates. To assert that TlatoSMD is "not here to be constructive" is to blatantly ignore all his contributions prior to his controversial conduct in the recent debates. There's much that this editor can contribute to Wikipedia. And, yes, enforcement of policy and emphasis on NPOV are just two of the positives that TlatoSMD generally brings to the table. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You're misquoting me, I did not say he was a sock, I said his admitted doppelganger account, see this prior version of his user page. Also, I protest your claim this is censorship, the issue is incivility and disruption. As for his good edits, that is not a defense, per Jimbo's link below.RlevseTalk 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for misreading a part of your comment. I have now adjusted my response to account for the assertion that TlatoSMD is an SPA. As for the "doppelganger" comment, I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand. As far as I know, many editors mistakenly create several spellings of their username and only end up using one of the account. Since this is his primary account, and the combined contribution history of his current and previous account show editing in a variety of articles, I fail to see what makes TlatoSMD an SPA. Besides, as stated above, being an SPA, even if this was true of this particular editor, is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for an indef block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There is also no assertion that your particular indef blocking of TlatoSMD is censorship. What I said was that this "indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Wikipedia, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense." I'm not saying that this is true, but it's foolish to deny that such observations are being made about the project, especially after a number of controversial indef blocks in the past year or so. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

TlatoSMD Review Break[edit]

  • Has he been blocked or banned? Regardless, indef is def excessive. Firstly, he is not a Single Purpose Account as was said in the blocking rationale on his talk page. At least, not according to his contribs history. Blocking is not supposed to be used as punishment or to make a point, regardless of what Jimbo says. I'd say a timed block, as in 24 hours if he hasn't been blocked before to 48 hours if he's only been blocked once before to a couple of days or week depending on recent past block count, would be more appropriate in dealing with his incivility. - ALLSTAR echo 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
He's blocked, not banned. Even if one accepts the argument that he's not an SPA, there's still plenty to support an indef on this highly disruptive user. Short blocks have not worked. There is way more than his incivility. His statements (see quotes I made on his user talk page) show no sign of acknowledging the collaborative nature of wikipedia. RlevseTalk 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Firstly, Avruch has my deep respect for bringing this here, even though he agrees with the block, because bringing it here for wider review was the right thing to do. Good call and thank you.
    • Keilana will of course support the block because TlatoSMD rightly challenged her deletion of a page without rationale.
    • When we are talking about a permanent ban on a user, we have to really look at it. Why? I have seen vandalism-only accounts and vandalism-only IP's blocked for 24 hours, only to go through the entire process again. I have seen the most aggregious name-calling and personal attacks go without rebuke at all. But TlatoSMD is uncivil and warrants a permaban? That is, quite simply, ridiculous.
    • So, why is this user being banned? Because he is right. Not entirely, and not always, but he is absolutely right in that he demands that Wikipedia policies be followed, and he has made no attempt to hide his feelings about clear policy violations. Pages that do not warrant deletion are being deleted. Personal attacks on him and others go without even warnings. And when he responds in kind, he is banned. What sort of precedent does this set?
    • There is the canvassing issue. Firstly, let's even assume it was canvassing (which it was not); is canvassing once worthy of a permanent ban from Wikipedia? Of course not.
    • TlatoSMD is by no means a Single-Purpose Account, and even if he had an uber-narrow focus, so what? Sockpuppet? No. Focused editor? Sure, why not? Who cares, though. His contributions have been very good and he has spent more time and effort on articles than some who only have worked to tear articles down. Are we going to start banning everyone who edits in a narrow range?
    • The bottom line is that this ban is egregiously over-the-top. I can agree that TlatoSMD has been aggressive. TlatoSMD has even rufled many feathers (gasp!). But to be permanently banned for this? Come on now... don't we all, as a community, have better things to do that force this issue? How about blocking intentional, blatant vandals for more than 24 hours at a time? TlatoSMD deserves time to cool off and continue editing constructively.
    • Let's drop this block to 24-36 hours, shake our collective finger at him, and move on...
    • VigilancePrime (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :-)
For what it's worth, I'm not supporting the block because he " rightly challenged [my] deletion of a page without rationale". First of all, I did provide a rationale, which he disagreed with. Fine. He had every right to DRV the article. However, after the nth incarnation, it became clear that he was an SPA. He has acted uncivilly, and the net gain to the project of unblocking him would be much less than the net loss from all the drama and incivility that follows him around. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It became clear he was an SPA? Have you not taken the time to look at his contribs? He is definitely not an SPA. - ALLSTAR echo 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it did. I have read his contributions, FWIW. He has barely any article-space edits, effectively everything he does is related to this one article. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
VigilancePrime--There's way more to this than Keilana and other edits. That three admins deleted that page shows there's considerable support to do so and that TlatoSMD is not correct in his actions. And again, he is not banned, there is a difference in a ban and an indef block. Your claim that he's being banned because he's right is ludicrous. RlevseTalk 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, even though he is not technically "banned," TlatoSMD is now incapable of editing articles, so how is this different from a ban? ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The confusion there is probably my fault for naming the section "ban" - technically he is blocked, but if no one unblocks him it has the effect of a community ban. Avruch T 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's like the verifiability vs. truth argument. He may be right, but right is subjective, and his opinion of right has been shown to be against consensus. I have also refactored your comments' formatting and removed the annoying red box. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Disruptive SPA sums it quite nicely. In my opinion, indef is a good call. – Sadalmelik (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed with this analysis (after having seen the user at a few of the debates). Orderinchaos 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly I support this block, he has been incredibly uncivil and disruptive and short blocks perpetuated the situation. WP is better off without users like this. ViridaeTalk 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keilana, replied to your note on my talk page. Thank you for asking and no, I don't think you're self-important.
  • Second, the difference between Indef block and Ban is purely semantic. Spare me.
  • Third, Keilana closed the original debate w/o stated rationale, and that caused a firestorm (on all sides, ultimately). That led to Tlato being less-than-kind toward her, and thus I would expect a certain dislike for him. I would be too, so that's not meant as a slight against her.
  • Fourth, counting admins is useless. Yes, three admins deleted the pages. Just as many kept the original page, protected the original page, or agreed that the pages should stay. In fact, more. Spare us the "so-many admins (as if that makes opinions more valuable?) did this or that". Poor argument.
  • When it comes down to it, "we" would rather protect those who intentionally destroy Wikipedia (blocking vandals for 24 hours at a time, no matter their history?) and wash ou hands of someone who is so committed to Wikipedia as to fight for it. I do not disagree that T's comments have been unnecessarily aggressive. But a lifetime ban? Come on now... let's use our common sense. If "we" want to set this precedent, can I bring you twice as much evidence about another user, who has in fact taken part in name-calling and personal attacks and you'll permaban/permablock them as well? Give the word and I'll give the links, quotes, and diffs. But make me that promise first.
  • Let's set some sort of consistency. Everyone in this debacle has had some sort of culpability in it, including me. I haven't been the most pleasant at times (longer ago). Neither has anyone else, admins most often included. Let's not overreact here. I would recommend a few cement trucks worth of Good Faith just be poured over this entire situation.
  • VigilancePrime (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 Question: What is the status of this page now? Its called "Der paedophile impuls" and is written in German, and it is apparently a copy of an article that was deleted on Avruch T 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That would need to be brought up on; it may have different standards and processes than --Coredesat 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The userpage is here, though. Its a copy of a deleted article, but he's ported it here for translation. Avruch T 05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I was about to strike my comment after misreading it. The page should be deleted. --Coredesat 05:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 Done Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support this block, and would support a ban as well. This is a highly disruptive user who continually insults and attacks other users, even continuing to be so blatantly uncivil that during a block today his userpage had to be protected due to his outrageous behavior. TlatoSMD has attacked several administrators, accusing them of blatant lying [47][48][49], having “faulty rationale” and being neglectful by turning a blind eye to vandalism. TlatoSMD has acted in a disruptive manner in every MfD DRV and MfD he's been involved in, while continuing to insult administrators and other editors after being warned time and time again:[50][51][52][53]. These are just some of the most recent incidents, the user has a long history of attacking and insulting other editors and tendentious editing. Dreadstar 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block. I simply can't see how this user can ever work collaboratively with editors they disagree with. Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
While TlatoSMD may use excessively colorful words at times and has lately been upfront about his sentiments concerning others, his civility problems can be addressed with a temporary block, even a long one. An indef block is really inappropriate, especially considering that most criticism of his editing is directed at his commentary surrounding this one particular issue. This has been an upstanding, constructive, and generally civil editor in most other contexts. As for his critique of other editors and admins, and their editing practices - as long as this is done in a tasteful manner, and proper reasoning is provided, there's nothing wrong with such criticism. If it's established that TlatoSMD has been uncivil as of late, he should be blocked, but not indefinitely. I'm not sure how his constructive editing of other articles, and even of PAW articles before this messy situation, can be diminished by recent events and be completely disregarded. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Civility blocks have had no effect on this user - he was blocked on 4th Feb for 48 hours and was still being uncivil and offensive yesterday when I blocked him for calling another user a liar. I certainly didn't see any evidence from their talk page that they understood they had crossed a line. Quite the opposite in fact. Too much agression & refusal to moderate unacceptable behaviour is not collaborative. Spartaz Humbug! 05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Then, by all means, extend the block. But there's no need for idef blocking, especially considering the consistent constructive contributions on the editor's part in the past, before this messy situation. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at his contributions, he has ~20 unrelated contributions since he joined. That's not at all consistent. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Edits to Spontaneous‎, Jihad‎, Sodomy‎, Kurgan hypothesis‎, Counterculture of the 1960s‎, Dialectic of Enlightenment‎, Níð‎, Right-wing Authoritarianism‎, The Holocaust‎, Nazi occultism‎, Michael Naumann‎, Child sexual abuse‎, Donald Duck pocket books‎, Adolf Hitler‎, Velvia‎, Kodachrome‎, Proto-Indo-European religion‎, Dialectic of Enlightenment‎, Pedophilia‎, Repressed memory‎, and Pro-pedophile activism‎, five of his edits, even though made awhile back, are still the most recent to their pages.
VigilancePrime (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the articles in your list are related to the "adult/child sex" topic. One edit to a disambiguation page is irrelevant, as are the few other topical edits TlatoSMD has made. TlatoSMD is a single purpose account not because he has edited a single article, but because the vast majority of his edits have been to a group of related articles in a manner which is not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards. The SPA concern pales beside the disruptive nature of this user's editing habits. Dreadstar 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a word: this account may or may not be disruptive, but this particular act - that of submitting the user copy page to DRV was not "disruptive, abuse of process, and a WP:POINT violation". The MfD was a complex situation, with several different reasons brought up by different people in a long discussion. (I voted delete, incidentally, and still think that deletion of the material is best.) Riana's closing rationale was really, really, uninformative; and her justification in the subsequent DRV was simply appalling. You do have to have a bit of chutzpah to say that after that a DRV was out-of-process. Relata refero (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agrre that this editor has been an SPA, and even worse, has been an aggressive POV-pusher. I don't see any article that he's improved, and he's fomented a lot of disruption. I think a ban is appropriate and necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree about the block, but I gotta ask (since it's been the subject of a few discussions of interest to me), what does being an SPA have to do with it? -- Ned Scott 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He is here mainly to push a pro-pedophile POV based on his edits (and he is doing so in an uncivil manner, which is the basis of the other problems he has), and that is something that can't be tolerated. --Core