Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive388

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

Noticeboard archives

Harassment by Sethie[edit]

I don't understand as why this particular user is after me, kindly have a look at his contribution's, [1] Since 11 March, he has used this account for single purpose which is to harass me, and has almost no contribution's on any article whatsoever, how can i prevent him from vandalizing my userpage or talk page ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking clue from what is stated below, is giving a person any name, violates wikipedia rules, as Sethie has done here, [2]. I am not aware of this person, or name, hence i simply ignored such wage imagination of Sethie, but his continual vandalizing my userpage, and giving warnings after warning on my talk page, forced me to report the matter here.--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. He has a point about your userpage though. You could settle this matter immediately if you simple removed your accusations. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Note also he was not asking you to reveal your real name only a previous wikipedia username. See [here] for why that account was banned. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult Free World/talk-to-me is using his user page for soapboxing and attacking various meditation groups. Please, please examine his contribs, he is not on Wiki to contribute meaningfully in any way, but to provocate and soapbox.

As background, please note this user was blocked for one week here for making personal attacks.

Upon return from his block, he continued the same vein of personal attacks, calling editors or admins cult-promoters and/or accusing them of being paid to post on Wiki (the following are just since his return from the block).

  1. Here he provocates by suggesting I am a paid member of a group. (a lie)
  2. Here he seeks an admin's help, and blatantly lies by saying "if you notice the time there was no edit from my side during that time frame" when he had numerous attack edits documented here, but they do not show now because the pages were deleted. This is an intentional ruse to mislead and manipulate an admin.
  3. Also, please note on the dif above that again he tells lies about several editors, saying we "are paid members from respective cults."

A few editors have warned him on this, he has been given warnings on his user page, and he ignores all of these. It seems unlikely that his goal is to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Renee (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok so we have Renee also here :), and hence this has once again looped back to user:jossi, I seriously doubt that Renee IS a paid member of that group, as user:jossi is of prem rawat [3]. Given the fact, that Renee approach only user:jossi for deleting a cult related page, [4] which was promptly deleted, by user:jossi even though he had declared that he would not get involved in cult related article, the way Renee has attacked me personally, and is continuously attempting to prevent an article from getting published in wikipedia, clearly indicates something fishy, I am really surprised at her continuous efforts to report about me, given then fact, I am all involved in responding to them, and hence unable to contribute effectively, her association with jossi is evident here also [5] where she approached jossi immediately after filing a case against me at yet another forum, WP:IU [6], which was rightly rejected [7] All this is only to prevent ONE article from getting published on wikipedia, which I became aware of after I noticed user:jossi deleting it, and subsequently i filed a COI notice [8].

Sum of all this information is, wikipedia is being manipulated by member's of certain group, which should not be allowed, wikipedia is there to give information and not hide it. Since my personal knowledge of the subject, which i suspect Renee has close connection is limited, hence my attempt was to translate the same topic from wikipedia's French twin, I noticed same subject present in french wikipedia as well, and i suggested to translate the same, and have an english article as well, this is all what concerns, these member's, Kindly note there is not a single comment from me on their page, which would indicate any sort of POV regarding any other user, same is more then clear in case of Renee and Sethie,it appears both of them belong to same group, called sahaja marga. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To add one more important aspect of this discussion, Renee's warnings were viewed as something approaching towards legal threat,[9] and all this was about a topic, which doesn't even exist on wikipedia does this not violates clear cult definition of WP:NPA which states comment on contribution and not on contributer when the article itself doesn't even exist how can there be any contribution ? hence her comments are solely directed towards me, and not on what contribution I am making. She has even accused me of a puppet of user:4d-don here[10], I was astonished by this intense reaction by Renee, for i attempted to translate a wikipedia page from its french twin. Her proactive approach to this forum, and then again filing a case at yet another forum, again only for my proposing re-writing an article deleted by user:jossi as per wikipedia standard. My concern is about the direction article's are moving by heavy biasing of certain editors due to their direct involvement with the cults, which as a consequence leads to filtered or no information for internet community at large. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Trying to make sense of this...
  • User:Cult free world has repeatedly (see above) accused User:jossi of deleting Sahaj Marg, having a COI, and being a cultist (see Talk archive and the thread at COI/N). However, looking at the actual AfD it was only nominated by jossi - for what look like exemplary reasons - and closed by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. For added bizarreness, check out the lone DO NOT DELETE post, based on the argument that the article was promoting a cult.
  • Jossi has undertaken not to edit cult articles (see User Talk:jossi for more). Whether nominating an article for deletion counts as a violation of that - much less an "abuse of admin tools" (COI/N again) - is a different question.
  • After being notified that "Cult free world" might be considered a POV or offensive username, and being asked if he might consider changing it, CFW responded, "Would it be possible for you to focus on content and not the contributer?" (sigh) I don't think any progress is being made on this front - unless you count this signature: [[User:Cult free world|talk-to-me!]] ([[User talk:Cult free world|talk]]). conclusions yet, and it's tiring to wade through the hyperbole. Anyone want to add anything? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First of, my objection was/is to this deletion [11], Kindly note, Renee approaches Jossi, on his talk page [12], as noted above also, it was Jossi only who nominated the previous article for deletion, and he himself deleted the next version, ignoring his own deceleration. If the article was a G4 candidate why no AfD tag ? and why no discussion whatsoever ? For what has jossi declared he will not get involved with cult related article's ? Jossi should have placed AfD as any other user would have done.
Why cannot an article be written ? explaining about all the issues, about the group, about its methods and about harms caused by the group. Why hide information ? and attack other user's if they are not in sync with their POV ? Is there any explanation to Renee's warnings after warnings [13] notices after notices [14],[15] when there is not a single comment from me on her talk page. And all this is about a subject, which doesn't even exist on wikipedia , this aggressive approach is the only thing, which makes me believe that this particular group has lot to hide, and on search, i did came across lot of material which substantiate this statement, some of them are WP:RS and some are not. As a building block, i have taken the subjects french twin as a base, and hope other users with more knowledge of this cult, will chip in, and help build a neutral article, which gives all relevant information, for anyone seeking information about the topic, this is what wikipedia is all about information isn't it ? This article was on wikipedia for 2 yrs [16] , what happened suddenly that all the reliable sources such court dockets, newspaper reports, government agencies reports and cult watch groups, pear group reports became unavailable ? This group has lot to hide, and this is the sole reason as why its members are preventing an article about this subject on wikipedia [17], Kindly note, this is the french version, which i have placed for translation and build upon, even though it is only a sandbox version, a temp page, an AfD notice was placed by a user who is on wikipedia since 2004 [18]. There must be some reason as why these members are so eager not to get an article about the subject !! I guess it is the court cases, and sexual abuse cases which are bothering the member's more then anything else. My personal experience with these member's is they start attacking the other user, give warning after warnings, even though there is no comment from that user, and then they approach this forum, and claim that the user is still working, even though they have given 5 warnings. People here may not be fully aware of the incidence and hence may get influenced by their long essay, not about any article but user's.
I can speak little bit of french, hence i will do my best in translating it, hope more user's can chip in. --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You have answered your own questions. There was no discussion, and no AfD notice, because the article was speedy-deleted under criterion G4 (Recreation of deleted material), which allows for deletion without debate of a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. If you believe you can demonstrate that no other admin would have deleted that article, then you must request a deletion review. Otherwise, this was not abuse of admin tools, just use of admin tools for a purpose you didn't agree with. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Microprose and user EconomistBR[edit]

Resolved: The dispute over the contents of that page has been settled and the threat of an edit war averted -⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been a series of events at the MicroProse entry that leads me to believe user EconomistBR has recently operated on WP:Ownership, and has also now engaged in disruptive editing. He has now taken the History of Microprose entry and edited it to become his original version of the MicroProse entry, retitling it and and subsequently editing all appearances of MicroProse wikilinks in other Wikipedia entries to point to that entry. I have tried to engage with the user and explain things to work them out, as can be seen on the MicroProse talk page, and this was his response. I would like some form of administrator intervention in this matter, as his actions moved it beyond a simple content dispute. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong, Marty Goldberg has had total freedom to edit that page in whatever way he desires without any opposition or discussion.
User Marty Goldberg has been accusing me of WP:Ownership, that's in incorrect I've accepted all edits made so far. Over 40 edits have been made to that article in March alone, I've only reverted once.
User Marty Goldberg is operating on WP:Ownership since he only accepts edits made by him or by User:Microprose itself. I edited that page 3 times, in all of them user Marty Goldberg altered my edits.
MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC are 2 different companies, he wants to pretend that they are the same company. MicroProse Software Inc ceased to exist in 2001. This company didn't simply change its name or change owners it ceased to exist completely.
The fact is that an entirely new company under the name MicroProse has appeared, so distinction is important, otherwise we're mixing their corporate histories.;⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All of that is completely untrue, the only thing I've edited of yours is a statement you added that did not follow NPOV and whose wording was done in direct spite of the conversation on the talk page. Everything I've stated is fact and easily verified by looking at your edit history vs. the history of the conversation on the talk page. Likewise, the properties transfered to a new company, that simple - it did indeed change owners. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Untrue??? Let's analize my claims then:
  1. "Marty Goldberg has had total freedom to edit that page in whatever way he desires without any opposition or discussion". Fact
  2. "Over 40 edits have been made to that article in March alone, I've only reverted once". Fact
  3. "I edited that page 3 times, in all of them user Marty Goldberg altered my edits". Fact
  4. "MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC are 2 different companies". Fact
  5. Marty Goldberg"wants to pretend that they are the same company". Plausible
My claims reflect the truth and are correct. Now your claim:
  • "the properties transfered to a new company". Incorrect, absolutely incorrect, and you know it.
The Civilization franchise, the Railroad Tycoon franchise belong now to different companies. Hence they weren't transfered to MicroProse Systems LLC. Besides those 2 big intellectual right losses is not yet know which intellectual right properties, if any, were transfered to MicroProse System LLC together with the brand MicroProse. This fact of property right losses further reinforces the need for a distinction between MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again the name and the properties not sold off by Infogrames/Atari Interactive have transfered, the new company is the holder of these, that is indisputable and not at issue here. Arguing about what properties they were able to purchase is also not the issue and has little to do with the brand being transfered to this newer company. Other companies also have had multiple corporate holders as you've been pointed out, or ceased to exist for a time and come back and their entries here have not been held to your viewpoint on the need to differentiate by recreating completely separate entries rather than just identifying the difference in corporate name. Other editors simply have not shared these viewpoints. What the issue is, is your conduct, which you've continued to demonstrate here. Unlike your growing and ever changing list of attempted counter-accusations, I said they are one in the same line of companies owning the Microprose brand, which they are. You keep trying to say otherwise, making further accusations about me, that company, etc. and claiming "fact" because you say so. You've claimed I've been editing without any opinion or discussion....and I suppose I've been imagining the entire talk on the discussion page and here....or if I really wanted to edit without opinion or discussion I could have just taken the same route as you and completely reproduced my version in another article and subsequently change all links in other entries to point to that one as your edit history shows you have. Finally, once again, I've done nothing editing wise you're claiming I have and once again the edit history clearly shows this. Your "3 edits" were a) A fact tag you put on an alternative company name (that someone else put there) that you considered dubious, to which I rewrote the paragraph to remove the dubious name in question, and to further differentiate the corporate names as you requested on the talk page. b) A removal of a link from the external links section (which you were right to remove from that section per WP:EL) that someone else had put there, which I thought might have worked better context wise as a reference within the article and proceeded to use as a reference, c) A paragraph consisting of an arbitrary list of demands you wanted answered by Microprose on the talk page, which when they were not answered to your liking you decided to turn it in to a paragraph in the article, which violated NPOV and WP:OR. "MicroProse Systems LLC states that software development has begun, there is however no information available about which games are currently under development or about which platform those games are for or about the location of MicroProse's new development studio." All the same things you demanded responses for on the talk page, and as the edit history clearly shows, you ran to the main page in spite when you didn't like the answers you were getting. You could have also added "Have not announced a CEO, have not given their office location, have not stated what retailers are carrying their software,..." and a plethora of other arbitrary statements, which shows the actual nature of that paragraph. Rather than delete the paragraph completely, I compromised (as I have attempted to do throughout) and conveyed your concern with the much more neutral and less rambling "They have also stated software development has begun, however no further information is currently available." So where is the sinister context you're trying to paint these edits in to claim ownership on my behalf? Ownership on my part would be if I just reverted everything you did, or say...just recreated everything I wanted in this article in another article instead to try and circumvent any consent issues. Honestly, your attempts to try and throw this back on me are thinly veiled, and the attitude which prompted the filing of this incident report is shining through. There is no discussion with you, there's just running around in circles and getting more accusations thrown. This will be my last response on this page, as I'm not interested in being any more of a part of this ridiculous and disruptive volley that you've instigated here and on the microprose talk page. I can only hope for once you can resist the urge to continue your conduct and post yet more of the same content here. I believe the admins have everything they need to go on at this point, and any further back and forth would simply further obfuscate the issues. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You just want to have things your way when I showed some opposition to your views you retaliated by accusing me of WP:Ownership since that didn't work you are now accusing me of:
  1. Being unable to carry a discussion.
  2. Being "ridiculous and disruptive" on my comments that in fact call for some tranparency and distinction.
You want to bunddle together under the same article MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC just because they share the name "MicroProse". That would the same as pretending that the company simply changed its name. I can't agree to that. Those are 2 very different companies.
The intellectual property rights that have remained might have been been transfered to MicroProse Systems LLC, I say might because I haven't seen yet any documents detailing this transaction. So that is disputable and a really big issue.
List of intellectual property rights that belonged to MicroProse Software Inc but do not belong to MicroProse Systems LLC.
  1. Civilization franchise
  2. Railroad Tycoon franchise
  3. Roller Coaster Tycoon franchise
  • The MicroProse article should deal with the history of the brand itself, and never bunddle together the 2 different companies.
  • MicroProse System LLC is a small hardware company that would never on its own have an article on Wikipedia, the only the single reason why MicroProse Systems LLC is being mentioned is because they share their first name with MicroProse Software, Inc
  • MicroProse software, Inc is not back only the brand is back. Brand names never die.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is for requesting administrator attention for a problem, and this seems to be a content dispute. Please follow the dispute resolution policy and continue the discussion on your talk pages. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Timneu22 disruptive behavior[edit]

Yesterday I bocked User Timneu22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 24 hours for maintaining a list of users who suck on his userpage after several people removed it and him re-adding it after being warned. After 4 denied unblock requests, he started blanking his page, which was reverted and then it was protected until his block wore off. Now I see that another user, ClintonKu (talk · contribs) has added a list of "his favorite Wikipedians" (with some new additions) on Timneu22's userpage for him, with the edit summary of "here you go, per your email. see you at work". Is there a policy about making edits for blocked users? Or more specifically, edits like these? Additionally, it looks like he has evaded the block using (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'd like another pair of eyes to judge the appropriate remedy here. VegaDark (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that User talk: has requested unblock several times due to User:Timneu22's autoblock. I don't think it is okay to be editing on behalf of a blocked user, but wasn't sure where the policy lies. I know it is inappropriate to edit for banned users, but not sure in this case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is another IP he has been using. Tiptoety talk 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Oh edit conflicts, I guess Rjd0060 just said the same thing. Tiptoety talk 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Timneu22 has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not too easily offended, so to me personally it's not a problem to be included in such a list. OTOH, taking another look at Timneu22's recent contribs, he appears not to have adjusted his behviour since I encountered him, so I suppose the block is ok although the occasion is a comparably trivial matter. Dorftrottel (troll) 22:34, March 19, 2008
If it's true about him circumventing a block then that's bad news. Also, I don't think it's fair that editors should edit on behalf of people... it's basically tantamount (again) to circumventing a block. ScarianCall me Pat 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It borders, if anything on WP:MEAT, especially if the two editors know one another presonally. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who doesn't buy into this edit summary? Take a look at these tell-tale ALLCAPS edit summaries: [19], [20], [21]. It's a sockpuppet, not a meatpuppet, and a lousy attempt to mislead the community. Dorftrottel (bait) 23:37, March 19, 2008
Wow! Dorftrottel accusing me of a sockpuppets. Thanks. Do you want Kurtis' email? Timneu22 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Struck my bad-faithed comment. Dorftrottel (harass) 03:22, March 21, 2008
Long-standing issues there; review edit summaries going back at least a month and talk page deletions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let’s start at the beginning.

  1. I had a list of "users who suck" on my user page. This list (two users) was posted on February 28. I didn’t think this was a problem.
  2. On March 18 (that's three weeks later), I was accused of making a personal attack. I didn't make such an attack. I learned in my previous discussion on WP Policy that users should not edit other users' User Pages. So I reverted WODUP's edit, and to be friendly I kept the list but within HTML comments. I made no attacks on other users. Also, as I left the items HTML-commented, one can plainly see that there was no attack. No one would know about my page but me.
    • Rjd0060 reverted my edit. Again, knowing that other users shouldn't be editing MY USER PAGE, I reverted.
    • At this point, I was continually getting messages telling me that I was NOT CIVIL or that I was DISRUPTIVE. All these claims are absolutely ridiculous. I did not EVER attack a user, and I did not EVER vandalize a page.

Then you blocked me. This is uncalled for, and as Administrators you should all have your status revoked. In fact, I was blocked immediately after I said "I got the point, thanks." You blocked me after that? How dare you.

Now, the reason you accused me of being "uncivil" is apparently because my user page ...could be construed as attacking other editors..., as I learned later. I'm not sure who is "construing" my page as such when the list WAS HTML-COMMENTED. I honestly believe you just ganged up and wanted to block a user.

I have said this multiple times — look at my edits and you see that I do not vandalize and that I did not attack users.

Now let's move on to this discussion.

  1. "I started blanking my page." No I didn't. I removed all the crap about me being blocked. You blocked me and denied my requests. OK. I blanked that info because what good does it do to keep it displayed? You are making way too much out of that. What do you think the first thing I'll do is after being unblocked? I'll clean up the talk page. So who cares if it is blanked now or in 24 hours?
  2. ClintonKu modified my user page. So what? I would have made that edit after the block period was over.
  3. I don't know, and I don't know Do you think I have a wide variety of IPs that I just use?
    • I didn't "evade a block" because I have no need. I have better things to do with my time.
    • I don't have time for finding new IPs and I wouldn't know how to do it if I tried. (I know C# and Media Wiki code; I'm not a network guy.) I did not request unblocks. I use PCs at two locations: home and work. You are accusing me of having at least three locations.
    • By the way, I received some emails from people at work today wondering what happened that they couldn't edit WP. So because of your unnecessary block, you stopped other users from contributing. Great job. I hope you're happy.

Now let's get into Dorftrottel and SandyGeorgia.

  1. They say "I haven't adjusted my behavior" and "long-standing issues." I ask all of you: DID YOU SEE ANY UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS BETWEEN Feb 28 and March 18? The answer is a resounding NO. Further, on/after March 18 all I did was revert other users' changes to MY OWN TALK PAGE. And I was blocked from Wikipedia for this. All of Wikipedia should be ashamed.
  2. The issues with SandyGeorgia and Dorftrottel were simply about my attempts to revamp an archive template and the approach I took for doing it. I gave up and didn't whine or complain. Basically I had moved on. I still have. But hey, thanks for inviting people from my past who may want to bash me. Would you prefer that I get a list of users who respect my work? I don't like to cite every WP policy like you admins do, but I'm not going to stoop to WP:CANVASS as you have just done.

The only issue here is that I REVERTED MY OWN USER PAGE, and YOU BLOCKED ME for being DISRUPTIVE. Who and/or what did I disrupt?

I am a MediaWiki administrator of two other Wiki sites, and I would block each and everyone one of you Admins for a week for this behavior. Think about it: you accuse me of being uncivil because I had HTML-commented notes on my own page. No one would ever see those comments... you went looking for them and accused me of being uncivil, and that's the root of this. Finally, you blocked me after I said "I got the point, thanks."

So in the future, I would appreciate if WP Admins would keep an eye on behavior that is truly destructive/disruptive to Wikipedia, instead of constantly reverting my user page and then telling me I'm uncivil. No one once bothered to add something constructive on my talk page like, "You know, user page comments, even if they are HTML-commented, shouldn't contain lists of Wikipedians you don't like. If you add the list back on your user page, you could be blocked." And then appropriate warnings would have been nice, too. But all your comments and edits were much more harsh and less informative. Finally I said "I got the point", and AT THAT POINT you blocked me for being "disruptive."

Now... where did I disrupt ANYONE? If anything, you disrupted me (why are you on my user page), the people at my company (who couldn't use WP), and yourselves (for wasting time reverting HTML comments). Further, if I always had the text "my favorite wikipedians" vs. "wikipedians who suck", you never would have blocked me. You know why? Because it's a user page, and it's not disruptive to anyone. Instead of constant reverts on my user page, someone should have said "you need to remove that from your user page or you will be blocked." But you didn't; you just forcefully reverted on your own; I blindly reverted the changes to my user page because it was my understanding that people shouldn't be editing my page. You didn't give me a chance to be anything but defensive.

You went on the attack, and I paid for it. This is completely unfair.

I consider this and all other matters closed. I'll be nicer on my User Page. Please move on. And feel free to monitor my edits for the next year or so. Timneu22 (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem appears to be the total logical disconnect between your first point - "I had a list of users who suck on my user page" and your second point "I made no attacks on other users". Surely it should be blatantly obvious that declaring that someone "sucks" is a personal attack? Black Kite 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your logic. If I have a piece of paper in my desk that says "I hate Bob Wilson", does that hurt anyone? Simmilarly, I said "they sucked" but didn't attack. Then I hid it in HTML (in my desk), and I was still accused. Finally, I got blocked after saying OK, "I get the point." That's just wrong. Timneu22 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, having a list of "users who suck" implies that an attribute is being assigned to the given list, much like a list of "users who are funny." Both apply a descriptive label to any member in the list. If I had a list of "users who are funny," it would follow that in some form or another, I am saying to those users, "I think you are funny." Similarly, having a list of "users who suck" is saying to those users, "I think you suck," which crosses into commenting on the contributor instead of the contributions. --slakrtalk / 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I said they suck... that's not the issue here now... Timneu22 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You have repeatedly said that I blocked you right after you said "ok, I get the point". Can you show me where you made such an edit? I see you made a similar edit after you were blocked in regards to removing the unblock templates, but I see no such edit prior to my blocking of you. VegaDark (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Timneu22 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You were already blocked at that point. You removed the requests, I reverted, and left a note within the edit summary saying you cannot remove them until you are unblocked (just like the templates say). Then you removed them again. Thus, to prevent you from continuing to do so, I protected the page. It is a routine event, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said, that edit was made after you were blocked, and in regards to removal of the unblock template. In your long version of what happened above, you make it seem like I blocked you after you conceded that what you were doing was wrong, and were going to stop. This misrepresentation of the facts is patently false. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not intentionally misrepresenting anything. I'm already done with this discussion, as my opening statement says. Why won't you just let it rest. I think there needs to be a major discussion about what a "personal attack" is (and about "disrupting" wikipedia when I only edited my own user page). I was constantly accused of making them, and I kept saying "this is ridiculous", but no one stopped to say having BLAH on your User Page is considered an attack. You'd rather Block First and Tell Later. I don't appreciate it. Anyway, I'm done with all of this. Let's move on, already. Timneu22 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with calling this discussion over, as long as you refrain from making those types of comments, and refrain from making any comments that could be considered uncivil, or a personal attack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actaully, you were warned here, here, here, and here all prior to the edit resulting in your block. That should have been more than enough notice that what you were doing was not acceptable. VegaDark (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Vega, I asked every time "where am I attacking?!" but no one said, hey, adding that to your user page IS an attack. To me, an attack is leaving a message on a user's talk page and yelling at them about something. OK. I'm done with this discussion. Timneu22 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on the wording of the warnings and the userpage content that was being reverted, I would have hoped the content in question would have been obvious. VegaDark (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you read his userpage, he has now created a list of his "favorite wikipedians" including all those who have warned or blocked him in the past, and those with which is has been warring. Can you say "WP:POINT"... 03:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. Are you happy? WP:POINT and numerous other policies are incorrect or lacking in description. That list was on my user page. I'm not disrupting WP. If someone ran across that list in two months, they wouldn't accuse me of WP:POINT or any other such thing. Geeez. Get over yourself and your knowledge of WP policies. No one is impressed. Timneu22 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber's disruptive opposes on RfAs[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is boring. We have been here before and nothing is going to happen. Just ignore Kurt's comments and leave it to the 'crats to decide whether to count it. Noone has ever failed an RFA because of Kurt's vote. There is no admin action required here so we can all move on. Spartaz Humbug! 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber (Kurt Weber) is posting disruptive opposes on RfAs, especially if a candidate's RfA is a self-nominated RfA or if a candidate had more than 3 RfAs. This is what he usually posts as an oppose vote:

I view self-nominating as prima facie evidence of power-hunger.

And today, he posted this oppose on an RfA today. I feel that Kurt's opposes are being disruptive and needs to stop so that candidates would have a peaceful time on their RfA. This has been an issue since last June. Users do have the right to nominate themself for adminship and/or have 5+ RfAs within a year, as long as they are ready. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, you're allowed to oppose for any reason and his isn't the worst one I've seen someone oppose for. I don't see how it's disruptive. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of background reading for this. Hopefully someone will provide some links. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with his posts myself, but this has ben brought here countless times and everytime it's "he can do what he wants" and it'll just be the same result this time. Wizardman 01:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Kurt has the right to comment on all RfAs. He's only trying to help. Unlike you, he believes that self-noms and multiple attempts aren't a good thing. That's his opinion, and although I personally disagree, I'm fine with it. Maxim(talk) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Have candidates ever had a peaceful time on their RfA's? Maybe back in the dim and distant past possibly, but these days RfA's are a Wikipedia's equivalent of bear-baiting. Polly (Parrot) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Some RfA's are relatively peaceful. It seems like we get at least a couple of new admins every month who received zero oppose or neutral votes. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec X 3) This has been through forum after forum, and I don't think there's ever been consensus that what he's doing is unacceptable. I think most people believe that his reasons are silly (myself included, for the most part, although standing for adminship every two months does begin to look a little like power hunger after a while). I think most bureaucrats also think that the reasons are silly, and give them appropriate weight when closing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither is there consensus that it is acceptable. The issues that prevent a resolution of all this are Kurt's reluctance to modify his behavior in light of criticism and a cadre of other editors who are willing to excuse the disruption Kurt causes in the name of a non-existent "right" to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the RFC filed on the subject [22]. It's also come up several times since, a current section is on RFA talk at the moment I believe. RxS (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course anyone has the right to state their opinion, but I just find Kurt's oppose comment questionable. And of course, I have seen more disruptive oppose votes than Kurt's, such as the incident where a bot was trying to oppose all active RfAs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"Of course" the only rights on Wikipedia are the right to fork and the right to leave. It's somewhat surprising that behavior that results in numerous RFCs and discussion on ANI isn't treated as simple disruption, per the duck test. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh. We've been through this: people have from time to time disrupted the encyclopedia because they didn't like Kurt's perfectly acceptable behavior and weren't happy with (or at times aware of) the community consensus about it. Those people should knock it off... But treating acceptable behavior as disruption just because some other people have disrupted the encyclopedia with their behavior...well...ok, so there were these two animals. One was quacking and flapping, making a racket and flinging feathers everywhere. The other was just standing there, picking up twigs with his trunk. A man came by, noticed the quacking and flapping and asked "are you a duck?" The quacker said "not me -- it's him. I'm afraid he's going to step on me, so that made me quack and flap around. That elephant is causing the quacking, he's the one really behind it, so he must be the duck." Meh. --TheOtherBob 05:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on the issue at hand (Kurt's opposes), noone is entitled to a peaceful RFA. We've had too many problems with admins in recent times (Archtransit, anyon?), so every potential admin needs to be scrutinized, as well as every current admin as far as I'm concerned. AecisBrievenbus 01:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The only disruption I see is that candidates won't be able to finish with zero opposes. When I nominated, a guy also suddenly started putting opposes because he did not know the candidate (not only to me, but to all the nominations that were there at the time). The important thing is understanding what the opposes truly mean. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, you're allowed to oppose for any reason... - Well, no, as even a moment's thought should have told you. And I'd say that accusing someone of being power-hungry on the rather specious grounds that someone actually wants a job is, in fact, a personal attack on an editor intended to poison the well. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Calton. I still remember this incident from last December. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And in the RFC, 27 people expressed the view that the diff you cite was not a personal attack (including at least one who supported blocking Kurt for his other opposes). So, you know, what's your point? --TheOtherBob 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And given that TPH didn't even nominate himself this time, Kurt is being even more bogus than usual. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Being that NPAs aren't allowed anywhere, I didn't consider it in my statement. My apologies for not being clearer. Since I didn't say it before, I will now, I don't agree with his opposes. I feel the more he makes these kinds of opposes, the less weight they should given. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose votes are personal attacks if you stretch the meaning of a personal attack far enough -- by opposing someone you necessarily attack their personal fitness for a job. But that batters WP:NPA beyond any reasonable definition, particularly in the context of an RFA. --TheOtherBob 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
True: but that generic statement has bugger-all to to do with the subject at hand, since we're talking about a SPECIFIC statement he made. Better strawmen, please. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh. The above general statement applies to this specific situation -- and you've not even made a half-hearted attempt at showing otherwise. (You do realize, don't you, that the difference between a general statement and a strawman is that a general statement is designed to apply to all situations of a given type, including the particular one at issue, whereas a strawman statement applies to a different situation and not to the one at issue?) In any event, I'll make the last connection for you: Kurt's opposes are "attacks" on the personal fitness of someone to do a job. Nonetheless, they're not personal attacks (unless we do the sort of gymnastics described above). --TheOtherBob 06:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Kurt is free to oppose all self-noms as he wishes. Equally, so, are the closing bureaucrats free to completely ignore Kurt’s comments. —Travistalk 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, another one of these threads. Kurt's opposes aren't, themselves, annoying. Routine, yes. Predictable, yes. Of questionable usefulness, perhaps. But what's annoying is the screeching brouhaha that occasionally follows. Are the words "I view all self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power-hunger" so upsetting to read as to necessitate this tired old bickering? I don't find it fair to take them as prompts to get into these disruptive "debates" (and I use the word very loosely), then turn around and tell Kurt to stop because he's being disruptive. Kurt is a human being (even if his RfA voting could probably be handled by a bot), and as a token of his humanity, I think he and his votes should be afforded respect. Yes, I'm well aware of his own RfA self-nom - I think it would still be wise to assume good faith, and be thankful that he's not using his viewpoint as the impeteus for a dishonest, ridiculous oppose like "Mainspace contribs this month / Wikipedia:Talk contribs last month + 2 (Portal: contribs last year) is less than 4.9". As far as the "feelings" issue is concerned, I think a potential admin - anyone, really, for that matter - should be prepared to confront a simply-put, few-words-minced rationale, and deal with it as a mature human being, rather than racing to pound "bracket-bracket WPcolonNPA bracket-bracket" into the edit box. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has been posting identical, copy-pasted opposes on RfAs, and many users have been complaining about this issue for months already. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
...And, it would appear that there is no consensus for community action on the matter. Kurt is not a sockpuppet, nor a user evading a block, nor is he in any way directly questioning the morals, wisdom, or personal habits of the nominees, so all of the typical reasons for striking comments at RfA do not apply. I concur that RfA is stressful enough for the nominee without an oppose such as this, but we can't strike this oppose without striking others for similar grounds (No, I have no examples). It's a slippery slope - if one oppose can be objectionable because of the opinion of the editor, then others could as well. Not good. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
When a user opposes someone at an RfA, isn't it good to give examples and diffs? He gives nothing to back up the statement except that it is his opinion that a user is power hungry because they nominated themselves for adminship. Seems like a point to me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Examples and diffs themselves aren't what's good - what's good is to illustrate the point you're trying to make in your support/oppose ratonale. Examples and diffs are just the route to illustration. If the point being made is self-illustrative (in this case, by the nomination statement itself), then diffs are rather redundant. I guess if Kurt wanted to add a bit of pizazz, he could !pipe "self nomination" to a diff of the nomination. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GET OVER IT. It's been said time and time again that he can oppose if he wants to. Rather than whining about, STOP REPLYING TO HIM and STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. The only disruption is you people bitching everywhere. John Reaves 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that Kurt's opposes are un-helpful he has a right to his opinion (how ever flawed it may be), but with the being said for the most part I do not feel that his opposes accurately reflect the candidate and give them no constructive feedback on how to improve. I think for the most part the crats look right over oppose of this type an weigh very lightly in the overall outcome of an RfA, so honestly does it really matter? Tiptoety talk 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Above there is a claim, repeated, that Kurt's comment is a personal attack on the candidate. That's not correct. It's a statement of fact, according to his opinion. It is not personal. I'd urge reading it carefully, it's obvious that many have not: "I view self-nominating as prima facie evidence of power-hunger." Prima facie evidence means a piece of evidence that is considered controlling if there is no contrary evidence. Now, the fact is that there is long history behind the proposition that someone who seeks office is therefore disqualified (due, indeed, to power hunger, and I can trace this back over a thousand years). He didn't make this up, at least not for the first time. Further, there is a very troubling aspect to this. We have open "voting." Under those conditions, it's crucial that votes be free. Voting is not an excuse for vicious personal attack, but highly critical comment in RfAs is not considered personal attack. By standing for the bit, one is essentially inviting community comment. And a level of criticism is allowed, including assumptions of bad faith, that would be intolerable in other contexts. What would we think if I had filed, during or after my RfA, an RfC or AN/I report on "personal attacks" during it? As to making canned comments, at least one voter in my RfA simply pointed to his standards, N edits etc. Was that illegitimate? I think not. He had that right. Kurt's comment, as a "personal attack" is certainly mild, but it is not even personal, and it is explicitly stated that way. And if he applies it wrongly, we are also allowed to make mistakes in voting. To hold otherwise is to chill the process.--Abd (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not correct. It's a statement of fact, according to his opinion. That's the most ridiculous piece of wikilawyering I've heard all week. Try typing "You are an utter moron: that's not an attack, that's merely my opinion" on a Talk page and see how far that bit of rationalization gets you. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh. Calling this wikilawyering because it's phrased confusingly to you is just totally missing the point. The point is that it's a factual statement regarding Kurt's opinion - and so it is. Your third sentence is entirely a non-sequitur -- yes, if someone was rude or crass in an oppose, it'd be bad. No one's doing that. But if someone'd be bad. --TheOtherBob 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now, let's look at WP:IAR. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Everyone agrees that Kurt's opposes are annoying. Certainly the periodic debates about them are unpleasant and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. And as I've pointed out in the past, it is disrespectful to the community to continue to express, over and over, sometimes falsely, always without willing to reconsider, something which obviously drives a sizeable portion of the community batshit insane. One does not get a pass to be disruptive (oh yes, K. Weber is disruptive, where else do these threads come from) just because the community is at a loss at how or if to proceed. Yes users are allowed to express their opinions on RfA but this is equivalent to holding your finger in front of a sore spot (RfA) and saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you,..." People are not going to stop being upset by this and since we all (b'crats, at least) acknowledge that the opinion is useless, someone should give him a stern "Knock it off." RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules to overrule a sizable majority of the community...well, I don't think that's what IAR is about. Sure, sometimes this stuff drives people to disruption...sad to say, but people who don't get their way have a tendency to rachet things up until they do. Here people aren't driven batshit insane -- they go batshit insane, and Kurt gets the blame. They should bloody well stop doing that. Kurt's opinions are wrong (in my view) but they're also honest, and I believe they're far from "useless" or "disrespectful." I believe he's not making them to piss anyone off, but rather as part of an honest attempt to convince people to fundamentally change the way they approach adminship -- and the fundamental change he seems to be aiming for (electing admins who treat adminship as a job rather than as a higher or more powerful class of editors)...well, I've got to say that I could agree with it. Silencing that to prevent others from taking offense would be regrettable, and I think by now it's clear that it'd be contrary to consensus. --TheOtherBob 05:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Everyone agrees that Kurt's opposes are annoying.". No. Please be careful when you claim to speak for "everyone". --Badger Drink (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Another case of Wikipedia:Just drop it. (Although I say that not to criticize either side, but simply to point out an interesting essay applicable to such subjects.) SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before; I'll say it again: It is completely disingenuous to claim that I am responsible for the choice of others to overreact to my wholly legitimate actions. It's like blaming the Giants for New England fans rioting in anger after the Super Bowl. RyanGerbil, some of your claims are just flat-out wrong (notice I'm not calling them "lies"--I'm sure you're just honestly mistaken). For your claim that I have ever made an RfA oppose based on false claims, I challenge you to provide a diff; as for your assertion that I am totally unwilling to reconsider, well, I'm amazed at your mindreading ability. Reconsidering a position does not always result in changing one's mind, if one finds the new arguments presented insufficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a general comment, but there seems to be a recent proliferation of threads that amount to little more that "I don't like what this person is saying, so it's disruptive." So far, in these kinds of threads, no evidence is being presented of incivility, disruption of normal process, derailing of discussions or anything else remotely actionable. People have opinions. Other people may not like those opinions. However, that doesn't make those opinions a sanctionable offense. In all cases, if an opinion expressed is truly unreasonable or unjustified (not making comment on Kurt's contributions), we expect the sysops and 'crats to take that into consideration when closing discussions. "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Vassyana (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, herein lies the very essence of disruption, as it's meant when applied to polls such as WP:RFA (as opposed to disruption in the mainspace, which is covered by WP:DE). You're disrupting the majority's efforts to confine the debate to the decisionmaking criteria they feel the outcome should be based on. SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not how wikis in general, or Wikipedia in particular, work. We are not constrained in our opinions to those the majority feels are the correct criteria. If our criteria are erroneous based on the general consensus of the community (which is not a simple majority-rules determination), it is expected that sysops and 'crats will use the discretion afforded to them by the community to discount such expressed opinions. At worst, the dissenting opinions may be distasteful, but there's certainly nothing disruptive about them. Vassyana (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This keeps coming up, and I don't believe I've voiced an opinion on it before, so here goes. I think it's foolish and goes against long-standing traditions to oppose for such a reason, but I don't see what the Big Deal is. Has an oppose of this nature ever caused a swarm of bees to descend? Has it ever decided an RfA one way or the other? Do they sway the bcrats? Are they weighted as heavily as other opposition might be, say for issues like prior blocks, abusive sockpuppetry, or lack of policy knowledge? Are people so easily upset by a perfectly tame but iffy statement really going to be stable as admins, when dealing with out-and-out trolls or openly malicious harassment? Are we so opposed to a free exchange of ideas that RfA comments should be limited to Approved Opinions Only? Are we going to ban a dedicated, four-year user from participating in RfA (in apparently good faith!) for the terrible crime of expressing the Wrong Sentiment a few times? We don't have a policy that forbids people from embarassing themselves. There's a reason we don't have an established procedure to ban opinions from RfA. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What Luna said. + me, R. Baley (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What Luna said. + me too. Non-issue not requiring admin attention. Let's move along. Pedro :  Chat  09:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Attack page?[edit]

[23]. Is this page compliant with WP:ATP? Anyone? I deleted it, and it was quickly restored. What is the prevailing opinion on pages like this, especially in light of the fact that policy strictly and clearly forbids them... 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[24] second one? 04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The first seems to be tongue-in-cheek. The second seems to have nothing really 'attacking' anyone, other than one-word descriptions of their actions. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree. "Attack page" seems like an overly strong description. That said, I don't love the idea behind them, but that's more my opinion than some distillation of policy. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this considered an attack page? I guess I'm supposed to feel honored to be on the list. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing series of edits from IP and user[edit]

Could someone please compare the edits from these two:

Specifically this sequence of events:

  1. IP makes these edits [25] [26] [27] out of the blue, apropos of nothing.
  2. I block the IP as an obvious sock/harassment/troll
  3. Wilhelminia Will makes this edit: [28] to the talk page of the IP immediately after I block it. Um, is there something up here, or am I going paranoid? 05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently writing a SSP report for a whole list of names and IPs. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep us posted... 05:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This user and I have no connections, other than that they seemed frustrated because they weren't acknowledged as having down syndrome, so I thought I'd show them some pity, to make them feel better. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewishfanofnsblackmetal (talk · contribs)[edit]


User appears to be a single-purpose account created to "correct npov" on Blood libel against Jews, which then went rogue and started reverting all edits it came across on Recent changes (see contribs). -- Kéiryn talk 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and all his edits reverted. 05:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request declined. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 06:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You're a real cleaver, Jeske! I always knew you were actually a knife used for cutting meat. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed to stop harassing vandalism[edit]

I semi-protected my talk page and user page to stop this, but could someone look into a potential rangeblock (short term perhaps) against 217.20.127.XXX to shut him up? Consider these two:

For the record, I have no idea who this is, but its likely someone whose username I blocked recently, and has decided to be a pain... 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. This has spread outside the range. See (talk · contribs). Eh. Just keep your eyes open to see where he goes next. I have protected my user page and talk page... But I am sure he will find somewhere else to strike. 06:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Both of the 217.* ranges have the same WHOIS information as (talk · contribs) (already mentioned a topic or two above this one). The 123.* range however does not. Certainly the same user however. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figgered out who this was a few minutes ago. Anyone who blocked or responded to the first IP should probably keep an eye out for problems... 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a report. It's long and tedious to read, but it was the best I could do. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wilhelmina Will AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh let me rest! This is anti-feminism, is what it is. You are merely making up impossible stories of sockpuppetry because I admit to being female, and you have qualms with women editing Wikipedia! And if that's not correct, then I give up. Administrators, do away with me as you will. But you'll be no better than the English when they burned Jeanne D'Arc for witchcraft, of which she was completely innocent! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free rest, little Wilhelmina. Long cozy rest. Note two threads "Attack page" and "Confusing series of edits from IP and user" above also suggest User:Wilhelmina Will needs rest. Go ahead! bishzilla ROARR!! 11:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

Bad licenses[edit]

What's the right thing to do when a user has uploaded lots of images with no sources or bad licenses? I've been talking with User:Mrprada911...I found a script to tag the images with, but it leaves a talk page message for each and every image tagged, which seems kind of rude. Is there some other procedure to follow to make sure all the images get marked, other than manually typing in the templates? Nesodak (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is within policy; you notify him of every image that you have issues with. As for what to do with this user, the only way to prevent uploads is by blocking the account. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Make sure you warn the user personally about Wikipedia's copyright rules to prevent further image tags. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to use a non-automated process and consolidate the messages so as to not fill up the talk page (one extreme example of what not to do ;o)). --Iamunknown 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
When faced with this in the past, I've left one template for the editor, then underneath added "Additionally, the above message applies to:" and put a bulleted list of the image names (*[[:Image Name Here.jpg]]) underneath. That stops the death-by-template thing, but also makes clear the scale of the problem. It has to be done manually, but tabbed browsing and Notepad make it go quick. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 09:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible mistaken identity[edit]

See User talk:Shonali2000. If you are familiar with the editing patterns of the blocked user:Vr you may be able to help. I have no opinion either way, this is not quite the usual "my room-mate" claim. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented there, but I prefer letting someone with an OTRS access review the block. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


The User: kept adding in "original research" into articles, reverting them to what s/he had written. It looks like simple cases of 3RR at first, but by detailling into the edits, it is easy to found that the user majority of edits are like the ones s/he did in Strike Gundam, in which s/he kept adding a totally incorrect sentence into the article, claiming things that could not be found in any official sources, like stating the mecha Strike Freedom is made by scrap parts of the mecha Strike Gundam and Freedom Gundam which the official sources stated specifically that the unit is newly built. In Lacus Clyne, the user kept changing the article with a POV statement, without any will of trying to communicate to other users other than in the edit comment, eventhough s/he had been reverted by at least 3 other users. In which the Shuffle! article, it could be clearly seen that the user simply removed sourced material along with the source when the material does not suit his/her taste. That user basically add in self-created material and removes sourced ones. As to my knowledge, User:Silver Edge is a persom of few words and contribute to wikipedia with great responsibility, and this IP user actually made him concern enough to warn and ask for help in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam. MythSearchertalk 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult communication with User:PelasgicMoon[edit]

User:PelasgicMoon for a few days now tries to push an entry about Illyrians as ancestors of Albanians, providing a source from Britannica here. I reverted his entry because it was irrelevant to the article and furthermore because a simple comparison between his entry and the source he is providing, allow us to assume that he is just trying to push his POV in Wikipedia. Because "A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians" is one thing and "the modern Albanian language to be descended from Illyrian" is a completely different thing... He didn’t like that, so he requested for arbitration here where he got rejected and then here, where he got rejected as well. Today he added the same entry here. Will someone explain to this guy?? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

However, it's not a straightforward case of original research. User:PelasgicMoon does have several other sources (e.g. [29]) which do indeed say that the Illyrians are considered by some historians - or most, depending on the source - to be the ancestors of modern Albanians. This sounds like a good case for our dispute resolution process. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Page miss match[edit] and

Display different information even thou it's the same page! Any Ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I see the same page, personally. That's probably a cache update problem, and should be corrected now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Next time you may wish to go to the Technical pump for such issues :) -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User Viridae violating WP:CANVASS[edit]

It would appear that Viridae is violating Wikipedia's policies on canvassing to influence the outcome of a deletion review. See the edits here and here. Bongout (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really canvassing, he's just notifying 2 people that will likely want to comment. John Reaves 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
He solicited the opinion of someone he knew would be in agreement with him: "...because you are the person most likely to get the deletion reason, something that sails far above the heads of many others." Further action needs to be taken against Viridae for his highly inappropriate unilateral conduct because there was ongoing discussion, and he chose to dismiss all of it of his own accord. RTFA (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
He's cherry-picking people he knows will likely want to comment in favour of his position, something that is made very clear by those edits. Bongout (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It may not be entirely appropriate, but it certainly doesn't require sanctions. John Reaves 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this is a good interpretation of Canvas and Durova and Doc glasgow's views are indeed to be hoped for in such a DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 18 March 2008 (
This may be the case, but the guideline clearly states Always keep the message neutral and Viridae's message to Doc glasgow clearly violated this. It also states Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view and Durova has very well known views on BLPs. Bongout (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Contacting two users isn't canvassing, and is perfectly appropriate. It's especially appropriate for an issue such as this, where there is certain to be a prolonged discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh pull the other one. Durova had already discussed the article in question and possible deletions of it. Doc is the most clued in person on the project BLP wise, even if I don't always agree with him and is likely to want to be involved in an issue such as this. ViridaeTalk 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)::I agree with Squeakbox, CBM and John Reaves. Carefully reading WP:CANVASS reveals that there are only very slim arguments that could be made for a violation by Viridae. The scale was definitely limited. Votestacking, per WP:CANVASS, involves mass talk messages - these were two individually worded messages (one was simply "Heads up, D"). One could make an argument that the first one was not neutral - although no effort was made to TELL Doc to vote one way or the other. Was he campaigning? Well, again, the policy paints a gray area on this one - you have to take scale into account. Here, it was only two people. Was this action completely appropriate? Possibly not. Are there any warranted sanctions (or really, any warranted actions at all)? Not in my opinion. Although that last addition by Viridae wasn't exactly mature. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Doc is often involved in deletion reviews and it appears that Durova was involved with this article previously. So, not canvassing. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It is canvassing because the message was clearly not worded neutrally and it was an obvious attempt to sway consensus. Bongout (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No one agrees with you, nothing is going to happen, so just drop it. John Reaves 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There are well-respected people who agree with me, both in this section and in the deletion review. Bongout (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
At the present, the only person in this section who has agreed with you is RTFA, a sockpuppet. If Viridae's talk page messages violated WP:CANVASS, the problem is with the canvassing document rather than with the actions. In particular, there is no reason that every talk page message has to be neutrally phrased. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not my contention that every talk page message need be worded neutrally. Also, while RTFA is a sockpuppet, as explained here, this they are a well-established user in good standing merely attempting to separate edits on subjects. This isn't a violation of policy, of trust, or of anything else.Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Not even every message that tells someone else you want them to support you in an AFD or DRV. Your responses here seem to alternate between wikilawyering over the wording of CANVASS and wikilawyering over the manner in which others respond to you. I think I'll take John's advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If WP:CANVASS were to prevent wise folks like Durova or DocG from commenting anywhere, I'd say there was a bit of a problem. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they be prevented from commenting. ;-) Bongout (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec. *2) ... okay... so what are you suggesting? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (ec)
That Viridae be prevented from consensus canvassing. Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Which would mean that you are opposed to Durova and DocG having been contacted, (as that is canvassing, according to you) correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, is it just me, or do several folks consider BLP to override all else? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's because it does, IMO. It's our most important content policy, because it takes all the other content policies we have and distills them down for a single issue where it is vitally important that we not screw up: the lives and reputations of living people. FCYTravis (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
When used correctly, it should. John Reaves 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say that both Doc G and Durova's input generally substantially improves the quality of discussion in any BLP matter. FCYTravis (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Which anyone would think who is generally in favor of deletion. The bottom line is that anyone paying attention to BLP-penumbra issues at all knows exactly how Doc would respond and know how Durova would likely respond as well. At best, this Viridae should have ealized that this looked bad. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine. I move that Bongout be censured for violation of WP:AGF. Jtrainor (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's as blatantly absurd as Bongout's idea that this was canvassing. I suggest that this section's discussion be closed as it's just rehashing now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Censured? We can do that? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
See, it would be a proof-by-counterexample sort of thing. We would show that Assuming Good Faith is important by failing ourselves to do it for him, and letting him know how it feels. Disputes can be kept alive for years that way, if you're dedicated enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And that, of course, would be a textbook example of disruption to make a point <GRIN> --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) You wouldn't believe how many people get WP:POINT wrong. Basically, if you're not grinning from ear to ear at the sheer creative audacity of it all, even while preparing to click the block button... it probably wasn't a WP:POINT violation. ;-)

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but there already was a related discussion on Durova's talk page when Viridae left a message. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is kinda sorta why I left her a message. Ned You have a great skill in pointing out the obvious sometimes when other people have been entirely oblivious to it. Keep it up. ViridaeTalk 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Ned nails it. I was already considering nominating that article myself. Don Murphy falls within my standing offer for courtesy BLP nomination. Viridae followed up on the active discussion to mention he'd already taken action. I've got some concerns about his decisions today on a process level, but canvassing isn't one of those concerns. DurovaCharge! 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at the last AfD which I initiated. It's pretty clear that simply deleting the article is not considered acceptable by large numbers of people. Where is the on-wiki discussion prior to this deletion? Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If he called to view the discussion 2 people he knew would have a similar desired outcome for it to him, he should have also asked a couple of people he knew to be on the other side of the debate, otherwise it does risk skewing it. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That has got to be the silliest suggestion I've heard in a long, long time. I suppose patrollers should go ask random vandals to place {{hangon}} tags on speediable articles to avoid "skewing the debate"? There is a vast gulf between canvassing and notifying two people of some debate, and even hinting at conflating the two is to be, at best, completely disingenuous. — Coren (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hanlon's razor - I'll bet it's ingenuous. (No offense, Merkinsmum - I think you're mistaken, but that doesn't at all mean stupid.) Only Merkinsmum knows for sure.

We discourage canvassing because it encourages the ideas that we are voting, and that "getting out the vote" somehow makes sense as a "strategy". It's harmful when busloads of people show up to "register a vote" because it obscures what's really going on, and it encourages complaints from people who thought they won the "vote". Alerting a person with applicable knowledge doesn't turn it into a numbers game; it helps keep the focus right where it should be: on content and policy.

If you wish to argue that Viridae "violated" some policy (how legalistic!), you'll have to explain how it was harmful, what he did. Even then, the appropirate remedy would be to fix the problem, not to censure Viridae. Remember, this isn't court. Did Viridae hurt the project? If so, how? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about by deleting an article which had survived two AfDs by a substantial margin, reportedly at the request of a banned user at a troll site, without any on-wiki discussion? I mean, they really don't come a lot more rouge than me, and even I wouldn't have deleted this one, I took it to AfD. And I was one of the ones attacked by Murphy and his goons, including having him phone my wife at home. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well sure, that sounds like something that ought to be looked at carefully, which is why there's a DRV discussion, right? I was responding to the complaint that he "canvassed" for the DRV. If leaving notes on those two talk pages hurt the project, then I can see a cause for concern, but if someone's simply hung up on the wording of WP:CANVASS versus the spirit, then I was trying to point out that they're different things. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Except that the banned user is the subject of the article... ViridaeTalk 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a window for administrator action here, so on what basis does this conversation continue? It was two active editors, one an admin, notified about a discussion that one was already tangentially involved in. Time to move on. Avruch T 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:John Reaves just inspired me to write this essay. Just FYI. Equazcion /C 00:14, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I move that Viridae be congratulated for anti-canvassing. Canvassing is attempting to get numbers on your side, regardless of the merit of arguments. Durova was contacted because Viridae felt she was "the person most likely to get (i.e. understand) the deletion reason" - in other words, based on of the arguments that she would bring to the DRV. Viridae made a request for quality, not quantity. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are supported back-channels for article subjects to discuss their articles. They can email arbcom or OTRS - Murphy knows these back channels and has been in email contact with admins and Jimbo, his last email to Jimbo was a couple of days ago. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? -- Naerii 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As stated. If Murphy wants to address article content he can do it via supported backchannels. He has direct email addresses for enough people, and his name is enough to ensure prompt attention given past issues. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see how that is related to the previous conversation about Viridae's alleged canvessing. I feel like I missed something :( Never mind. -- Naerii 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I really think this is no harm, no foul. I disagree sharply on this issue from Viridae, but she did no more than many do on and off wiki. It's implausible that the two eds. wouldn't have seen this DRV, whether she notified them or not, and what she posted can't have actually affected the course of the discussion. DGG (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If I invite some people to a debate who have previously had the same view as me, I also invite one or two who had shown the other opinion in the past. This is a discussion which had come up before, so it would be known who would have which view. If you only invite those on one side of the fence, especially about a subject many people will watch, you do run the risk of being accused of WP:CANVASS. That's just an obvious risk as can be seen by this discussion being started. It's a matter of the perception of canvassing, regardless of whether it's intentional. I don't see what's so barking about that. But I don't know if it needed putting here, unless he has been notified on his talk page of your perception and has refused to correct it. special, random, Merkinsmum 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock User:CreepyCrawly[edit]

CreepyCrawly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

CreepyCrawly registered his account in November 2006 and made one edit. Since then, he claims he has edited anonymously. He logged in on March 15 in order to bypass semiprotection on the global warming article. He made a few edits disputing the notion that the global warming trend is agreed upon by the "overwhelming majority" of scientists, and was quickly drawn into a brief revert cycle and a talk page discussion. That same day, Raul654 blocked him indefinitely as a probable sockpuppet of the banned user and prolific sockpuppeteer User:Scibaby. Since then, he has made three unblock requests, all declined, and Raul654 has tried to rebuff arguments I've made in CreepyCrawly's defense. I have agreed to advocate for CreepyCrawly, and he has agreed to allow me to argue on his behalf. Since Raul654 did not unblock after I appealed to him, my next recourse is to this noticeboard.

Raul654 has reported that checkuser does not link CreepyCrawly to Scibaby's socks, but on the other hand, Scibaby has been using anonymous proxies. The upshot is that checkuser can't help us here. We're left with the duck test.

I've noticed differences in the writing style between CreepyCrawly and Scibaby: compare edit summaries to global warming and you will notice a difference in tone. CreepyCrawly seems familiar with some policies and guidelines, but that is understandable for someone who has been editing for more than a year, and he has written that he read talk page discussions and policy pages. The arbitration committee has ruled unequivocally that familiarity with policy as a newbie does not indicate that a new user is a sockpuppet of anybody. Remember what happened to User:!!, who was blocked for just 75 minutes? CreepyCrawly has been blocked for three days, and he's still waiting to be proven innocent.

I've assembled as much evidence as I can on my user subpage: User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly. Please read it, along with User talk:CreepyCrawly, and draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia:Assume good faith means, at a bare minimum, that we assume users are innocent until proven guilty. I believe that CreepyCrawly is innocent. If I could, I would unblock him myself. But I can't. Someone needs to step up and do the right thing.

Let me note, in passing, that I commend Raul654 for responding so aggressively to Scibaby's numerous disruptive sockpuppets. Without him, anarchy would have engulfed Wikipedia's coverage of global warming long ago. Nevertheless, if Raul654 continues to believe that CreepyCrawly is a sockpuppet, than someone else needs to come forward, undo the block, and state unequivocally that CreepyCrawly is unrelated to Scibaby.

Someone please do me a favor and let Raul654 know about this discussion. I'll be going to sleep now, and I won't see how people respond until tomorrow. Shalom (HelloPeace) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't find the duck test persuasive here. Is the I.P. that CreepyCrawly is agreed to have used - - an open proxy? If not, is it geographically related to Scibaby's non-open proxy I.P.s? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if he is a sock of SciBaby, but I'm convinced that he is one of a group of POV-pushing sock or meat puppets. Compare Special:Contributions/CreepyCrawly, Special:Contributions/Spamsham, Special:Contributions/Grecian_Formula, Special:Contributions/Sword_and_Shield. I also have my doubts about his story - his IP address has been stable as far as checkuser can make out, but there are only two edits by the IP address. Where is that long list of non-logged-in edits that lead to him being so familiar with Wikipedia rules and jargon? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether CreepyCrawly used the same I.P. throughout. Do we not have any record of Scibaby's non-proxy I.P.s? Also, I certainly agree that the last three of those four are socks of one another, but I don't see the similarity between them and CreepyCrawly. Also, I agree that CreepyCrawly's attitude towards all of this doesn't look promising, but unless we're pretty sure of sockpuppetry, let's give him sufficient rope for a self-hanging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if it's coincidence or what, but User:Creepy_Crawler may be of interest to this discussion. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a coincidence. I don't see any relationship at all. And there was User:Kreepy_krawly, a very strange case who also was apparently unrelated. (Is there a cartoon character or something that all these folks are named after?) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No clue... just seemed possible. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do editors besides Mr. Schulz and me have opinions on whether or not this meets the duck test? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I applied the Obedium-test and it came back positive (you know, like the turing test...jk) What really does it is the excitement about getting his ip snooped. Lets not forget that checkuser cannot be used to prove innocence because of proxies, and to me, its a red flag big time. Now, creepy's familiarity with sock procedure could have come about during the claimed anon editing period, but it is very unlikely that it would have come if he was a casual editor as opposed to an editor who works on a set of articles constantly (thats how you get the drama.) At least in my experience, I did not become familiar with this sort of thing until I became more of a project worker (Nicaragua, GW.) Finally, how did he know that Raul ("your friend") was going to snoop the IP? In this thread he seems to know who the checkuser is even before anything went down. Raul did a good job on creepy's page on showing some evidence, on the mean time, I will see if I can match a diff 100% to a prior sock. Brusegadi (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do I believe Creepy Crawly's story? No. I've heard variations on the same so many times that it simply rings hollow. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

None of you have addressed the fundamental question, which is, very simply:

Is CreepyCrawly the same person as Scibaby, or acting on his behalf?

I have gone to great lengths to prove that the answer is no. Scibaby was not creating sleeper accounts to use in the global warming debate until October 2007, whereas this account was created in November 2006. At that time, Scibaby had only about four accounts, and he was using them to edit nanotechnology and a few other articles unrelated to Talk:Civilian control of the military. Scibaby's modus operandi has been, since December 2007, to create numerous sockpuppets, age them past the four-day limit when needed, and attack the global warming articles. I've documented this trend in painstaking detail. He has not used any "sleepers" from 2006, and I have no reason to believe that CreepyCrawly is the first.

I've also noted that I believe CreepyCrawly's edits to global warming are fundamentally different in style and tone than those of Scibaby's socks, even if their content is similar. I have news for you folks: there's more than one person in the educated world who disagrees with the statement that global warming is agreed upon by an "overwhelming majority" of scientists. Sharing that POV doesn't make you an automatic sockpuppet of Scibaby, even if the last 40-odd user accounts who shared that POV happened to be sockpuppets of Scibaby. I will remind you again that Scibaby socks, in addition to being recently created sleeper accounts (0 to 2 weeks between account creation and first edit, not 60+ weeks), almost universally quit and do not appeal their blocks, certainly not as strenuously as CreepyCrawly has done. For all these reasons and more, I believe that CreepyCrawly is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, or any other kind of puppet, of Scibaby. The indefinite block was made solely on the premise that CreepyCrawly was a "probable Scibaby sockpuppet." Since I have placed this premise in very severe doubt, I do not endorse the block, and I believe that any admin who reviews all the facts of this case is duty-bound to unblock in accordance with established policy.

Some of you are suggesting that CreepyCrawly must be a "meatpuppet." Let me make two points here. First, that's not the reason he was blocked, and it's an invalid rationale for maintaining the block. Second, let me tell you what a meatpuppet really is. A meatpuppet is some jerk who agrees with some other jerk who has the temerity to disagree with you. I don't wish to alarm you folks, but we've basically come to the point where no new editor is allowed to edit the global warming article with a minority viewpoint, even if that editor is acting in good faith. That reality is not Scibaby's fault. If this block stands, then that reality is our fault. There's still time to rectify the situation before we need to put up a big notice on top of global warming that warns new editors to go away, as was done to Bogdanov affair.

Let me close by quoting from Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, my local newspaper, and a staunch opponent of the current consensus on global warming:

Why the relentless labeling of those who point out weaknesses in the global-warming models as "deniers," or agents of the "denial machine," or deceptive practitioners of "denialism?" Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? Do Newsweek and Begley really believe that everyone who dissents from the global-warming doomsaying does so in bad faith? [Emphasis added.]

Source: "Hot tempers on Global Warming" by Jeff Jacoby. The Boston Globe, August 15, 2007. Full text

I rest my case. Shalom (HelloPeace) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby/Obedium is smart and adaptable. He has changed tactics several times; there's no reason to believe that he would go forever without appealing a block. All of your other assertions are demonstrably false. Most especially, editors who dispute the present scientific consensus aren't driven off en masse -- we have several who edit the articles. (They don't always get their way, but then nobody does.) Your argument boils down to "this can't be Scibaby because he's never appealed a block before." I find that most unconvincing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't deny that this Creepy made his account about 10 months before Scibaby was here at all, to our knowledge. Suggests strongly to me that they're unrelated. Yes we can discover new tactics from a sock puppetteer- but that's unlikely to happen retroactively. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Creepy's account was created November 19, 2006. Scibaby's first identified sockpuppet (Binkythewonderskull) was registered in March 2006, followed by MRN (March 2006), Adam Newton (April 2006). Slaphappie (July 2006), Obedium (July 2006), Scibaby (September 2006). Given that by that day, he already had 5 sockpuppet accounts, why should it be surprising that he registered a 6th? Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is lost by unblocking Creepy? This discussion has consumed about two days of heated discussion and as near as I can tell done nothing other than entrenching entrenched opinions even deeper. What horror and nightmare would come from unblocking him? What if he did immediately vandalize, or worse, offer an unpopular opinion? Wouldn't it be possible to block him again? Wouldn't it be faster simply to perform and experiment and observe the outcome rather than to argue from fixed positions about the desirability of performing the experiment? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, with justice served. I offer Shalom my sincerest thanks for championing my cause. CreepyCrawly (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, general incivility at MFD - alert the media[edit]

Resolved: MfD closed as delete, no further action needed --Elonka 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles where there seems to be some edit warring and incivility going on.

For the sake of openness, I voted keep, but I have no opinion on the dispute going on here. -- Naerii 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Naerii. Actually, when I asked for help, I had not seen Fredrick day's reversion of his edit. While it could still be seen as uncivil, there is so much incivility around here that I'd be popping up on AN/I several times a day if I reported it all. I simply wanted the facts to be before the !voters and the closer. It is my view that the ArbComm decision on which the MfD was based has been misrepresented, rather badly. It was a carefully crafted decision, and it appears that what ArbComm did has been incorrectly interpreted by some who had been deeply involved in content disputes with PHG. I made no accusations that could remotely be interpreted as "slurs," to my knowledge. I stated sourced facts, and stated opinion as opinion, I have learned something from editing this beast. (I.e., the facts are obvious from the Arbitration and have been, in various places, quoted as well, but the significance of the facts, that it's important to be aware of them before reviewing the contributions in the MfD, is an opinion, not a fact. I'd stand on it, though.) To say that certain editors are, with respect to the MfD, "COI" is specific to that MfD and isn't in any way an accusation of impropriety. Quite simply, though, they are not neutral parties, reviewing the evidence of the ArbComm decision and then the file in question, without prior bias. Contrary to what has been asserted elsewhere, I did not claim that they should not comment, merely that the possible conflict should be disclosed. Clearly, PHG irritated a lot of editors, and nothing about my action here should be taken to condone or approve of that prior behavior. But ArbComm actually and explicitly encouraged PHG to continue to contribute, including contributing to the subject articles through Talk, and this was a relevant fact that was being glossed over; indeed, the contrary was implied in the nomination and first comments. That's prejudicial, and it was apparently accepted by many commentors as true.--Abd (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The only clarification I would make is that I said "you should be blocked" not that I made a threat to block - I'm not an admin, so have no powers in that direction. There is no dispute as far as I'm concerned, I've had my say and will not be editing either that MFD again or communicating with abd. If there is a dispute it's not with me because I'm done. Yes I removed content but then thought better of it and self-reverted. Yes, if an admin wants to block me, they are free to do so - but block should be preventive not punitive and I've already stipulated here that I will not communicate with Abi or further edit that MFD - so the preventation is taken care of on my side. So if there is any future edit warring or incivility on that article - I've left the building so to speak. --Fredrick day 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not bring this to AN/I and I have no plan to pursue a complaint against this editor. Had he not reverted his edit, I might have. Prudent.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
To me the issue here is Abd edit warring and accusing people who revert him of having COIs etc. -- Naerii 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. I don't see edit warring on my part in the diffs above. I see possible edit warring in the second removal of my prefatory material, but I accepted that, specifically desiring to avoid edit warring, and I then saw clear edit warring in the removal of the very careful note inserted to replace it. Which material is still there, in spite of many editors observing it. It was the removal of this very cautious material that was much more clearly edit warring, and it appears the editor realized that and self-reverted. As to "accusing people," Naerii has confused two things: I called the editors who were involved (or adverse) parties in the ArbComm case "COI." Those were not necessarily the same editors as those who reverted me. If anyone is still concerned about this, I'd urge reviewing the history carefully. I was quite careful, myself.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Abd didn't notify people that some of the voters had been in a recent Arb case with PHG, he stated that the editors were continuing a edit war - when it was pointed out that his statement was incorrect, he changed it to read that those editors had conflict of interest. He declined to move the piece himself, so I moved it to talk where he could discuss his conspiracy theories at leisure without disrupting the discussion. Shell babelfish 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I notified people about the ArbComm case involving major commentors and the nominator. Edit warring was only asserted, in Talk, not on the project page, about one editor only. The "COI" edit was long before that. No "conspiracy theory" was involved, no accusations of bad faith or impropriety. Essentially, the above shows that this user did not have the foggiest idea of what was happening, his memory is distorted and very much out of sequence. So new? It's not a crime, however much confusion it may cause.
For convenience, here is the original notice I placed:
It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered furtherance of a content dispute. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate.
I then started to list parties to the Arbitration. Some "content disputes" are "edit wars," but not all, and I did not consider the "COI" parties to be edit warring. I don't think the statement above, my original controversial edit, matches what Shell_Kinney described above as a clarification. Again, so what? No action is being requested by me. However, I'm a bit concerned by what follows.--Abd (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would support a timeout if his disruption resumes. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Second block threat today, it seems. The "disruption" was? (From context, I'd assume that JzG is referring to me.) [sig added from History: --Abd (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008]
No idea, since you didn't sign. But if it's Abd, you have a strange definition of threat. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was me, I'll add a sig. Another user today said -- with regard to this incident -- "you should be blocked," or something like that, and you wrote "I'll support a timeout" which I interpreted as a reference to a block. But the question asked wasn't about me, exactly, it was about what you meant by "if his disruption resumes." What disruption? Any user may be blocked for disruption reasonably foreseen, but it is important to distinguish between disruption and disagreement. Hence, "what disruption" does seem an important question. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Highshines sock[edit]


User:BeautifulSummer is a clear User:Highshines sock. He edits the same articles with the same patterns, but most importantly, he works in coordination with commons:User:Highshines (see [36] vs. [37], [38] vs. [39], etc.). Ask me privately if you wish to know why I have posted here and not at SSP. Please block indef. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the evidence above, I can't see any reason why CheckUser would be necessary. This is blatantly obvious. I've blocked a few of Highshines' socks in the past, and the behavior and article range matches as well. Blocked. Khoikhoi 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's theology lesson[edit]

Resolved: page has been protected

There is a group of churches known as the Churches of Christ. Among other things, some of their members believe that their church tradition has existed in an unbroken line since the first century, and so they are profoundly offended by discussion of their church within a historical context, or as something that has a beginning. Specifically, origins in the Presbyterian church. And so they come, and delete all reference of their church's history from the article. But I'm sort of involved, and have 3 reverts already, so I don't think I ought to revert and semiprotect the article if some uninvolved admin is available to review the sources I added to the discussion on the talk page, and, if they think the sources support that the church does have a historical beginning, take what action seems appropriate to them. Thank you very much. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My nonadmin advice/observations after looking at the history page is 1.)It's disruptive. 2.)It's an edit war. Take a break and warn the anons about WP:3RR and ask them to discuss on the talk page. Then WP:RFC. If that fails, I would ask for semi-protection since the removal of sourced content can be construed as vandalism, although content disputes are not. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Until an administrator can decide appropriate action, I've warned the main anon involved, and added the page to my watchlist to monitor transgressions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the wrong version. People have already been warned, so chat about it on the talkpage. From two seconds of looking at the talk, perhaps it just needs some disambiguation? Regardless, this is a technical response to a social problem, and won't work without someone on the social side. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the only disambig that would assist the IP is an article like The holy truth about how we're right and you're wrong, or The biblically inerrant history of the Churches of Christ, according to the Churches of Christ. They are, upon review, actually arguing their theology as history. This never works out well, and I suspect this could rapidly become the new controversial article, not unlike the Israeli/Palestinian articles, the India/Pakistan, the Scientology, and so on. Facts vs. faith never works great. Unfortunately, no one's willing to let that happen. Like Wisdom, I'll drop it onto my watchlist, but that's only 6 more reverts against another 'true believer'. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you advising making the page semiprotected forever? (Not that I'm arguing against it, I'm just curious.) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Could actually turn out to be necessary; if there's one thing these people have trouble doing, it's letting something go. Kind of ironic, what with them being taught to turn the other cheek and all... HalfShadow (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that all religions have trouble living BOTH sides of the golden rule, in fairness. But yeah, zealotry brings out the semi-protect in all non-zealots of that particular stripe, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If I read the log correctly, Kylu protected the page (and added a protection template), rather than semi-protected it. It seems to me that semi-protection should have been tried first. But I may have missed something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin[edit]

I've had enough of this guy. He constantly wikistalks me, annoys the hell out of me, and is right now RVing my edits on a page when I have an In Use template there, and his ignorance has caused 2 edit conflicts already when I try to make some changes.

He's also RVing a Redirect of a page for a Pilot of a show that doesn't need it's own article (I posted a notice on the talk page that ti should be removed around January, nobody opposed it).

I apologize for the way I've been acting towards him, but he's just annoying the shit out of me.

Please do something. -Karaku (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When another editor reverts you, especially when performing a controversial action such as redirecting an entire page without any discussion, then discussion is the medium to undertake. Naturally, some fault lies with him for continuing the conflict, but you should have stopped immediately and started discussing. Also, simply adding the {{inuse}} template does not give you the right to arbitrarily declare that only you can edit a page - see WP:OWN. If you want to make changes, then make them and if they are reverted or disagreed with, then bring to discussion. However, to be frank, the ability of other editors to discuss with you appears to be limited, as personal attacks ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44]) are not tolerated, and User:The Rogue Penguin even invited you to discuss your changes in several of his edit summaries ([45], [46]). Although, again, he continued the conflict, the frequent incivility in your edit summaries and actions were a natural deterrence to any possible discussion. Please cease your edit warring and move to discussion, or blocks may be appropriate to resolve this situation. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this as these two reached the level of escalation, and left each of them a note. Relevant threads include:
Hope that's helpful to anybody else looking into this. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
While one can argue that TheRoguePenguin has not handled the situation ideally, I think there is a real enforcement problem here. Karaku just recently returned from his fourth block for gross incivility and 3RR violations, and it took him all of twenty minutes of activity to rack up another warning for each violation from a previously-uninvolved editor (see incivility warning and 3RR warning).
Karaku seems to have made some positive contributions in the past (and as it turns out, I happen to agree with him that Garage Kids should probably be a redirect). But I mean, I kinda thought that if you returned from a block and immediately resumed the behavior that resulted in the block, you didn't really get the courtesy of warnings that time around... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A number of people have tried their very utmost to be patient and understanding, and Karaku seems to have ignored useful or helpful advice at every turn. It's unfortunate, but also unsurprising, that this user is currently blocked for one month. We can revisit these issues, at that time. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Derby (event)[edit]

Copyvio of Article has been tagged CSD twice as db-copyvio. Creator keeps removing CSD tag. Claims to have "rewritten" it in their own words but not many words were actually changed. I'm not going to edit war or 3RR over a CSD tag so an admin should have a look. Thanks. - ALLSTAR echo 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And after Shell deleted it, the user has recreated it with same copyvio. - ALLSTAR echo 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The user has now removed the speedy tag twice [47] [48] - in addition to the times he/she removed it before the article was originally deleted. The user claims to have completely rewritten it from scratch, but a simple look at this diff will show that it's little more than a re-arrangement of paragraphs (last half of the "statistics" section grafted onto the end of the lead-in, etc) and a few words changed. Would salting be wise? --Badger Drink (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This just got re-deleted because of the speedy tag, however, when reviewing the article vs the source given, I'm not seeing anything I'd consider a copyvio anymore. Word for word I found one phrase (5 words total) that was the same. There was a great deal in the article that wasn't covered in the source and they were laid out differently. Shell babelfish 04:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless there was a major revision after my tag, the article was still virtually the same. I don't have access to deleted pages, so I'm going by memory, but I definitely remember parts like "Unlike a tournament or fishing rodeo", and "Fishing derbies are excellent family activities and are conducive to participation by the increasing number of single-parent families . . . a fishing derby places emphasis on the individual participants and their exposure to fisheries resources and the sport of fishing." (even more was lifted in the original article, but I'm cutting some out just to save space), and so on. The user re-arranged the structure somewhat, but it was hardly "from scratch", and still a copyvio. Striking my own comment out, as it was nearly wholly incorrect. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: User warned, nothing more enwiki can do about this

personal attack. abf /talk to me/ 11:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you bring a Commons dispute to enwiki in the first place? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Because Jimbo does not listen to his uder-page on commons mostly i told him here. abf /talk to me/ 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please keep commons issues on commons, nothing can be done here, sorry. Igniateff (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but he called some commons sysops 'dunce', and i do not accept that nothing is done only because its claimed as an 'commons issue'. He called us 'dunces' in en, i cant block in commons for it. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
We cant do anything here if the incident happened on commons, use dispute resolution on commons please/. Igniateff (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review our blocking policy. We don't make punitive blocks and you being a commons admin makes no difference. You could have e-mailed Jimbo rather than bring your dispute here. If the admins here are to deal with every off-enwiki dispute that is brought here because you use Jimbo's talk page we wouldn't have time for our own problems. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I come to think of it, the prospect of being banned from a project that purges its language of its finest idiomatic expressions, nevermind their pedigree, seems pretty attractive; especially if the ban comes with such a prefab rebuke reminding me that mine is not to reason why, but to go back to work on the content chain-gang. Please make that indefinite for me, no ice, thanks. --Janneman (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. Marked as resolved since this is generating more heat than light now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kilts Across Canada[edit]

I'd like some independent admins to look into this. Calton marked the page for deletion as spam, and I denied that request from him twice, and he added it again a third time and it was deleted by another admin. I'm not all that concerned about actually restoring the page, but to me it looked like someone describing with addish tones a venture that was personal: the kind of thing we would normally allow on User pages. I'd like feedback on two things. (1) When should we consider user pages spam? People are allowed some leeway on their user pages, and it seems to me that, say, promoting themselves would be okay (within reason) while promoting a company or external venture would not be reasonable. And (2) is Calton's behavior reasonable here? Shouldn't one not re-add a speedy deletion tag when one's own request has been declined? Or at least, not twice? Mangojuicetalk 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a role account, pure and simple, used for promotional purposes and blocked as such. That makes it a) not an individual's account, which violates policy; and b) spam, which violates policy. A simple glance at the edit history of WP:UAA should remove any doubt about both the correctness of tagging obvious spam, the practice of blocking role/spam accounts, and the scale of the problem.
It's fairly obvious, and given that someone disagreed with the logic above by deleting it, I'd say, yeah, adding back a tag correctly placed and removed in violation of applicable policy is perfectly okay. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that "shopping" (not exactly forum-shopping, but it's similar) is perfectly acceptable behavior? Keep trying until you can find someone willing to delete it? —Random832 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Perhaps you should deal with what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up. Works better that way. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Calton -- that is what you did in this instance, and you are saying that you think it's okay. When would you have stopped? If another admin also turned down the request? If two other admins? Never? Mangojuicetalk 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
When would YOU have stopped?: might I point out that you didn't bother waiting for a second opinion yourself, but simply reverted again? (Which makes your claim, shall we say, a little hypocritical?) That you didn't bother to note that the editor had already been blocked for having an inappropriate name? That you didn't follow the obvious and common-sense policy, and when you didn't get your way, you came here to complain about it? My hands are clean, whatever spin you try to put on it or ridiculous strawmen arguments you try to erect.
Spam gets nuked. Spammers get blocked. It's that simple. Passing out "Get Out of Jail Free" cards is against policy and against common sense. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion. I have no beef with wikipedians using thier talk page as a blog or whatever. But when someone comes here without the intention of writing an encylopedia and only to promote themselves in someway I say delete delete delete, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I nominate this for the "most fatuous argument of the week" award? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the horror of it all. Someone has used a Wikipedia user page to raise money for sick children. Isn't behaviour like this contrary to consensus mores? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Units and Years[edit]

This User:Lightmouse "Contributions" has taken it upon himself to remove brackets from years while adding metric units. I'm not sure what the policy is, but I don't think he should be doing this unilaterally. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was already blocked once for this activity [49] and is continuing on with it today despite my warning to him on his talk page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
He's going through them rapidly in some kind of alpha sequence, so I'm guessing he's running a robot program of some kind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked him to stop for now. If he doesn't I'll block and revert.