Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive418

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Can we block an ED troll[edit]

Resolved: I AGF too much for my own good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing more than a disruptive entity.

  • I've added a final warning, as none was found. He's very, very uncivil, but has some good contributions. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI others previously were removed.
  1. "balderdash, it was a legitimate edit, twinkle users need a leash"
  2. "preposterous, the edit was not vandalism, typical knee-jerk revert and vandal warn"
  3. "I'm removing the WP:TEMPLAR warning'
24 April 2008 Neapolitan Sixth New user account--Hu12 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason not to indef here? I think it's clear he's a troll. Ral315 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Crystal clear, IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm the target of a few of those insults. They're too childish and silly for me to feel offended and were in response to a silly comment of my own, so please don't worry on my account. The user is trolling with some attempts to mimic ED, but the account history shows mostly constructive good faith edits elsewhere. Their fifth edit summary[3] after joining last month is "removing uncited original research" so whoever it is, they knew the ropes around here before setting up that particular account. I have no feeling either way about blocking, just some info. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I found the "how do I cite web" thing a bit funny... but yeah, block. Sceptre (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, blocked indef. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly Neapolitan Sixth (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) is a sock of someone..--Hu12 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I LIVE IN A HAT (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) possibly? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:35, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I pointed that out and got warned - it really cracked me up :) 86.137.221.99 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Safe Sex Poster Boys[edit]

I'm about to go out but noticed this article seems to have massive amounts of copyvio text in it (the entire Media section appears to be in violation) - can someone delete and if necessary delete from history? Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You sir, are indeed correct about your assumptions. So I have deleted the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

IP 68.54.154.10 deleting images[edit]

special:contributions/68.54.154.10 is systematically removing illustrations from various articles on mythological creatures, presumably because said illustrations are paintings of bare-nekkid ladies. All contributions by this IP seem to be of this nature, for instance two attempts at Mermaid (both reverted). PaddyLeahy (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Warned. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Crap, had him blocked for 3 hours and only saw the warn now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, he doesn't seem active anyway. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More from the Avril troll[edit]

As indicated in this section above, there was a threat of further trolling/vandalism/disruption from sleeper accounts. Perhaps the "resolved" tag on that section means it's not getting any attention, so I guess I'll start a new section. There have been more Avril questions, and our friend seems to be obsessed also with Summer Glau. Since individual accounts are being used, some editors believe that each questions should be treated in isolation. I myself have to think that if it walks like a duck . . . . Here are the contribs from Emac1, Pikecatcher, Lop Lop 7, Seven seven and eleven, Jellojolts, and table top dancer. There is also another Tor exit node being used. --LarryMac | Talk 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend blocking [quack, quack], esp. the Tor node, based on the history of such things these accounts obviously are not here to build an encyclopedia. As an aside, what the hell started all this Avril Lavigne tomfoolery in the first place? Anyone want to enlighten me [if it's in the ANI archives, just tell me and I'll go search]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
Whoopee! They've moved on to the Entertainment ref desk and started asking questions about Shakira? 80.222.66.180 looks like another duck. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:37, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If (he? she? it? they?) is going to be a nuisance, just use common sense on the Reference Desk when answering questions. A lot more energy is expended trying to track them down and ban them than is expended just ignoring their imbecilery. Ziggy Sawdust 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My declaration that I would remove all of the trolling on sight got met with some rather harsh disagreement: [4]. Corvus cornixtalk 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement from an enabler is not something I'd worry about. And Ziggy, if you could magically make everybody ignore trolls, I'd give you a million dollars (or the currency of your choice). But people don't ignore trolls, they feed them. I'm giving up, nobody seems to really care all that much. --LarryMac | Talk 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If it will make everyone shut up, I'll personally handle all Avril Lavigne-related questions on the Refdesk. Ziggy Sawdust 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the fuss, of course, is that the disrupter is now attempting to "negotiate" for the right to disrupt. See User:Hot JJ's comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#April Trolls in May. Personally, I'm for banning this user (and all of their aliases and socks as they are revealed).

Atlant (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So if I read that thread right, you have a user who admits to having numerous socks and is admittedly trolling the reference desk, and is using a TOR node on top of that...tell me again why they haven't been blocked? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
They have been. Reality check time: if someone has been having fun fucking with the reference desk, they aren't going to slow down or stop if we let them ask one question per day. I suppose, maybe, if I thought they would, I'd wait and see, but we all know they won't. This person is in it for the laughs, not the information. RBI. It's going to be a bother, but it's the only way. --barneca (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Time for a checkuser on all the identified accounts? At the very least, we'll be able to block a few more TOR nodes... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I take it that if I come across any more of these I should report them to ANI. Or should I just contact an admin directly? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:56, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the last edit from Jellojolts, I'm of the opinion now block 'em all and let Jimbo sort 'em out. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Prestidigitator looks like a target as well. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And User:LLOTAAMI. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
User:LLOTAAMI blocked. I'm not too certain about Prestidigitator. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jen17op looks dodgy. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: When an account looks obvious, block. When an account looks questionable, remove any of their questions that seem trolling, and put something similar to this: User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Page2 on their user page, and block if they violate it. --barneca (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions cut and pasted verbatim from elsewhere on the web are a red flag. Still, I don't know if removing the questions when people have already started to provide answers is more or less disruptive than just leaving them up there... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Added cut&paste to link above. And I'd agree, if someone starts answering, it's probably best to leave it alone. But surely the people who frequent the reference desk all know what's going on by now? Are a lot of these questions getting answers? --barneca (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had neither the time nor the inclination to check them all out - but it does look to me as though the ones he/they posted recently have had some replies. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is User talk:Jellojolts blocked? There's no msg on the talk page but this is the one responsible for the recent mayhem on the desks. To answer the question: yes, most of the questions do get responses from good faith posters. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Well, if it's not overwhelming the reference desk (i.e. people seem to be answering everything, and legitimate questions aren't going unanswered), and people want to feed trolls, I'm not going to spend much time protecting them from themselves. --barneca (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, meant to say, Kurt blocked Jellojolts an hour and a half ago. --barneca (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Can a non-admin check if someone's blocked? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, just go to their contribs page and click on "Block log" under "User contributions" at the top. Deor (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How about we unblock them and let them ask questions at my own subpage? Ziggy Sawdust 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that, and I stop my disruption. What do you say? 84.29.75.114 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's another: Vincebosma. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This might be a bit harsh, but why would we enable someone who is deliberately trolling and disrupting the project? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure if this is anything to do with this, but for a few minutes back then the Science ref desk had some huge avril pics obscuring it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The vandalism to the Science ref desk was from User:84.29.75.114 (see above), a TOR exit node that's now blocked. In light of that, I think any users fitting the above pattern of trolling should be blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)It was the anon IP above (check his contribs). Apparently he's quite good at disrupting. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another: User talk:Youlipo. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bevwint - not 100% certain about this one. What are we looking for here (aside from when they were created and whether they've been OPs at the RD)? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more: User:Retlon chick. Okay, I'm tired now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One more: [5]. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, all the trolls to User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril pronto! Ziggy Sawdust 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Redvers failing to AGF[edit]

I wish to complain about this admin, who has twice openly criticised me groundlessly ([6] - the words "as usual" there are also unjustified - and [7]), offensively mentioning me by name when I was far from the only person in that position. When I complained to him about this, he posted a comment on my talkpage [8] in which he suggested that my comments supporting a block of another user (who violated WP:NPA numerous times, including telling another to "grow a brain" - naming no names) were becoming increasingly disruptive (how can expressing an opinion shared by numerous others be disruptive, but them expressing it isn't?!), and that I make attempts to throw petrol on the various fires that spring up.

He suggested that calling the incivil user "nasty" was a personal attack [9], and I was told that I was intentionally trying to create or prolong drama. I suggested that naming me in this when I wasn't the only one was harassment, and I was informed that I was going to be looking down the wrong end of an RfC. I'm not happy about this behaviour and seemingly I'm not the only one ([10], [11]).

BTW, I'm not giving {{ANI-notice}} to those involved because I imagine they're watching this page; if you think they need it then feel free to do so. Thanks. TreasuryTagtc 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

His criticisms are not "groundless" in my view. Either way this is probably something that could be solved without escalating it to ANI. It's sorta ironic that your response to someone claiming you try to stir up drama is.. to create another drama-stirring thread on ANI. The best way to respond to his criticisms might be to ignore them, don'tcha think? naerii - talk 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Redvers has serious issues with maintaining neutrality in his dealings on AN/ANI. Don't make me laugh suggesting that Redvers would ever listen to a template warning, let alone to a courageous ignoring campaign. Redvers only ignores comments against Redvers. Your comment shows AN/I naivety in the extreme. The ironic thing is, if you get too 'Redvers' on Redvers, he does exactly what you recommend, he ignores you, despite the fact he most likely initiated the entire too and fro in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:ThegreatWakkorati[edit]

Resolved: Blocked, then indef blocked and talk page protected. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User breached BLP here (article was the subject of one of Sceptre's blanking a little while ago, so I think it best to keep it completely free of potential BLP problems). I explained why I reverted the user's edits. I was threatened, and the user has just reinstated the offending content, and proceded to attack me, explaining that they don't care about our sourcing/BLP policies. Requesting another admin look into this, as I am involved and haven't been completely clean myself (sarcasm in response to the threats). J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to leave a stern warning, but looking at their talk page, they've had a consistent problem with this. I'm blocking for 24 hours, feel free to discuss with me on my talk page or here if you feel that's not appropriate. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec - decided to add anyways as a vote of confidence) I am not an admin, but if I had not decided to look at Thegreat's talk page to see what J Milburn had said in response, I would have reverted and given ThegreatWakkorati a {{subst:uw-npa4im}}. J.delanoygabsadds 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
For reference, the incivility continued after my post- [12], [13]. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Abusing protection templates as well, wonderful. Not looking forward to that unblock request... Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Serious threats and personal attacks against myself and others on the user's talk page. Requesting another admin looks into this- again, I would rather not act because of a COI. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

<-Now, I want to kill him for reporting me and write an article about how he was mangled, why, and what he could have done to prevent it. Also, use the autopsy photos without proper premission.. Yeah, he needs to be permabanned and his Talk page protected. Corvus cornixtalk 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca took care of it. I probably should have made the original block longer anyway, but oh well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, forgot to mention it here, I got pulled away from the 'puter for a bit. I gave him an out, to apologize after a week, but I get the distinct impression that won't happen. --barneca (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

systematic disparagement by Wikipedia Rational Skepticism[edit]

Members of a group identifying themselves as "Wikipedia Rational Skepticism Project" have targeted a number of articles, including "Energy Psychology" "Thought Field Therapy" and "Emotional Freedom Techniques" with specious rewrites of objective data. By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV as their revisions of entries are entirely biased with an agenda of debunking with no more claim to adequate expertise than active disbelief in a topic. Consistently entries from experienced sources with expertise on the subjects in question are deleted on the basis of NPOV and replaced with pejorative labels like "pseudoscience". A quick scan of the history of "Emotional Freedom Techniques" edits and comments gives ample evidence of these abuses.

The primary reference given by this group for justifying their skeptical comments is "The Skeptical Inquirer" a splinter group magazine with an agenda of promoting disparaging opinions via pejorative labeling. Attempts to elevate such publications to equal status with professional journals and authoritative writings by experts in a given field must be confronted as a thinly disguised campaign to use Wikipedia for commercial gain--specifically promotion of an organization actively soliciting members and selling subscriptions.

Wikipedia must have effective policing of abuses to the intent of providing unbiased content in order to remain a viable informational source for readers. I'm certain there are attempts from any number of splinter groups intent upon promoting and aggressively revising their favorite targets, whether they be anti-abortionist, political religious groups, skin heads, creationists, or in this case debunkers using the trappings of science terminology to attack specific targets. To allow such systematic and organized discrediting activities to continue unchallenged threatens the integrity of Wikipedia and risks turning it into the equivalent of a messageboard for highly politicized agendas. After all if The Skeptical Inquirer can be cited as an adequate authoritative source then anything Pat Robertson preaches, Rush Limbaugh spins, or political party eschews can be referenced to justify revising legitimate article entries.

I ask administrators to review the activities of this group and effectively prohibit their disparagement of legitimate on the basis that their agenda, as stated, is to deny readers access to information that they have targeted to actively disbelieve. After all, who cares what anyone else believes and disbelieves? Wikipedia is not a forum for voicing, let alone enforcing, personal opinion.

Greywolfin (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the contributions yet, but I do take issue with your assertion that "By definition skepticism in principle and practice, violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV". Per WP:WEIGHT, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them...But on such pages...the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." If a hypothesis is scientifically implausible and this implausibility is born out by empirical data, this needs to be mentioned in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As an update, I think this edit] displays a poor understanding of WP:NPOV on your part. WP:LEAD clearly states that a lead should "briefly describe its notable controversies", and I think User:Fyslee's summary of the experimental findings and the notable criticisms accurately reflects the later contents of the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I will also ask admins to monitor this group, and help them enforce WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV against the legion of True Believers who ceaselessly strive to make our articles on these fictional or fringe subjects appear to be more than they are. Rational skepticism is as close to WP:NPOV as makes no odds in the matter of paranormal, fringe and pseudoscience subjects - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all. I am reminded ot the tests applied in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which showed that ID is a faith-based idea, not science. Many of these subjects are part of a belief system that lacks objectively verifiable evidence, and are claimed to be true because the only "reliable" sources are the wholly uncritical ones which support them. Science does not publish papers in Nature on the subject of hokum still being hokum, of course we use the sources which specialise in investigating extraordinary claims, people like Randi and Clarke. Also, how many genuinely new editors find this noticeboard with their fourth edit? Greywolfin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has the appearance of coming from someone's hosiery drawer. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Account created 5 June 2007,[14] first edit nearly a year later.[15] Such a pattern often causes me to say "hmmm..." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmmm indeed. What else was happening around then? (wanders off to Arbcom archives) ETA June 2007 was right in the middle of the Paranormal Arbcom case. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like that sock is a busted flush. Worth blocking? Guy (Help!) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock of The Kohser needs blocking[edit]

Resolved

Thekohser (talk · contribs) outed Arise Sir Loin of Beef (talk · contribs) as a sock of his here. I blocked, but then Kohser pointed out a potential conflict of interest to me, so I've undone my block. Somebody with no such conflict should probably redo the block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Since he is banned, there is no need to play his silly semantic games. All socks are supposed to be blocked, by any admin. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple IPs doing same vandal edit on Tinley Park High School[edit]

I've been chasing this vandal edit [16] for the last couple of days. It's appeared several times, and from different IPs. I've only worked my way up to a level 3 warning on one of them, but it's time for stronger measures. DarkAudit (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably take it to WP:RFPP where someone will review whether page protection is appropriate or not. Sasquatch t|c 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. And responded to quite swiftly. Thanks to all. DarkAudit (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Deneuve[edit]

I've been having disputes with IP 70.108.119.24 (talk) (who also appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry - I have already filed a report on the matter[17]) on the Catherine Deneuve article. I have attempted to engage in discussions with this IP, but it keeps reverting material without fully discussing the matter. This started when one particular IP (which is a likely sockpuppet) made full-scale edits that had several formatting mistakes.[18] I reverted that edit. Afterwards, identical edits from other IPs (once again, likely sockpuppets) were made and then reverted by me and another user. Back and forth reversions have continued to take place, and I've been trying to explain to that IP about the problems with its edits.[19][20] However, as I said previously, the IP continues to revert material without fully discussing the matter - even after being warned by an admin.

As you'll see in the revision history of the article, the IP made yet another reversion, but I have not reverted it myself, due to the fact that I do not want to be blocked for 3RR. I am trying to be as civil and constructive about this process as possible, but to no avail. I tried to request page protection, but it was denied. There is historical context that I feel should be factored in to this situation, though, which is what I was trying to explain in the requests for page protection article. There was a situation that almost literally mirrored this whole ordeal a couple of months ago, between me and another user, in the same Catherine Deneuve article. The administrators that handled that situation seemed to factor in the exact same points I've been attempting to convey in this recent dispute; thus, semi-protection was offered and 3RR-based blocks were not issued following cases that were filed. I'm not saying that every single administrator should act the same way, but I think this is significant to note. Once semi-protection was granted in the previous situation, that other user finally engaged in full discussions, and a constructive resolution was soon reached. That's what I was hoping for in this situation as well. And now that the IP once again reverted material without fully engaging in discussions, this only further emphasizes what I've been trying to explain.

Thanks to anyone who looks into this case. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wheel war? MFD[edit]

Resolved

RE Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica

Someone want to review the closure and unilateral reversal from this to this.
Obviously The Full protection placed per ArbCom clarification, is being ignored. A (editable) copy of a page was created in the userspace during a content dispute. Per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages. "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages". This is infact an editable substitue for Encyclopedia Dramatica which already exists in the appropriate articlespace. The appropriate talk page is sufficient to make {{editprotected}} changes, not the userspace. While I appreciate User:David Levy's interprative lesson, I fail to see how edits Not pertainng to the dispute, cannot be achieved on the appropriate article talk page. --Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
NOthing to review - see David's talk page. ViridaeTalk 01:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More trolling on Talk:Handlebars (song)[edit]

After the page was protected due to some edit disputes that I was involed in, I took the discussion to the ptalk page, it did not go so well. User:Rau J has used my attemptes at discussion to continue to troll and refusing to engage in civil discussion, trying to accuse me of the one being evasive. see here. JeanLatore (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How am I trolling? I have been uncivil once and that is because everyone has a tolerance limit. I think that you are simply wasting everyone's time waiting for the protection to end so that you can continue to avoid discussion. This right here is a perfect example of what I mean. Instead of discussing on the talk page, you go to ANI to waste both ours, and others time on a dispute that should be able to be resolved rather easily. Rau's Speak Page 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?[edit]

Resolved: All text on Wikipedia is free to copy behind the GFDL Gwen Gale (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For reasons into which I shall not go, I Googled my username. One of the first places it came up was at a WP mirror, http://medlibrary.org/medwiki I checked at the mirrors list, and apparently it's GFDL-compliant--but here's the question: it came up on my search because my name was on Barneca's user-talk page. The full URL that came back was http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/User_talk:Barneca . I thought userpages and their associated talk pages weren't supposed to be part of mirrored content? Or did I misunderstand?Gladys J Cortez 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done the same before and have seen dozens of similar mirrors. I am unsure of the policy relating to this, however. Malinaccier (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Everything's GFDL'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay--I've just seen some of those "if you're finding this talk-page somewhere other than Wikipedia..." disclaimers, and just wanted to make sure all was well. If so, this can be marked resolved--thanks for your time!Gladys J Cortez 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Live mirrors are discouraged as they may use an excessive amount of server resources. The site has been reported to m:Live mirrors Nakon 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Propaniac[edit]

Resolved: edit war has stopped

This user has declared an edit war on an article that I created at The Color of Friendship. My last edit conformed to what she and two other editors suggested, but she undid the change never the less and left threatening posts on the edit and on my talk page. Dispute resolution isn't working, because it's clear that the problem here is not one of Wiki policy but the editor herself.Cbsite (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

After this comment ("don't tamper with my work any more") , see WP:OWN. This is an edit dispute and doesn't belong here. And yes, users are allowed to warn you about blocking; that is not harrassment. After the warning, everyone is allowed to go to WP:AIV and request an admin to look at the situation. So, I'll ask you, Propaniac was adding a link to the other movie. Explain why you don't think that it's necessary (sort of a moot point since it's at the new article but still). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, given that Cbsite is reverting against the logical consensus that this be a disambiguation page (given that there are 2 works that match it) and several editors have told him to stop his edit war, he should probably stop post-haste. And this is not an AIV issue... This is not simple vandalism. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I was disambig-ing at first and then disambig-ing and hatnote-ing; she felt that a redirect to the 2000 version, with a hatnote at the 2000 version, were all that were necessary.
Actually, the most recent edits by Ricky81682 and Steven J. Anderson seem to make the most sense. And excuse me, but it's not my edit war!Cbsite (talk)
Regardless, the whole thing looks like it is over now. No need for any action, since there is nothing to stop... I am marking as resolved... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

POV warrior needs inmediate blocking[edit]

88.8.106.89 (talk · contribs) is making POV removals, personal attacks and BLP violations (see here) and edit warring faster than they can be reverted and warned. Please block quick --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped after a final warning --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The WHOIS report gives back TELEFONICA DE ESPANA which is probably a service provider. As with any anonymous IP addy, it's important to assume that it's not just a single user. Remember, if they start up again, don't just immediately report to WP:AIV. You'll have to start with lower warning levels. If the patterns are exactly the same, start with a level 2 warning. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh, he made a run of edits when I was not on the computer, so I could only give him 1 level 2 warning for 9 different POV edits :( He started making the same type of edits only six hours after getting a final warning. Please make another final warning, and the next time block him directly. The same IP has started editing again after a few hours, and all his new edits are POV removals on the same spanish nationalist topics. For example on a template on Africa topics where he has removed spanish territories on Africa[21][22] that had to be protected[23] Ceuta[24] [25] and changes to make some plazas de soberania look lik actual national territories [26] (another spanish nationalist POV) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus[edit]

Ludvikus (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could some come review this user's situation? He has been blocked for a full two years (for what was called disruption), and now the situation is getting quite complicated. I think he would appreciate if someone would look over this mess. Please start here, and read to the end. There are allegations of email harrassment, claims of secret agendas, and accusations of neo-Nazism. I have been told this is the place to report such matters, and he can't do it himself. I think the whole thing needs to be reviewed. Thanks. Ostap 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. This has already received input from El_C, jc37, jpgordon and Cobaltbluetony, all of whom the user has declared are involved. There's a summary of a section of the user's recent actions about 3/4 of the way down that talkpage from User:Huon which might be of use. My own interaction with him has come at Talk:Zion (disambiguation), which I believe independently confirms Huon's diagnosis. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this one of those situations where the admin community splits into those who agree with him (none thus far), and those whoa re involved, conflicted or in some other way not appropriate to review? Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
More like, it's exasperation over trying to deal with a very problematic user. The sole question is whether the two years is justified, according to the talk page. Let's take a look at the block log:
  1. Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing.
  2. Nine days later, blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks.
  3. That block extended to one week for further personal attacks.
  4. Two weeks later, blocked for six months as a "persistent troll"
  5. Two months after that expires, 24 hours for disruption at AfD.
  6. Five days after that, blocked for two months for General disruption, as discussed in multiple places. Last straw: Creation of abusive WP:BLP for WP:POINT purposes.
  7. Now, five months after that block expired, he's blocked for two years for Disruptive editing: a re-occurring problem.
So, perhaps the community should be asked, is a two year block appropriate, or would a community ban be more appropriate? Or can perhaps this editor be educated? Maybe a mentorship would be appropriate here. The problems are manifold and complex; this is not an editor attempting to damage to Wikipedia, but rather is an editor who seems unable to work within the style and strictures Wikipedia expects and requires. The two year block seems to me to be an expression of frustration at the seeming intractability of this editor's issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pivotal to note that the entire workload of dealing with thousands and thousands of words daily on talk pages (that try to reinvent the wheel without even bothering to glance as the basics or history) and low quality, mis-formatted edits, falls on a few pf us. Not to mention facing the consequences of bad faith and disruption when he doesn't get his way, or when he breaks one his promises. The point is that we cannot be expected to keep going like this (he still doesn't feel he's done anything wrong and that it's all one grand conspiracy — but I'm increasingly drawn to the less than good faith conclusion that this is a game for him, seeing how far he could take argumentation for its own). Either way, it's exhausting and Wikipedia is not therapy (see comment at the bottom of this and my latest one here). El_C 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This sounds oddly familiar. We've had a similar (though decidedly not the same) sitatuion with an editor (User:Asgardian) which led to several RfCs, 3PO, and finally arbitration. Well-meaning user with "some" good edits, but who was causing problems due to block reversion, and poor (misdirective) edit summaries, among other things. What reminds me of this was the lengthy go-almost-nowhere double-talk talk page discussions. He too was treating this as a game (and admitted so at one point. I bring this up in the case any results of his arbitration may be useful to be applied here. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. - jc37 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If I am reading that page right, the result was a year of editing restriction, not a two year block like Ludvikus got. I think a restriction is more appropriate in this situation. Ostap 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
He was placed on restrictions (a generous route in light of the sheer scope of the disruption), but failed to adhere to their terms. El_C 05:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I realize that, which is why he did deserve a block. But two full years? I would think a day or a week would have been more fit. Ostap 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not just that, obviously, but tendentious conduct elsewhere, too. He was already blocked for over 8 months last year. El_C 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found his last two-month block pretty unfair also. Regardless, I truly think you should reconsider the length of this one, and give thought to the proposal brought foreward by Alex Bakharev. Ostap 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, you're supporting him rather consistently and uncritically, so it isn't a shock you would arrive to further conclusions that are favorable to him. I am opposed to it; I don't think Alex (or you) bothered looking into the matter closely. Not to mention that Ludvikus still maintains everyone else (many editors across many articles) is in the wrong and that he's 100 percent innocent and being persecuted. Same problems are just going to repeat. El_C 06:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of his long history not only of tendentious editing, but also of trying to manipulate other editors, including myself, I would be in support of a community ban. —Ashanda (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I certainly support a lengthy, perhaps indefinite block. Some editors above seem to support Ludvikus' POV, but support for his POV does not excuse the way he pursues it, which genuinely does appear to be highly disruptive. Past blocks and discussions show that Ludvikus is probably not actually capable of being less problematic, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus emailed me and asked me to review his case. I think 2 years is rather long, but unless he shows clear remorse and promises to stick to a topic ban or improve his behavior as community asked, I am not sure what we can do. Too many respected editors have noted his behavior was highly disruptive for it to be easily ignored.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

SPA[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by East718RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:14, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. But can you take a look. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You misspelt "duh". Sceptre (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Imbris[edit]

Could someone please take a look at Special:Contributions/Imbris. This guy is edit warring all the time,[27] groundlessly accusing other people all across of bad faith, of inserting nonsense and of undermining consensus and trying really hard to impose his own views no matter what it costs. He has been warned numerous times already.[28][29] --Eleassar my talk 08:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment, Zscout370 had some interaction with him at Commons which got him blocked there. From his editing, he's in that whole old Yugoslavia argument area, but this time focusing only on the flags. His log is full of image uploads (indicating a continuation of the fighting from Commons) and a couple page moves that look like they have reverted. However, a clean block log and no indication of an AIV report suggest a edit warrior but one who hasn't gotten to the point of full complaints yet. I would wait until someone points out something specific. I've notified him at well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The relevant Commons discussion is here. I declined a block at the time (giggy; first comment) barring further evidence, and Zscout blocked later following further evidence and discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Scientz and possible breach of WP:BLP[edit]

I recently noticed that User:Scientz has information on his user page which includes dates of birth and personal information about the private lives of people in his family, who are not in the public eye, and do not edit Wikipedia. I believe this breaches the guideline at WP:UP and the Biographies of living persons policy. (Specifically, "What may I not have on my user page?.... Personal information of other persons without their consent" and "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.") I have removed the information twice, and been reverted by Scientz. I have explained my reasons to him, and asked that he remove the information, but he has refused. I would like further opinion on this but I have brought it up here because I think it is a serious breach of WP:BLP. --BelovedFreak 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From his comments, he seems to believe that his user page actually belongs to him, which certainly is not true if one reads WP:UP. I'm not an administrator, so I can't take much action, and I'm not sure this is a blockable offense, at least not at the moment. You could always take this up at the WP:BLPN and gather more opinions on the matter. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, looking at the page, I see a gross violation of WP:UP. You could be bold and start a WP:MFD, but I'd recommend talking to others about it first. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Concur with BLP violation. Content removed again, user warned.  Sandstein  20:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I see the page has now been deleted. Thanks for your help.--BelovedFreak 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff123098[edit]

Resolved: blocked 31 hours and left warning--Rodhullandemu 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has been abusing Welsh and Cardiff related articles for months and it's time s/he was banned. S/he deliberatly introduces incorrect information into articles and ignores countless vandalism warnings. WL (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stifle[edit]

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

There isn't a consensus that Stifle was misbehaving here and the objection seems to indicate that there is no such thing as a mistake. This isn't productive. Spartaz Humbug! 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Generic claim of rouge admin abuse, nothing that can't be fixed well before the deadline by a dose of AGF and actually talking nicely to Stifle.

NOT RESOLVED This is not resolved at all. The primary issues of retaliation, lying, and false statements on part of the admin in question have not been addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stifle claims to be an admin and has been abusing authority as an admin. Examples include # deleting bona fide pages from the college football project

  1. "re-speedy-deleting" an article that already had a consensus of keep
  2. giving an incorrect wikipedia policy on speedy deletion
  3. failing to retract the incoreect policy statement made on the page where the statement was made
  4. failing to follow basic guidelines on notability and reliable sources
  5. taking retaliation for attempting to delete other pages the user posted
  6. failing to properly convey policy on GFDL licensing and use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia

For these, and other offenses, please look into this matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs? Also, I think your statement "Stifle claims to be an admin" is misleading, since it implies that he is impersonating one. bibliomaniac15 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Stifle is in fact an administrator. We need differences (examples) of what you claim is abuse of administrative tools; without specific examples, it is impossible to verify your claims. Horologium (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a case of a WikiProject's claimed ownership of a series of articles. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Were the deletions inappropriate? Yes. Are the AfDs okay? Yes. If you can show me a history of this being a problem with him then we may have something, otherwise it's already been taken care of. Wizardman 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He speedy deleted them, you challenged at DRV, he decided that AFD would be appropriate. You got what you wanted at DRV. Now, you need to convince the community at AFD that these articles meet the community's standards. The project, like any project, is a small subset of the community, and meeting the project's standards is not particularly relevant. GRBerry 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There were two part that were clearly inappropriate: First, these articles were deleted immediately by the admin, rather than placing the speedy tags and letting someone else judge. The speedies were of course all overturned almost immediately at DRV, and letting a second person judge is a good way of avoiding problems like this. I will sometimes do it myself its its obvious nonsense or the like, but otherwise, I find it inadvisable. {Perhaps we need a firmer rule in the matter. Not a violation of the letter of the rules to do it that way, but a clear violation against the spirit--speedy being for unquestionable & uncontroversial cases. Second, is doing them all at once. It would have been better either to discuss first the question about the notability in general with the WikiProject involved, or to do one or two as a test. Taking them all at once this way seems pointy. However, if the Project does want to define every head coach of every football team as intrinsically notable, I think that seems at first view to be against common sense, and they need to explain it to the community at large. Projects dont get to do their field entirely their ow way--but their views are to be taken very seriously into account. DGG (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You missed the fact that I overturned the deletions when it became clear to me that it was not the way to go. I corrected my mistakes. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific examples

  1. View Revision history of Oscar Dahlene, specifically the 17:17, May 16, 2008 revision. The user's comments state, "Undid revision 200817445 by Guest9999 (talk) - only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" -- this is absolutely not true. Admin is knowingly stating that something is policy when it is not--see discussion User talk:Paulmcdonald#Oscar Dahlene for detail.
  2. View aforementioned User talk:Paulmcdonald#Oscar Dahlene for what I believe to be a retaliation delete. I commented on another topic on the admin's user page wher eI believe a big mistake was being made, and the admin retaliated by attempting to speedy-delete an article that already reached a consensus of keep.
  3. View User talk:Stifle#Kulveer ranger, where the admin is attempting to assert that only GFDL material may be used on Wikipedia, yet we know that there are fair uses of other licensed categories.
  4. View User talk:Stifle#Vote stacking assertion, where the admin accuses me of something called "vote stacking" referencing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#HELP! Emergency Action Required!. Note how the tone of writing changes when the group is considering reporting the admin's behavior.
  5. View User talk:Stifle#College Football Deletions, where the admin incorrectly states that one of the reasons for deletion was that the source cited was the college website, when in fact it was a different website. The Admin deleted 22 articles in 6 minutes, and obviously did not take the time to give even a cursory review.

Will that be enough to get you started?--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Well, generally that is the way it is done. If you disagree with a speedy delete tag, you should use the hangon tag (as someone did), not remove the speedy delete request.
  2. The article in question had no such consensus formed. There was an AfD for a similar subject that had limited participation.
  3. Whole text copyright infringement is certainly not acceptable. Articles of this nature are routinely deleted without any controversy whatsoever.
  4. Stifle was quite right: what you did is utterly unacceptable.
  5. Stifle seems to have acted in some haste, but also agreed to restore the pages and also seems to be perfectly aware of the other source. Wizardman, GRBerry and DGG all address this issue clearly and rationally above. Vassyana (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the folks who have contributed to this for me. In so far as I made mistakes with my administrative tools, I reversed them soon thereafter when I was convinced of them. And saying that a keep result on an AFD on an article about a single person means that everyone who has occupied a similar position to that person is automatically notable is deeply disingenuous, and without waiving that, it's not in accordance with WP:CCC either.
Let's let the AFDs run their course. I've already withdrawn one in the face of decent proof of notability. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and WP:NAM :) Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Generally, the way it is done is to lie to people? I'm not complaining about the speedy delete, I'm complaining about the admin saying that "only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" when the admin knew that was not true, said it anyway, and has no intent of retracting the false statement.
  2. Again, the issue is not the article, the issue the admin making the false statement "content on Wikipedia must be available under the GFDL"
  3. Mabye it was canvassing, maybe it wasn't. Some say yes, some say no. That's not the issue here, the issues are the false and misleading statements the admin is making.
  4. But the other users fail to address the admin's false and misleading statements and blatant disregard for truth.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I've left a stiff warning for User:Paulmcdonald for his canvassing/campaigning/votestacking. I hope this helps avoid any further disruption of that type. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "stiff warning" because I didn't know that making a notice on our project discussion page was bad. As I said before, I'll be sure to be more neutral in the future--and not every editor agrees with that assessment.
Spartaz states: "the objection seems to indicate that there is no such thing as a mistake. This isn't productive" WRONG the objection is that the admin is lying and otherwise making false statements about Wikipedia Policy to other editors. And that is not productive.
Is there any reason that the actual issue has never been addressed?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:198.85.213.1[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked... for now.

This user, 198.85.213.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is not listening and reverting edits again. I've already reminded him about edit warring, but it seems does not listen, he again reverted valid reverts on Makie Sasaki and especially Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: The Movie. He's getting on everybody's nerves now. Clearly WP:BRD will never work with this editor. Can this address be blocked (for at least two months) because of his actions? I need answers or actions ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Why only three days for the trouble he has caused? Anyway thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Other than open proxies or IPs like schools whence large amounts of vandalism come, IPs are generally not blocked for long periods of time as it is more likely to inconvenience regular users than impede blocked users. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Rubidium37[edit]

Could someone please review the block of User:Rubidium37 to see if it was justified.[30] --Jagz (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? If it was not, the user is free to make an {{unblock}} request.  Sandstein  06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like an obvious throwaway vandalism account. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is such an obvious disruptive SPA it's clearly blockable, and if his master gets caught in the autoblock, all the better. RlevseTalk 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption from the part of User:Mecena[edit]

Even though said user was repeatedly indicated that there is no need to place articles in subcategories back into the ubercategory, he continues to revisit the same pages over and over again, silently re-adding the category to articles on Romanian novelists, poets etc. - although they are already in the respective categories (for novelists, poets et al), he adds "Category:Romanian writers" everywhere. I tried to reason with him myself on his talk page, but he doesn't answer, nor explains his edits. Dahn (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Said user has finally decided to acknowledge the messages left and I interpret this as a pledge that he or she shall not carry on with the disruption. He or she did do the same again to one article after I posted this report here, but not after answering on his or her talk page. So I presume this would count as "resolved". Dahn (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril[edit]

Anyone else think there's something funny going on at the above page? GBT/C 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good way of removing the disruption or appearance of disruption from the reference desk without either a) going on a banning spree or b) potentially making rather unpleasant comments hinting at people being troll enablers. WP:NOSPADE anyone? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Something "funny" indeed. I'm fairly certain that every account that edited that page is the same person. I know people don't own their user pages but if it keeps him off the refdesks then I'd say it's a good idea. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, they could be same, or they could be multiple children in the same classroom. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's Saturday...pretty much everywhere. GBT/C 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Coolest Kid20 sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: User blocked by Gwernol, {{sockpuppet}} template applied. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:12, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

User:Coolest Kid20 seems to have created another sockpuppet: User:Coolest Kid 50. I'm really terrible at the sockpuppet reporting process, and I have no idea how the process goes in reporting another puppet of an already blocked puppeteer, so, uh, if someone could look into that it'd be appreciated. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is fairly cut and dry based on the username and user contribution. I'm sure an administrator can make a judgment call here. There's probably no reason to file/start a sockpuppetry case. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's already been done : ). Also, in the future with such patently obvious cases such as this, you can be bold an add a {{sockpuppet} template to their user/talk page. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations[edit]

User:David Shankbone has decided "out" real life people for contributing to Wikipedia Review; see his talk page and User talk:Jimbo Wales. No matter what the editor has done, Wikipedia is not the place for this, and WP:BLP applies. My first inclination was to delete/request oversight of the edits, and warn David, but given Mr Shankbone is quite popular due to his numerous image contributions, I thought I would bring it here rather than risk a wheel war (the last time I used admin tools with regards to an established contributor for obvious and knowingly violating established policies, it was undone and I didn't hear the end of it for weeks). Thoughts, please. Neıl 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • My thought is that Neil has a personal issue with me--he took it upon himself to go around to all articles where other users put my name in the image captions and removed them, why just me, I'm unsure--so if I get blocked then it should be by somebody other than Neil. He has a personal animus. If anyone wants my reasoning for disclosing the name of an editor at the Wikipedia Review, let me know. But as Lawrence Cohen stated, our policies don't exist to protect editors of other websites. --David Shankbone 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • David, applying the image use policy does not amount to a personal issue - I simply noticed this while reading the last ANI thread about you. I should point out I haven't even considered blocking you - this is why I have brought it to ANI for discussion. Please do not deflect the issue with rubbish about some personal animus. I have none with you. I also note you have repeated your BLP violation. Neıl 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The last ANI thread was not about me, but about User:SqueakBox, and I had started it. He had taken a false COI regarding the Wikipedia Review editor--and applied it here. You have also misapplied it, by the way, but not with removing it from the image captions. When I saw that was happening, I raised the issue myself and nobody addressed it (I can hunt through the diffs - I raised it at the time Jus4helpin was putting names, not just mine, in captions. Regardless, you overapplied it. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If there are any other contributors who have their name in the article's image caption (whether put there by themselves or by someone else), feel free to let me know the name and I will work on removing those, too. It is quite hard to find them unless the name is known. Neıl 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether an editor has been here for five years or five minutes is irrelevant. If a user is using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta and are in danger of bringing the project into disrepute, all steps have to be taken to stop them doing so, whether they be Shankbone or Willy on Wheels. Suggest indefinite block as the post above shows the outing will not stop George The Dragon (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong. I outed a Wikipedia Review editor, who has spread false information about me and reveled in the outing of User:Newyorkbrad. I also stated the identity of two Wikipedia editors, I have violated no policies. --David Shankbone 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think an indefinite block is warranted or appropriate. An agreement to stop would suffice, providing David's various BLP violations - which he is continuing - are deleted or oversighted. I would like a neutral admin to step in here. Note the link David provides doesn't even back up his assertion - all it states is that a user holds the copyright to a piece of work on a person Wikipedia has an article on, nothing more.Neıl 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Neil (with some surprise as I hardly ever do). There's no possible way David isn't in the wrong here.iridescent 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would like a neutral admin as well. Preferably a non-Wikipedia Review member. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I just wanted to ask why (possibly re-)revealing who these editor are is so important? What does it matter, really? Wouldn't just not doing it lead to less drama/in-fighting? I agree he may have done you some harm, but really, how does (re-)outing/revealing his identity him help the encyclopedia? And obviously an indefinite block is over-the-top. Mahalo, David. --Ali'i 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to stay out of this mess, if that make me neutral enough. And I've never contributed to WR, And I consider myself a friend and general supporter of David S. I agree that the talk pages text there does not prove the identity, especially since a/copyright was asserted for more than 1 article, but never proven, and b/J-T B says it was an account used by several people (in apparent ignorance of our prohibition against that). As for people at WR, I suggest the safest rule is that we should stay clear of any not explicitly admitted corresponding WP identities, and in fact it might even be well that the correspondence be explictly admitted here, not just in WR--do we want to accept their standards? David, please redact. I dont think this calls for oversight, but thats up to OTRS and the office if there's a complaint. I am undecided about the part of attributing real people to purely WR identities. DGG (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-I do not see any BLP vios, David Shankbone did "out" (in the Wikipedian sense of the word) another editor. My main point is that the title of this section in innacurate--It's not a BLP vio, it's this Wikipedian idea of "outing" that is the problem. daveh4h 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose if the question is one of importance then it's not "Important" - except that over on Jimbo's page you had yet another person, this time an IP editor spreading the editor's FALSE BLP INFORMATION ABOUT DAVID SHANKBONE there. Not one person has removed that, not one person has asked for oversight. My reputation both on and off Wiki has been damaged by him, and I encourage anyone who also feels the same, including Newyorkbrad, to contact me. I have his I.P. address. I have evidence. But I do note that both Lawrence and Neil left up the BLP violation about me, nobody has removed it, but yet I have violated no policy. I haven't outed anyone. I found out who someone was off-sight, and then found out they outed themselves here. So, I have violated no policy. Yet I have been one of the most constructive and productive contributors to this site, and few people seem concerned with my reputation - only those of offsite trolls. --David Shankbone 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Lest we forget, David Shankbone does not actually exist outside of your own imagination George The Dragon (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
...BLP doesn't apply to editors. Shankbone isn't your given name. I redacted the outing only, I don't know about anything else, because I saw a good contributor--you--doing something that could get him banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, David Shankbone is the subject of several mainstream media articles. You all need to start acting like it's a BLP, because that name is tied to me whether any of us like it or not. Just because "George the Dragon" hasn't done anything noteworthy doesn't mean other people here haven't. --David Shankbone 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there any other User:Something that we have applied BLP standards to? I think this would be a new thing... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We simply can't go allow slander and defamation of editors on this site. Many of us have editor names that, because our work here became noteworthy off-wiki, is tied to us. That makes it a stage name, a pen name, or whatever else you want to call it. It's beyond the realm of comprehension that some of us would not see that. And I'm not the only one - asked TonytheMarine, User:Durova, User:SlimVirgin, et al. --David Shankbone 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are you outing anyone, anyway? If said slander and defamation is occurring on wikipedia, we have ways to deal with that (and outing people is not part of it, last I checked). If it is occurring off-wiki, deal with it off-wiki. Outing someone here because of something they did elsewhere seems quite juvenile. --Kbdank71 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My reading of BLP is that it applies to all living people. So unless we have zombies on Wikipedia, I'd say that the general principle applies to editors. That said, it applies to WR editors, as well. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
David, please place here or send to me -any- comment on WR by him where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. Anyway, she has never even had account on wikipedia so what she writes on another site, is her own affair, and if you are equating her with a Wikipedia editor you can't have got that correct, nor could you prove it as there is no evidence for it. She's said she's never had an account on wikipedia, and we have no reason to doubt that. If you've outed her (I've not looked at the edits concerned, but you've just admitted it) you are outing (and by doing so, sort of harrassing someone who is not even on this site so is entirely entitled to voice her opinions on another site- it's no business of this site to have on it identifying material about an unrelated person who happens to disagree with some things on this site but has a complete right to voice her opinions without attempted, and probably wrong anyway, outing from an editor here. Lawrence- TFA is not even an editor here, and yes, even for editors who are outed by others here, we remove identifying info.Merkin's mum 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"WR by him where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. " Merkin - you appear entirely unfamiliar with the situation and the actors involved if you are writing that. Anyway, I think I have said enough...I will allow you all to discuss this. I'm on Wikibreak. Paul: Lulz! --David Shankbone 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
for that matter, false information posted here should in fact be removed--the rule against outing -- or untrue attempted outing --protects widely in both directions & applies to anything connected with an identity. David's right there. It applies to all. DGG (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone actually _read_ BLP? If it applies to editors _as editors_, we first ought to shut down WP:AIV, since those vandalism reports aren't backed by reliable secondary sources. This noticeboard would be second, then arbcom etc. --Random832 (contribs) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think personally, it may be time to abandon anon and pseudonymous editing, as I've opined elsewhere, but the policy here is to allow it, and to enforce allowance. As long as that's policy, I'm behind it, regardless of personal opinion. Therefore, except under certain tightly controlled circumstances as outlined in the m:Privacy policy, and/or in matters related to articles, in accordance with WP:BLP policy, no one should be revealing private information about others against their wishes, whether true or false. No one. We cannot control what is done at non WMF sites but it's not something to be encouraged here. Period. I don't think it matters whether one is a WR participant or not. I don't know all the particulars here, but if people are outing the particulars of David's pseudonymous identity, that's wrong, the information should be deleted or oversighted and the people cautioned or sanctioned. But that goes both ways. If David is outing the particulars of other people's pseudonmymous identity, that is also not to be tolerated and should be dealt with the same way. Regardless of how much of a Meatball:VestedContributor David may or may not be. No free passes. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

David, will you redact the outings? If David will not, then can someone else? I had best not do it, as I have a personal animus against David, now. Apparently. I'm not sure how. Neıl 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify at least one bit of the sound-and-fury - there is no doubt at all that the two editors are connected so that doesn't constitute "outing".iridescent 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, but DS might provide what he thinks is proof that the editor who posts on Wikipedia Review is the same person as the person, but it will not be sufficient proof, as he is probably incorrect. As to indef blocking- no but the info should be removed as it may be wrong anyway, and he is presumably a real person, that DS is accusing of something he might prove to his own satisfaction, but not beyond reasonable doubt. The info should be removed, and whatever sanction which usually applies to people attempting to 'out' others, applied; at least a warning and if he re-posts the info, the same as what usually happens to people who do that. With allowances made for him being a frequent contributor, perhaps. But given that, people might expect better than the sort of behaviour that usually would be from an IP or a new user. Merkin's mum 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It may well be true that there's a connection between the two but I don't think you can reasonably conclude that there "is no doubt at all" about that purely on the basis of the account having claimed such a connection. (posted for and on behalf of Vladimir Putin) 87.254.71.190 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as one of the major participants in the arbitration that the two were the same. He was part of the role account, yes, but there are several pieces of information that mitigate against him being the account on Wikipedia Review. Further, I will not disclose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on all the above, is it fair to say the consensus is that David Shankbone needs to stop posting this sort of thing as it's inappropriate on Wikipedia? If it stops him doing it in future (one way or another), this thread has achieved its purpose. Neıl 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi- through my own info, I'm pretty sure he is female.:) Neil, has anyone warned DS on his talk page, I think this deserves at least a warning. Merkin's mum 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Moreschi. It's been a while since I read Wounded Vanity Review but I seriously doubt the are the same. Possibly an androgynous role account - but let's not go there...--Folantin (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I provided evidence at the Wikipedia Review that they are identical and have been making defamatory statements about me, Erik Moeller, Wikipedia, Jim Wales, et al. I don't really care whether you all agree with this or not. I don't plan to be around here much anymore. The thread for the evidence is here. If anyone, like User:Merkinsmum, who has lambasted me and others on Wikipedia over at the Wikipedia Review as "Wikiwhistle" and supported their trolling, questions why I would do this, they only need Google my name at the WR and read the things he (and Merkinsmum/Wikiwhistle) wrote about me there. Enjoy the photos. --David Shankbone 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New pieces of info have come together over the last few days: they are not the same, though I'm 99 percent sure, now, as to who are the persons involved, and completely certain as to one.

Regardless, I would suggest that this petty tit-for-tat between Wikipedia people and Wikipedia Review people is not very productive. "You out us so we out you" is simply not coherent. The trolls all fall silent eventually...so ignore. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DS- I will stand up for people if I think they're being wrongly accused of something, I'm just like that. Several people now have told you that they are not the same. And I'm entitled to my opinions. It doesn't stop me contributing to wikipedia productively and I have spoken out against any forms of outing repeatedly on WR, just as I am now. To be honest, I never expect to have to do so on Wikipedia. I half-hoped we were better than that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigns to protect people's anonymity online and Mike Godwin previously worked for them. I think that contributors' rights to anonymity is part of wikipedia ideology (within reason, of course) and you do no one any good by linking contributors' accounts in this way- do you want everyone to be outed? You know nothing of my life circumstances, nor of his, (who I don't know particularly well, I'm just speaking out because I think they are being picked on, and also we don't know that what is being said about them is even true.) there are reasons why I used another name on WR aside from why people usually do so. (Which aren't to do with WR or WP, but unrelated, real-world people.) Not that I will ever trust you with those reasons. Are you wanting to be the Mr.Brandt of Wikipedia? Merkin's mum 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess the ethos you need to consider, lover of Wikidrama (per your User box) is that when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. MM, you started threads ridiculing me on the WR--"Bloke's treating Wikipedia like a job!"--and ridiculing others on here, and you seriously expect some kind of courtesy extended to you? Where do you get off? And by the way, I have had it confirmed that they are the same, now from another source. I removed that source's identifying characteristics from their e-mail and forwarded it on to admins and the Foundation (ask Georgewilliamherbert, Slimvirgin, jpgordon, Jimbo, et al.) You have tied your self in with the wrong crowd, MM, and if being called the Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia is what you want to call me, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia sucks. Why does it suck? Because of people like you, Merkinsmum. Now, go on over to the WR and chortle some more at the expense of others who have given far more to this project than you have the ability to do. Hey! maybe you can take that comment and have a tea party with User:George_The_Dragon and whinge about how arrogant I am because I point out the obvious. I believe it's part of the wisdom of the crowd that mediocrity shall reign. Invite him, he has only used 3 IP addresses the entire time he's posted at the WR, right Somey? Right Somey?! Lulz!). Think about it Merkisnmum/Wikiwhistle: You are defending someone who has had expressly wanted to "tear this place apart." Oh, and guys: I'll be seeing you all, bay-bees! Shankbone's gone rouge... --David Shankbone 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not followed this thread, don't know what it's about, see that it's long enough that I'm not going to try to catch up at this stage, but another "Fuck off" edit summary just popped up on my watchlist. After the "Jesus fucking Christ" edit summary I saw last week, I'm beginning to wonder how much we expect editors here to put up with, and just what our civility standards are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly some strange double standards with regards to civility. Any amount of off-wiki abuse is supposed to be ignored, even when the culprit interacts with the victim on-wiki. It's very odd we sanction this Jekyll and Hyde behaviour. Nevertheless, if we want to keep Wikipedia "pure" and not engage in outing and such like here, there are plenty of off-wiki venues for those who want to pursue these fights, especially blogs. It takes about 5 minutes to set up one at Blogger [31] and you can write what you like there. I imagine you can even link to your blog from your user page (what was the WP:BADSITES ruling once again?). --Folantin (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not even heard of User:George the Dragon although I'm sure I would love to have tea with him as I like tea.:) I've not tied myself in with any crowd and will answer back on WR if I think people there are being particularly dodgy. I don't winge particularly about anything, I do have a sense of humour but don't think that's illegal or blockworthy, within reason.:) Since I value being on wiki I try not to be too evil about those here, this is something I'm trying to do more intensely as time goes on. But sometimes you have to let off steam, or have a laugh, or whatever, it's preferable to going on a rampage like some people do on wiki.:) As you can see by my userpage, contribs etc I do try to focus very seriously on civility. Merkin's mum 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This person has now taken it upon himself to edit my userpage [32] which I was unaware of and another user kindly reverted. He is clearly not going to stop and he has gone on wikibreak to seek to avoid any consequences of his actions. I will now apologise to him if I have upset him, but he should stop this picking on women. He knows nothing about my life and doesn't realise what he is doing. Meaning no undue disrespect to WR, a lot of people choose to use another name there, because of what are seen as risks from some contributors there. Merkin's mum 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block?[edit]

I believe an indefinite block needs to be considered at this time before David does any more damage. However, if I do it myself, I will no doubt be accused of being involved, so would someone neutral do it, please? Neıl 09:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef? I'm going to go on record as being a softie and say that I don't think that's justified yet. But a week at least would seem sane (call it forcing the wikibreak, if you will). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as we don't call it a cool-down block, a week with a final warning would be agreeable. Neıl 09:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Teeheehee, calling anything a cool-down block is guaranteed to start moar drama (maybe that's why they ask about it at RfA?). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just tell the guy to get a blog then he can post whatever abuse he likes about editors off-site - and they will still have to be polite to him here. This is the standard, hypocritical Wikipedia way of "civility". David's main mistake was choosing the wrong venue for his rants. He certainly has some justification for his behaviour (not that I condone it), far more than The Undertow, whose friends are currently trying to save him from any sanction for his incivility. --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt bringing the_undertow into this will do any good. Please don't try and fan the flames further still. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"Fanning the flames". How about assuming good faith about my motives? I merely noted the differing attitude of admins towards two cases of uncivil behaviour. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(Update: Oh, I see [33]. I wasn't even aware of that comment before I posted here. Makes an interesting comparison). --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to read the whole thread above as it is upsetting to me (though I respect other's opinions.) Just to say that I didn't mind the swearing, it was the threats of further action towards me that particularly concerned me. Obviously I am not impartial :) but I think a short block would be in order, of a short duration bearing in mind DS's contributions here, but also bearing in mind that most people who threaten outing or other stuff aginst an editor are treated severely. It would depend on how he acts after the warning I think he's been given. Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block. But not indef at this point. I also still disagree that he has exactly advocated outing- she just said that she cannot fault Brandt if he does so, in the light of the BLP problems on wiki (not an opinion I share as I'm firmly against outing.) DS didn't do this after I made a thread about him, months ago- he has just done this now because I stood up for someone, and because he can. Merkin's mum 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block". Yep, off-site outing of Wikipedians is not on. Just to clarify, I was referring to fighting off-site abuse with off-site abuse. Obviously, if David leaves Wikipedia then nobody will have any control over him in these matters, so it's probably in everyone's interests to persuade him to stay. --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having briefly dipped in to look over the issue, contributions, and incivility of this individual, and having reverted trolling to a userpage on my watchlist, I would have to agree that a block is justified. WP:CIV specifically says a couple of things (emphasis mine):

  1. "A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks."
  2. "...one single act of incivility can also cross the line if bad enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack...or severe profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough that they may result in a block without any need to consider the pattern."

I think giving a 'pass' to someone based on their previous valuable contributions sets a precedence. Nobody should be above WP:CIV, and the policy says as much in the opening sentence. ColdmachineTalk 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

DS definitely needs to cool off, but an Indef isn't warranted. He's been the subject of extended trolling here for a long long time, and for months he's dealt with it better than most can. From the IP vandal who hates that he puts his names on his photos to the constant attacks about living with some dude, to the constant wikilawyering attitude putting just about anything he says or does under extreme scrutiny, DS has taken a metric shitload of grief. While I think he should've learned to laugh it off and ignore it, or just get up and go shoot more great photos, I hardly think that, given the less than stellar support I've seen him get in those cases, we should now turn around and bring the fgull force to bear on him, when we couldn't be arsed to bring it to help him. There will be those who say 'two wrongs don't make a right, and though we messed up before, we shouldn't fudge it now to balance it' I say taht our lack of action meets the 'all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing' ethical failure. We didn't do enough when we could, DS flips out, now we call for his head? No thanks. He needs to hear from the community that he needs a week or two off, but as the block for a week was already overturned, we need to simply emphasize to him how he is both valuable and clearly overtaxed, and needs to go away voluntarily for some time. Even a few days can do a world of good for clearing the head. I'm not addressing the off-wiki stuff, just what I've seen here. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, an indef isn't warranted you're right but right now the response from the community has been "please don't go". All that does is shout loud and clear that it's okay to be as uncivil as you like provided you've been a good contributor in the past. Yes, blocks aren't punitive, but WP:CIV expressly states the conditions for when a block is appropriate and there are examples abound for why one would be fitting in this case. And as for the so-called Wikibreak: why were several breaches of WP:CIV then made after it was announced? It's nothing more than someone being a diva and the reaction from the community is exactly what was sought by this individual: "please don't go, your contributions are valuable". Sorry, but there are plenty of other valuable contributors out there who don't behave in this wholly inappropriate and utterly unacceptable way. A one-week imposed block is appropriate in this situation. Any other less notable editor would be given that treatment, why make a special case? ColdmachineTalk 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr Shankbone has been taunted and threatened and libeled and insulted up and down and sideways all over the place, on Wikipedia and off, in a legitimate and serious real-world stalking incident. People who are being threatened in real life as well as on WP get a pass on getting grumpy here when provoked. David may well benefit from some cooldown time. However, blocking to force him to take some would be punitive and attacking the victim.
Administrators should endeavour to help ID and block those harrassing him. If you feel he's behaving over the line please try communicating with him privately first, and not blocking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind." Many of those who engage in "outing" and other harassment of Wikipedians offsite try to justify their actions by claims of wrongdoing by Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Retaliating by trying to "out" them too just makes it seem like there's little reason to consider Wikipedia and Wikipedians to have moral high ground over the much-vilified "attack sites". *Dan T.* (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and there's nothing in WP:CIV or anything elsewhere which says retaliation is perfectly acceptable. It isn't, period. As a long standing contributor, in fact, David should have known this better than most. There is simply no excuse for this behaviour. The 'wiki break' which he is allegedly on is not in fact happening: he is not taking a break to cool off. A one week block is still justified in these circumstances. ColdmachineTalk 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like he's left. Congratulations. At least we still have our White Priders. --Folantin (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Mind the remarks you make. Being in a minority has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. If David has chosen to leave Wikipedia it's perhaps because he realised his thoroughly inappropriate behaviour was only digging himself into a deeper hole. Political and personal views have absolutely no bearing on an individual's capacity for common decency, basic manners, and mature conduct. ColdmachineTalk 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
"Being in a minority has absolutely nothing to do with this situation". What relevance does this statement have? --Folantin (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The same relevance as your own remark about "white priders". David has moved on from this; I suggest we all do the same. ColdmachineTalk 18:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does being in a minority have to do with White Priders? --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
While baiting is amusing, it won't work with me, sorry. Here, have the last word; it's all yours. ColdmachineTalk 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you can't give me a straight answer to a straight question then I suppose I'll have to. Off you go and enjoy your barnstar. --Folantin (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Chip Reese[edit]

Resolved

76.30.158.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/76.30.158.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) /Shinertex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been reinserting a POV pushing unsourced quotes into and filling up the lead of the Chip Reese article multiple times, request that an administrator look into this, the data has already been removed by at least one administrator already and was ignored.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 07:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I removed them again and gave a larger explanation which could help. Second, I'm watching the page but going to bed soon, so if it continues, ask for protection and tell them that it's coming from one username and 2 anons (which might require a checkuser to get at if it's really bad which it's not). Once they cannot edit the article, they'll either lie in wait or more likely actually discuss the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 09:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't see that this was brought here previously. As it was, I went ahead and protected the page.Balloonman (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disabling autoblocks on blocked accounts[edit]

Could someone remind me what the legitimate reasons are for an admin to disable autoblocking on an account? I don't want to give details in case there are privacy concerns, but in general should an admin give a reason for undoing an indefinite block and then re-enabling the indefinite block with autoblock disabled? Should I ask the admin concerned, or should they have given a reason in the log? Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm guessing the most usual reason would be that the IP is shared with productive editors, for instance a workplace or college network. Black Kite 13:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, collateral damage. But, I agree that the blocking admin should say as much in the block log. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, it would be useful, unless somehow that information might give a clue as to the IP address of another user, which I know has happened before. Black Kite 13:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with the above, ask the admin, he prolly knows what he's doing :). -- lucasbfr talk 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
While, since I don't know the details, I can't comment on why the admin is flipping the block, it should be noted that we have the new IPexempt tag, which would avoid these problems from the other end. Also, we have a very good historical case of this being a red-flag of shenanigans... If we know the specific admin and the specific unblocks in question, we may be able to comment intelligently on this. Can we get more details?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was only one account, but it now turns out it was two, though the two accounts are still related. I will e-mail the admin concerned, but may not get a reply before I go on wikibreak in a few days. Would it be acceptable for me to e-mail someone else to let them deal with it instead. It may be completely harmless, and I don't want to embarass anyone or cause any drama. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question is now directly commenting on the issues involved here, so I think I can now openly ask them on their talk page what is going on. I'll apologise straightaway if there is a simple reason for all this. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Post made here. That same post notified the admin of this thread. As I said there, I don't know that much about how block and autoblocks work. I only just noticed for instance that the change included "account creation blocked" (I had read that as "account blocked"!), hence the header of this section focusing on the autoblock disabling, rather than the account creation blocking. Again, I'll apologise straightaway if there is a simple explanation for all this, but I would like to find out what was going on here, even if it is just me learning a bit more about the different options on a block and when to use them! Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it effectively allows BC to continue editing, while disabling account creation. It seems ok to me. I think there are other ways to do it (eg if Beta gives his autoblock ID, we can lift it (and it's undetectable by the way)), but I don't think there is more to see here (the autoblock would have expired half a day later anyway). Giving ipblockexempt is not something to do lightly, for it allows editors to contribute through open proxies and fully blocked IPs. I guess there would have been much more discussion if Versageek did that instead. (disclaimer: I am just guessing here :)) -- lucasbfr talk 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It was an autoblock that BC had been caught up in. My question now is: when I unblocked Betacommand2, did I undo all that stuff about account creation and does the autoblock disabling get removed as well? Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

When you unblocked BC2 you undid the account creation and autoblock of that account. But it would not have undone the autoblock on another account on the same IP. MBisanz talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BOT out of control and needs temporary blocking/shutting off[edit]

Bot: User:DumZiBoT or [34]

Confirmation that it is a bot: I'm a bot, I am not able to understand by myself what is the aim of all these basic binary operations that I'm performing

Diff that bot is deleting material, not just adding a link at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=213072670&oldid=213069913

Please disable bot until repairs can be made. DianeFinn (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits seem OK. It's not editing that fast either. Do you have time to try asking at User talk:NicDumZ? I'll keep an eye on it for the next few minutes. If you get no response on the talk page, come back here and leave a note. Or simpler still, edit User:DumZiBoT/EditThisPageToStopMe. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A bot shouldn't be deleting anything. What's another possibility? Sneaky edit summaries and human editing using a bot user? I'm not going to accuse someone of that. So the neutral observation is that the bot is not functioning. DianeFinn (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked the bot. Carcharoth wasn't saying the diff wasn't a malfunction, he was saying that it was apparently not a part of a pattern. Still, it concerns me enough that I want the operator to look into it and actually request that the block be undone before the bot continues. Interwiki links aren't so crucial that blocking the bot is harmful. Mangojuicetalk 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I am sure this can be sorted out. AGF says that I don't say "the BOT is a ploy and a cover to do sneaky deletions" but rather look factually at the matter (the bot account is deleting, not what it should do, let's temporarily put the brakes on it). You see, the Barack Obama article can get very heated, even for simple factual stuff (example: people deleting his mother's name and opposing mentioning her full legal name in the sentence that Barack was born to father and mother. DianeFinn (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok guys, I'm on it.
A few things :
  • DianeFinn, you could have asked me what was going on before posting here.
  • Mangojuice, you could have asked me what was going on before blocking my bot.
I don't think that blocking then asking what was undergo was the right way to proceed here. My bot was editing approximately at a rate of one edit every TEN minute, it was obviously not an immediate threat to the community ?! No need to hurry, really.
Look at my talk page archives, I've been report hundreds of small mistakes by my bot, and it's the first time it's being blocked. (not to mention that reporting helps improving the bot) I... just don't know how to react here ?! guys, it was a single mistake... ? I seriously think that you overreacted on this issue.

On the technical side : DumZiBoT was running the well known and well used interwiki.py. I tried to understand what happened, I don't know yet. (And just so that you know, I'm a pywikipedia dev, I do understand how the script works, and I'm one of the maintainers.)

I'm asking you to unblock my bot. I honestly see no reason of having it blocked.
Also, I'll go on with my previous task. I'm trying to diagnose what happened right know. Don't re-block my bot on its next mistake, unless you are sure that *every* edit is a failure. One mistake over 200 edits is fine, just revert it, and report it on my talk page.

I know that at the moment bots are under strict looks here due to the behavior of some bot owners, but please, cool down. DumZiBoT is harmless.
NicDumZ ~ 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked the bot. Please figure out what went wrong before restarting. Nakon 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Simple. It was an undetected edit conflict. The two previous edits [35] are exactly what got undone by the bot. Since it was editing another part of the page, no edit conflicts have been raised by mediawiki, or so I think. Further tests are underway. NicDumZ ~ 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) mmmh... wrong. Can't be such a conflict two hours later. NicDumZ ~ 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it normal for the bot to make the same change twice on a single page? It seems to have done fine at 10:04, but then edited again at 10:14, and the second time it used the source from three revisions back. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Block requested[edit]

Hi, I've never done this before so I hope I'm doing it correctly. I am constantly being pushed into edit warring on the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. I have requested page protection, intervention, assistance and anything else I can think of. I have spent over a week rewriting the article on a work page, informing other editors I am doing so and inviting comments on the talk page prior to transferring the rewritten information into the page. Almost as soon as I have done so, the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RepublicanJacobite reverted the entire page without discussion or comment. I request that this user be blocked from making further edits on this article and asked to enter into discussion about what it is he does not li