Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive493

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Help with user: 203.87.194.142[edit]

I don't know about user 203.87.194.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've reverted his seemingly uninformed edits, but when I decided to revert his edits on Sasami: Magical Girls Club and gave him a 3RR warning, he suddenly reported me to WP:AIV in ill-advised fashion. Can anyone help me on this guy? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a minor edit dispute; nobody hasn't even reverted that much, yet. I'll just advise the IP on the invalid AIV report. Meanwhile, please try to discuss changes also on the article's talk page and check back if anything else happens that would require attention.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent incivility in edit summaries and elsewhere[edit]

I recently blocked Reqluce for a day, and then for a week, for repeated incivility, mainly in edit summaries. Now back from that second block, incivility continues (e.g. this IP BITE-ing) and my efforts to steer this editor back onto the rails don't seem to be working (see my Talk for more on that). Possibly someone uninvolved would be more successful. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You left a reasonably nice warning message. A possible improvement in handling it may have been to leave that kind of message first, rather than the two short messages that you wrote before you blocked him twice.

I work in customer service. From my experience, a message like the one currently on his user page might have been helpful before but now that it's rather late, it's much less effective.

These comments are not meant to say that Sheffield Steel is wrong or bad or that Reqluce has an excuse to be bad. Rather, good customer service is an art that can be learned over time. Good customer service can sometimes calm an angry customer and prevent them from vandalizing the store or shoplifting in retaliation for bad customer service.

How do we fix the situation? Maybe an administrator can write a kindly worded message encouraging good behavior but noting that persistent bad behavior has to be minimized and the few ways to do it is by blocking (spanking is not possible, otherwise there would be a WP:RFS board - request for spanking) Chergles (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Long block needed. I reported Reqluce to User:Useight who then gave Reqluce two warnings for incivility. Reqluce blanked his talk page with the edit summary "removing shit". He has managed to escape blocks by blanking his talk page warnings. I reported him to Useight after he got rather personal in an AfD, accused me of all sorts of bad faith actions. It got rather intense and I withdrew the AfD just to get away from the aggressive attitude. I then looked at his edits and noticed his edit summaries were largely made up of vulgarity, baiting and personal attacks. Also, he would sometimes revert an edit calling it "fecal", which redirects to poo. Nasty individual and way too aggressive. — Realist2 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes you think I am male? "Baiting"? You need to prove it. And for the record with regards to your claim that you 'withdrew the AfD just to get away from the aggressive attitude', you had no choice but to withdraw it because of the quality updates from other editors such as User:MacGyverMagic, User:Mikkalai as well as several non-identifiable IP address editors who contributed either to the sourcing of the page or expressed an opinion on the talk page. These editors including myself took the time and effort to painstakingly research 3rd party reliable sources for a release which happened before the boom of the internet, justifying the article's need to be kept, which could have been deleted just because another editor who could not be bothered to do the research and slapped a AfD on it.Reqluce (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Wow, I'd definitely support a block just based on this exceptionally rude comment alone. This is your defense against accusations of uncivil behavior? Really? --GoodDamon 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
        • How rude indeed. Disappointing that you cannot even control your temper on ANI in front of hundreds of admins. See you in a month Reqluce, hopefully you can reflect on your behavior. — Realist2 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 1 month by User:VirtualSteve, for continuing to bite the newbies. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Gives him more than enough time to reflect on his attitude. — Realist2 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • For one who complains of baiting, you are doing quite a lot of it yourself, in both this and your preceding comment. Stop. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

help[edit]

I beg a SYSOPS please delete my account to stop me logging on. Failure to do so may result in my suicide. please just do it so that I can never log in again. Ponty Pirate (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is technically impossible to delete an account. I can rename you if you like though to a random name. Please post here to confirm. Also, please contact your local health professionals. A CU (not me though) is trying to help you too. RlevseTalk 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahhhhh.... no. WP:BP. Sorry. Try the wikibreak template linked from the duplicate thread on WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • He's gone, set the enforcer to 5 years. Damn, really tried to help the guy too--Jac16888 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Poor guy must read ANI a little too much. BMW 00:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to assure everyone that I Ponty Pirate am fine and regret joking about suicide. But that's all it was. A bad joke. I would appreciate it if a SYSOPS could allow this conversation to be deleted to try and stop other do-gooder editors from trying to contact my local Police force as it is highly embarrassing for my family. Thanks. I am on a WIKIBREAK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.139.39 (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
[1] Tiptoety talk 17:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin profanity[edit]

I wish to start a discussion about TenPoundHammer. He has a habit of performing non-admin closures on AfD discussions. When closing this discussion, he described the (kept) article, or perhaps its discussion, as merda, which is Latin for shit. Given that closing AfD discussions is a function normally performed by admins, I feel that a non-admin who closes an AfD should act with the integrity required of an admin. The closure is not able to be supervised in the manner in which an admin would normally be able to supervise a user. I believe that it's inappropriate to close an AfD in this manner. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's obvious that people aren't concerned about it. I withdraw my complaint. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) Wikipedia has a rich history--a tradition--of such comments, especially when they are context appropriate. This one seems context appropriate. Also the french chef in the disney cartoon the little's mermaid says either Merd or Sacre Blu. If it's okay for disney movies, it should be fine and dandy for wikipedia. ...just hangin out waiting for commentary on my request regarding the list of bow tie wearers) --Firefly322 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that TPH was just trying to funny but his Latin wasn't up to job. A little bit naughty perhaps but not worth getting our collective knickers in a twist about. CIreland (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You might get a better response from him if you had first left a polite, friendly message at his talk page saying you had a concern. Looking at your contributions, it seems the first you mentioned it to him was to let him know you had posted here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This is appalling! An article on Latin profanity that fails to include "glubo, glubere"! - Nunh-huh 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


(Non-admin disclaimer) I thought it was funny, but I guess I would as a one-time Latin nerd.... – ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(Admin disclosure) Quite funny, nothing to see here. And nothing actionable. seicer | talk | contribs 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I was just trying to have a little bit of fun on the subject at hand. I have seen many comments of this nature made in the past, and didn't mean offense to anyone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I found it hilarious and I was the one who started the AfD. The article has promise to improve and seriously, thats the best outcome possible. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see a problem. 10lb is still non-adminned? Well, color me with cliche #1, then. How did this happen? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So go and nominate him. I'm going to be busy reading the article on Latin profanity which I was previously unaware of. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Where was Wikipedia when I was in high school Latin class? LOL --B (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Returning hoaxer[edit]

Resolved: 2 accounts blocked, everal articles deleted. --barneca (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#User:Cicero Motors and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Possible hoax - Cicero (Automobile).

Considering that, can the article be speedied and the creator indefblocked? --Sable232 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagged speedy G4. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As for the creator, I don't think this action warrants a block, even a temporary one, yet. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
How many hoaxes do you think an editor should be allowed before he is blocked?—Kww(talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I go by the four-warning system, even though in some cases I'd start directly at level 2. This is not one such case, as this editor has very few edits and made no attempt to disrupt the deletion process. Furthermore, it's been more than a month since his last edit, so a block wouldn't serve much of a purpose anyway. Since he hasn't edited after getting his first warning, no action is necessary except for keeping an eye on him. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
When an indef-blocked user (User:Cicero Motors) creates sock puppets to continue the vandalism (User:Likfsgsv and User:Jonesie24), we don't need to start the cycle of warnings all over again. Blocking both indef as socks, and I've deleted several related articles as a combination G1 (obvious hoax) and G4 (recreation of material deleted at XfD) and IAR. --barneca (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Baby P[edit]

Concerning the death of Baby P, there is a British ruling protecting the names of the baby and two of the adults convicted of his murder. On the talk page, it has been pointed out that this is primarily to protect Baby P's siblings. Nevertheless, the names of those involved are available on the Internet if you search hard enough. Various editors have put the names in, but have been reverted and there is some discussion on the talk page indicating that this is the preferred state for the article.

It has been suggested on the talk page that the edits naming the people involved be deleted entirely - otherwise it's pointless reverting since the information is still easily visible.

I don't know what the right thing to do here is. Legally, Wikipedia is probably safe. Out of respect for the decision of the British courts and in the interests of protecting these individuals, I wanted to raise the issue here to see if administrators believe deleting parts of the history is the right thing to do. GDallimore (Talk) 10:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Legally wikipedia doesn't have to do anything. (Although British editors should take care!) However, our "do no harm" rule comes in here. The law is passed to prevent harm to minors, by reducing the prominence of their names in print. (A prominence that will endure into adulthood!). Given the intent of the law, the possibility of harm to minors, and the fact that the names add little to the reader's appreciation of the case and its significance, then all such names should be expunged from wikipedia pages.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Interesting that you comment about British editors - it was something that also occured to me. I could say that I have an onus and duty to uphold the court's decision and should remove the material on that basis irregardless of consensus or 3RR! But I can't delete it entirely, which is why I've come here. The "do no harm" is a policy I can agree with without any hint of sarcasm and wonder if that's enough to scrub the edit history. I can do the work in finding the diffs if required of me. GDallimore (Talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
They have all been oversighted, and I am leaving the user a note now. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That's very kind. There are other examples in the edit history. Would you like me to go back over it and provide you with the diffs? Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have got one more oversighted, and added a commented warning. neuro(talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Yes, if one person could please email the list of diffs (any/all that contain the names) to the list mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, that would be great.
Also, we have the ability to add notice when a specific page is edited - could someone create one of those for this article, informing the would-be editor that these names are being systematically reverted by editors, and oversighters are removing the edits. Note that semi-protection isnt likely to be effective - it is also regular contributors who are adding the names. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that semi-protection still could be more effective than nothing at all. I will add the edit notice if necessary, but for now I would think that the standard comment warning will suffice. Naturally, if someone feels different, the page is at the /Editnotice subpage. neuro(talk) 12:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I realise that the decision of the British courts was made to "protect the children" however I am not quite agreeing with this decision, especially as the talk page seems barren of any real discussions of concensus apart from some randomly placed yells of wikipedia is not cneosred. It brings to mind Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required where the opposite decision to this one was reached on a similar case. –– Lid(Talk) 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This case is a unique situation, and requires a sui generis solution. It is certainly within the spirit of the relevent policies, such as WP:BLP, to do no harm. While this situation may not be covered within the text of any policy, this is an WP:IAR case in the sense that what is best for the encyclopedia is to avoid propagating harm against individuals who themselves did nothing to deserve it. I endorse the removal and oversight of their names; and feel that there is no value to the information being added to the article. I am not bothered by the lack of policy guidance in how to proceed here; common sense says that removal is the right move... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
More diffs should they wish to be oversighted. I think you got the rest. Thanks:
  • information added [2], some info removed [3], rest of info removed [4]
  • on talk page [5], removed here [6]
  • another one [7], removed here [8]
  • new one [9], removed here [10]
As for the comment about lack of discussion on the talk page, yes, there wasn't much, but it seemed pretty clear to me that the prospective harm outweighed the insignificant benefits. I also wanted to take discussion away from the talk page to an arena that was more likely to be neutral - ie here. Also, the names will doubtless be released in time and they can be added then. GDallimore (Talk) 13:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
PS, there is a guideline that is relevant to the mother and her partner: Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_names
How widely disseminated are the names? Appearances in news sources or on blogs/forums? –– Lid(Talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it matters much, but it's apparently on some blogs and also on Myspace (I'm told). The BBC did publish the names, but then took the report down although it can still be found through google if you're really desperate. A paper referred to as "gutter press" published the names. Can't recall the details. That's about all I know based on the article history. GDallimore (Talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

break[edit]

Interestingly, 3 days (or so) ago I admin deleted a few revisions mentioning the names and emailed oversight. Theresa mailed back saying oversight had been refused on the basis that the Daily Express had published the name and she supplied this link to an online copy of the story. I figured I had just overreacted. However, I notice that the edits I deleted have now been oversighted, some time in the last 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Call me a moralistic ass, but I'd like us to aim at higher ethics than the Express.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and I'm in agreement that the names should be left out, at least for the present. I only brought it up to illustrate two points: that oversight can be fickle and that the legal position in the UK (relevant for British editors) may not be clear cut. CIreland (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am a cretin; the edits weren't oversighted, the page got moved. CIreland (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The Express article was from the first day the "trio" appeared in court and is therefore likely to be before the court secrecy order. If the fact that this article is still on their website were brough to their attention, the Express might actually remove it, as the BBC did with their similar article. GDallimore (Talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the Daily Telegraph (which is a considerably more reliable source) also published the names at the time of the trial. – iridescent 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have actioned all the outstanding oversight requests for this article. I believe it is within policy due to the court order that Baby P should remain pseudonymous. However, I havent oversighted when there are too many diffs between the introduction and removal of the information (i.e. there is an editorial reason to keep the diffs). Editors have been firm in reverting this information being added to the article, and one other more experienced oversighter acted on a request for oversight on this issue.
I think the court order came into effect after those news sources went to print. Are overseas sources covering this? Are they disregarding the British court order? John Vandenberg (chat) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for curiosities sake, what does the government hope retracting their names will protect them from? The accused are the parents and a guy living in the house.. I'm pretty sure they all know the names of the other siblings...--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The court would be seeking to protect the siblings from ridicule and harassment. They'll be in care or fostered and may be subject to undue interest (eg bullying) from other children in the children's home, at school or in the street, or from adults or the press. The protection order should cut down on this. Wikipedia isn't obliged to obey the order, but I don't think there's any harm in voluntarily following it and practicing some self-censorship when we're dealing with the ruined lives of minors. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, the police are investigating a number of websites which may have breached the order, see the BBC [11]. Redvers is right, the court is seeking to protect the siblings of the dead child, and possibly members of his extended family. I do not see that adding the names of the two adults concerned to our articles would add anything encyclopædic, but I do believe it would increase the risk of harm, to the surviving family members. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ForesticPig[edit]

I've been looking at this user for a couple of days now, and I can't for the life of me figure out what to do, so I'm bringing it here for some opinions. The userpage of ForesticPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) suggests this is an alternate account of an administrator. CU is showing that the account is using anonymising proxies to edit so the data is useless in figuring out if this is actually an administrator. My concern with the account is that it's editing in a highly contentious area (pedophilia/child abuse) and getting involved in big debates on the article talk pages. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as saying that ForesticPig is a pro-pedophilia editor, I do get the impression that his POV swings towards that direction. My personal opinion is that this would go against WP:SOCK because the user is using an alternate account to evade scrutiny on his main account. The Privatemusings RfArb had this principle which would also seem to suggest that what ForesticPig is doing is against policy. I'm inclined to block the account, but I'd appreciate some more opinions. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to use another account for contentious articles, for instance there have been problems with aggro writings on other sites over these articles. There are separate sanctions on the paedo articles though which he could fall under if he becomes/is too pro-paedo though, aren't there? Sticky Parkin 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that using these other accounts that mean scrutiny is evaded was a big no no. The thing is, I'm not sure his edits completely cross the line to sanction him for pro-pedopdilia editing - I think there is a minor POV problem, but it's small fish compared to some of the other editors. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously my concern is that he is not an admin and faking it on his userpage to avoid being blocked. I have been in email communication with him and would urge that we hold off blocking for another day or so until he can verify to a third party the identity of his primary account. Obviously if this sock is being disruptive, knowing both accounts would help in that both should be blocked. MBisanz talk 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
As a further comment on policy, if their other account is linked or traceable to their RL identity, then using an alternate account to edit particularly contentious articles would be OK. The best course of action I can see is for ForesticPig to register their main and alternate accounts with ArbCom through the mailing list. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig[edit]

I comment here, having been contacted by Ryan himself - and having already been in discussion with Matthew concerning the secure, private verification of my account via another administrator (who appears to be on leave, but may still comment). I would like to stress that disclosing my ownership of another account - specifically a sysop account, is intended to be an assurance of good faith. If, however - it is working in the opposite direction, I will be happy to remove said disclosure until someone can securely verify it (I would rather remove the disclosure than expose myself to arbcom or any other authority). If the arbcom itself concludes that my disclosure is inappropriate, then fine - I'll do away with it. I can see how it could lead to certain suspicions concerning my use of an anonymous (SOCK:LEGIT) account.

I would just like to specify that the IP I am using is not what would traditionally be called an "anonymising proxy". It can be verified as a normal ISP-linked account IP. I would also like clarification from Ryan, concerning what he sees as a "POV problem". Whilst my editing often focuses on Sexology, and fringe sexology at that, it has always attempted to correct biases and flaws that are present. This is the nature, it would seem - of an anonymous account for editing such articles. It would be useful if Ryan could provide a few diffs to support his contention.

Attention should also be paid to the possibility that this kind of discussion/block could damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Without a balanced approach to editing fringe topics, we are likely to attract extremists - fair gain for the vigilance groups and journalists who are already tracking this issue as it develops. In light of this, it would be useful if I were just allowed to go on demonstrating without undue alarm, that not every article involving one or more of Children, Sex and Trauma need be reduced to a talk-show rant (the likely perception engendered by censoring the kind of work I do with ForesticPig). forestPIG(grunt) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Um.. [12] [13] forestPIG(grunt) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was requested via email to confirm that ForesticPig belongs to an administrator. (Sorry for the delay, I don't check that address often...) This is the case. I am personally acquainted with the account's operator. Sade 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, can you also confirm whether or not you think that this alternate account is being used in line with the WP:SOCK#LEGIT policy? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Just to clarify, the reasons I cite for the use of this account are:
  • Avoid linking alternate locations I edit from, in light of security concerns.
  • Avoid linking the PI associated with my main account with my work on psychology/sexology/race articles and other articles that may be used to maliciously and unreasonably infer conclusions about my personality. The protection offered by the account is also family-related. It is not an attempt to escape justifiable scrutiny towards the work in and of itself. There would tend to be more attention paid to the edits of an account with a narrower focus. forestPIG(grunt) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:131.247.244.234[edit]

The above IP continually removes sourced information from the Taurus article because it is "sexist". Numerous editors have reverted him, including myself. I have given him a final warning several times and encouraged him to take the issue to the talk page, but he simply won't. Please assist by either blocking the IP or protecting the page. Cheers. — Realist2 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given them a 3RR warning, if they revert one more time contact me and I'll block them for long-term edit warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Tim. — Realist2 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The address is the University of South Florida, I've added the appropriate template, so they can get a schoolblock. dougweller (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
...which amuses me, since their mascot is the Bulls. shoy (reactions) 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about indef blocked user, and editing anonymously[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked 1 month

I was under the impression that when a user was blocked indef, that the block would even apply to them if they began editing anonymously? Well, not that the block applies, I realize that the block doesn't follow the named account to an IP, but the concept applies: an indef blocked user is effectively banned, and editing as an IP is attempting to evade blocks.

Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) was indef blocked, created several socks, which were blocked. He recently came back as Special:Contributions/76.167.244.204, which was blocked several times in increasing duration.

Now that the block expired, he is back, doing the same basic thing. Moleman was very militant about adding YouTube poop to articles, and the now-unblocked IP of Moleman continues [14]. The contribs of the IP give me no reason to beleive that this IP is no longer assigned to Moleman, and that the IP editing is Moleman. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SSP and WP:SOCK RlevseTalk 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
So even tho this is a known IP of the blocked user, I should still go thru the sock reporting procedure? Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I took care of it. In the future, should this re-arise, SSP is an appropriate venue to take this; however there is no need to jump through the hoops for such obvious socks. The "investgation" took me all of 2 minutes to verify via the WP:DUCK test that this was Moleman 9000. If he wants to edit, he can request an unblock on his main account or contact arbcom. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I did file an SSP, so if anyone wants to archive it, feel free. I have no doubt that once the current block wears off, he'll be back. If you look at the IP, and the blocked socks, he's pretty persistent, and there's no apparent reason to think otherwise in this case. He's had the same IP for over a month, which has never been used by anyone other than him. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The SSP report is at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Moleman 9000. For a previous report that mentions the same editor, see WP:Suspected sock puppets/Particleman24. The common theme is 'YouTube Poop.' Blocks have been issued; nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible threat regarding images of Muhammad[edit]

There has been a signficant uptick lately in cases of people removing images from the Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Depictions of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) articles as well as those posting on the article talk pages requesting or demanding removal of the images. For the most part the activity is so minor and duplicative that it doesn't warrant much attention. Unfortunately, this morning somee made a posting which comes dangerously close to a threat. In particular, the comment "...we muslims don't give a rats ass whether your laws permit you to put up these pictures. Eventually we will get them reserved through peaceful or forceful means" grabs attention. Being that the only posting this user, CapTa1n Half (talk · contribs), has made I'm torn between sanctioning and ignoring. It is likely just typical blather, but it does still represent a stated threat against Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore, and return images; this is on the level of "I'm going to hold my breath until you say you are sorry..!" I am also suspicious of the use of language by these "muslims" (they would, I should have thought, have capitalised the word) in that "rats ass" is no real insult or invective in such culture. I think this is trolling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the notion that a sincere follower of Islam posting in good faith would let slip an uncapitalized muslims in the same sentence as rats ass, much less in a posting having to do with Muhammad, is highly unlikely. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking. Not to stereotype or anything, but this rant just doesn't sound like the usual requests for image removal, which usually come in a more reverential-of-Muhammad style. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Extending what Gwen Gale wrote above, I would also add that WP:RBI comes to mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The next time someone states that images of Muhammad are not allowed in Islam, point out to them that Wikipedia is not Islam. The two are often confused. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Question; could we revert the "remove the images!" requests from the talk page itself, and save everyone the trouble of pointing out the guidelines of censorship, etc...every time? Or was that in reference to just reverting the attempted removal of the images? Tarc (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We could put an editnotice on the article page linking to the FAQ that they could then ignore. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD assistance required[edit]

The article preacher's kid was nominated for deletion at the location Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid (2nd nomination). As there was no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid at the time, I moved the discussion there. However, I have now found the previous discussion, which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's Kid (note capitalisation). Should the page be moved back, capitalised and moved back, left where it is, or what? And can someone get all the links and listings straightened out? It would be much appreciated. Thanks, the skomorokh 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

These are different article spaces so I wouldn't move them about, else things could later be even harder to follow: Instead, make a note in the current AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the current AfD links to the previous one now at least. Thanks for the advice, the skomorokh 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid (2nd nomination) to free up space for possible later AfDs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questionable userpage?[edit]

Resolved

Let's not get carried away by jokes now... the content has been removed, carry on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the way Cmmmm's userpage has a link to Category:Muslim Wikipedians so close to his views that Islam is evil and violent. His comments about Jehovah's Witnesses being paedophiles also seems close to the line. I don't want to pick a fight by blanking the page though; perhaps I'm being too thin-skinned? Pseudomonas(talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Large sections of it certainly fail WP:SOAPBOX. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this kind of kooky ranting has no place here. I've blanked it and told the user why. Friday (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
He also can't spell. Although he may be under one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Careful Bugs! Some other very nasty editors are know for their poor spelling. Giano (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now you're intimitating me. "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Come see the violins inherent in the system! BMW 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, now yer fiddlin' with me. Stringin' me along. But I won't fret none. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Move along and sing your sob song elsewhere---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Who are you calling a sob? Them's fightin' words, boy! You'll hear from my lawyer - Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga, of the firm Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormick. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oooops WP:NLT, I have applied the necessary template to your userpage!!!!--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Scott, I would have indef blocked him for that, except it's clear Bugs is a WP:DOLT. Insert smiley face here --> :) <-- to avoid being templated or blocked for a personal attack --barneca (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest demand that Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) be indef blocked under WP:NLT unless he indicated that he has withdrawn his instructions to Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga, HHHH & McCormick. And can someone inform Mike Godwin?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All things considered, I would rather be "indefinitely" blocked than to be "definitely" blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Related to the above, there was a threat of violins above. Have the authorities been alerted?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone called the authorities, but nothing was done; they were too busy having sax. GJC 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I tried contacting someone at the Hungadunga office, but none of the Hungadungas were there. I spoke to McCormick, and he gave me some good a-spice. I wanted to challenge the defendant to a handball match, but my lawyer recommended an out-of-court settlement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Geez, I thought this was a serious attempt to indef block Baseball Bugs. I guess I have to go back to trying to get him blocked for having bad taste in baseball teams. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, haven't we Cubs fans suffered enough? We're lapping 100 years now. We've practically got our own Y2K problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
'You have balls. I like balls.' HalfShadow 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User page that needs attention[edit]

Resolved

O.K, this userpage is a little old, but it sends a bad message to new user's that may get in trouble for having personal info. here it is. It gives his name, town he lives in, and the worst of all, phone number! What should be done about this? SteelersFan94 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks, GDonato (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged[edit]

Resolved: Taken care of (for the moment at least). Kralizec! (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your kind attention at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is requested. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 blocked for edit warring after one edit[edit]

Resolved: Tony1 unblocked, dispute resolution recommended instead of edit warring. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs) is a very hardworking and valuable FAC specialist who has been here a long time and never been blocked before . He was warned by MBisanz on November 10 about edit warring on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Since the warning, he has edited the page in question once. Yes: one time. Here it is: [15]. Is that a nasty edit? Does it rise to a one-edit war? Have we totally re-defined the concept of "edit warring"? Anyway: 8 minutes after he'd made it, Tony was blocked for 12 hours by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

What the..? 12 hours is a short block. In fact, being an aussie, Tony may sleep through it. But that's not the point. A block is a humiliation. especially if done to a long-time highly active and trusted user who has never been blocked before. I will unblock unless somebody posts an objection pretty soon. I would particularly like to hear from Rjd0060 how one edit was a war. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Unless you understand the background here, I advise not unblocking without discussion. The background is a lengthy war concerning MOSNUM that has led to admins being given block warnings, etc. looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is what I'm after. That's why I posted it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
  • Support unblock While I see some editwarring in the history, that was over a week ago. I don't get how one edit deserves a block, especially of one of the more variable editors in the project. I also agree that this should be discussed further. Secret account 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I encourage you (and everybody else reading this) to take a close look at the history of edit warring on that article. Tony1 was one of the primary "warrers". There were two others, who were also blocked. Please review my comment to Tony, here which contains the entire timeline. The page was protected at one point, and immediately after unprotection Tony, and others continued to edit war. I felt that since protection was attempted, and failed, blocking was the best alternative. I've blocked all three users who continued to edit war despite the protection and despite being warned. All users responded to the warning last week and Tony1's response is noteworthy. Please review this section. Should help clarify things. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed it, thanks. "Tony...continued to edit war" Really? He made one (notably harmless) edit, and that was the entirety of his "continuation". Theoretically, you blocked him for it. But what I take from your post is that you either blocked him for edit warring a week ago, or else because he spoke to those who warned him in an uppity way. Those are not blocking matters. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
No, I blocked for continuing to revert edits without pursuing dispute resolution. Long-time editors should know better. Why did he continue to revert? Why did he not pursue DR? Why, just because he is a long time editor, does he get off the hook for reverting edits without following basic policies that even the new users are expected to follow, especially after being warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Your logic seems to be as poor as your judgement. Edits, in the plural; what edits? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, it seems a little heavy-handed for one edit, made more than a week after the last one. Blocks are a black mark on an editor, especially wrongful blocks, even if they do get overturned. Tony's been here what, 3 years, and has never been blocked before, so it is a little dismaying to see this. I would encourage Tony to stop edit warring though, whether the block was right or wrong. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, This diff is the edit in question, it was not even removing a tag, but instead changing which tag is used. I'm astounded that somebody could consider blocking somebody for that edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Unless they were officially told not to revert at all on this page, I don't see how one revert could count as edit warring. I also note that the person who reverted Tony's changes was not blocked or warned. I'm glad Bishonen brought this here because I was just about to. Tony should be unblocked. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
However, instead of continuing to edit war against there being a tag Tony1 was trying to reach a compromise seven days after he had stopped the edit-warring by proposing a different tag in a single edit. He was then blocked. That's just not a sensible response. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
He did revert to a version that was part of the edit war post-protection. Having one's opponent blocked for edit warring is not authorization to revert his edit. MBisanz talk 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be true. The edit war was over adding and removing part of the text, or a "disputed" tag. That happened on the 10th. On the 18th, Tony did not remove the "Disputed" tag when it was replaced, but proposed replacing it with an "under discussion" tag. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the disputed tag had been placed by Locke Cole in objection to the under discussion tag placed by Kotinski. Since there was disagreement over the tag type, Tony1 should have known better than to revert. MBisanz talk 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that edit warring like that is very bad, but the block was over the one latest diff. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. What is the use of blocking a productive editor like this, for 12 hours (which he may not even notice)? It's not supposed to be a punishment, or timeout. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading the timestamps correctly, Rjd blocked Tony three minutes after his last edit, I don't think the "he knew he was asleep and still blocked" argument applies to that timeline. MBisanz talk 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, when I said notice I meant it wouldn't affect him because he'd be able to go and do something else (be that sleep, eat, work whatever). I'm sure he's noticed he's been blocked. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A page protection should have worked better, again what's the point of blocking productive editors over one edit. If the edit waring was a day ago instead of a week, a block could have been in order, but it's not. Blocks aren't punitive. Secret account 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The page was protected for a week, none of the involved parties attempted to discuss their differences during the protection and resumed the edit war when the protection expired. Locking down an entire guidelines page for 3-4 edit warriors is not beneficial to the 10,000 other users who are editing pages constructively. MBisanz talk 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. Blocking established editors like this is not the way to go. I suggest instead using page protection. Also note that User:Locke Cole was blocked by Rjd0060 for a week, which seems quite excessive. He should be unblocked as well. User:Kotniski was also blocked for 12 hours. --Aude (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't Locke Cole still in Arbcom Enforsement, also most of the edits I saw from him is edit warning of many articles. I'll support the block of him unless there is something I'm missing? Secret account 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like his 1RR parole expired last year, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole/Proposed_decision#Locke_Cole_placed_on_revert_parole. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with Locke Cole, but now see that he has a lengthy block log. Still, a week seems a bit long when page protection could work instead. And, I don't know anything about User:Kotniski, except see that the user has never been blocked before. --Aude (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Damn, what a blow to my ego. I'll try to get blocked a bit more often then in order to increase my profile. (That was a joke, just in case anyone...) But seriously, this whole issue is ample evidence that WP's dispute-resolution and rule-establishing mechanisms, though doubtless philosophically pleasing to many, are seriously broken in practice.--Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Tony1 and Locke Cole per the growing consensus here. I'd still encourage both users to pursue dispute resolution and to stop reverting each other. Long time users or not, they shouldn't be exempt from these basic guidelines; guidelines that even the newest contributors are expected to follow. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock of Tony1. He's put a tremendous amount of work into the MoS trying to make it consistent and correct, and a block isn't a good way to repay him. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
He's already been unblocked. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
And who exactly is User:Rjd0060 to have the power to block one of Wikipedia's most valuable edotors? How dare he? Who on earth votes these peole t be Admins? No wonder this site is going to the dogs. Make sure he never crosses my path. Giano (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The answer is surely obvious. Those who vote people like Rjd0060 to be admins are generally those who want to be admins themselves. Who else in their right mind would choose to hang around the corrupted slough of despond that is Rfa? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely not those are aren't cut out to be one. ^_^ Synergy 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
All just reinforces Douglas Adams' sentiments: "the only people who should have power are those who don't want it".  HWV 258  23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear that Rjd0060 should probably be immediate desysoped. This is ridiculous, and no admin should have ever have blocked Tony1 in this situation. Thus, he is either not fit to use the powers, or his account is compromised. Either way, that means that he should be stripped of any access to tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I find your comment to be lacking in (a) use of exclamation marks; and (b) use of the words "abuse" and/or "harassment." A more appropriate comment would be in the form, "How dare he block an editor! Abuse!11! Desysop at once!"

To Giano: Is an edotor like a special type of editor or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is what people have done in threatening those who challenged this action. This actual action is something that cannot be said because of the civility policy. But I wonder if that is true, especially with yourself declared "snark" acknowledging that no one really cares about civil anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that Rjd0060 was perfectly capable of warning people before blocking (as seen here). Thus, blocking in this instance such a highly respected editor is extremely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I warned everyone Rjd0060 blocked today that I would block for further disruption and edit warring earlier this week. MBisanz talk 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
And honestly, how many warnings does a established editor need to be given? Tiptoety talk 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how this was one revert, and this is a well established user, a week old "warning" by a different administrator is not even close to being acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole[edit]

In response to this thread, User:Crotalus horridus created an MFD for WP:MOSNUM that is here. Given that this is pretty much trying to change policy by deleting a page, User:Kotniski (who I should point out is not an uninvolved editor) speedily closed the MFD (here) pointing out MFD is not the place to established policy, and removed the MFD template off WP:MOSNUM - a move I think is appropriate. Locke Cole has since gone and reverted those changes (here on the MFD page and here on the MOSNUM page). (As I wrote this, Kotniski has again tried to speedily close this). There is a lot of disruption going on here, which I feel needs some action at least on Locke Cole's side. As I'm involved on that page, I won't do it, but seek opinions if there is problems going on here. --MASEM 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...and Locke Cole's gone and reverted the close, invoking IAR. --MASEM 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm done reverting this. But it's getting REALLY frustrating seeing these kinds of actions from editors who are clearly involved... —Locke Coletc 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am not involved and what I am seeing is some very disruptive behavior from you. If you revert again, in any shape or form you will be blocked. Enough is enough. Tiptoety talk 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
As I indicated I won't revert again. But it'd be nice if we could get more than fifteen minutes of discussion before someone closely involved tries to shut it down. —Locke Coletc 20:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Locke Cole's rollback access; see also #Edit_warring_at_MFD.--Maxim(talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it clear yet what Tony1 has been dealing with as he tries to keep the MoS pages usable and coherent? All this while Tony sleeps down under, and will awake to find his work was rewarded with a block log. Gee, I want one, too; seems all good editors have one these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Your sarcasm isn't the slightest bit helpful. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Me too! Let's dilute the hell out of the system. This whole debacle has done nothing for the dignity of the admin process.  HWV 258  22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I too have been sleeping down under; and I am appalled to wake up and find that Tony has been treated like this, simply for adjusting a tag. I think there should be a formal apology, and everything should be done to ensure that this mistake by an admin will never count against Tony in any future deliberations on Wikipedia. Tony is a fiercely hard-working and remarkably competent editor, passionately concerned to bring order to WP:MOS and its associated pages – where I for my part simply left, finding certain editors' lack of good will and good sense too much to endure. I am sure others have done the same.
¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Noetica, if you harbor delusions that this won't be held against Tony, you missed the Ceoil case. He was blocked because an admin misunderstood jokes between him and another friend on their own talk pages. Then yet another admin later misunderstood another set of jokes between Ceoil and another editor, and baited Ceoil on his talk page, specifically mentioning his block log, and then threatened to block him because of how Ceoil responded to being blatantly baited. Then that admin tossed a truckful of F-bombs all over the place, was desysopped by Jimbo, but had the bit back within hours. Such is Wiki; that all of this happened in about a month gives us an idea of the circus we've got going. The Tony1's and Ceoil's, who work to turn out what we put on our main page every day but aren't admins, are judged and hung on one word or edit, while admins are protected even if they toss out a truckload of F-bombs. And then some admins don't understand why hard working volunteers are insulted about having their block log smeared. There needs to be some dialogue somewhere on Wiki to get better understanding about those who are toiling away at the different tasks in different areas of Wiki. Admin tools and tasks are needed and welcomed, but all too often, the vandal fighting mentality is turned on our most productive writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well said Sandy. — Realist2 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sadly true. Admins takes a quick look at a block log and then double the last block. What that has to do with building an encyclopedia will forever remain a mystery to me. Administrators get away with murder, but regular editors have every one of their alleged misdemeanours recorded in their block logs. It's about time that administrators were held equally to account. Number of blocks reversed, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Outrageous. WTF? True that Tony's been very vocal on the talk pages, which everybody bar none agrees is the correct action. He discusses, makes one teeny edit and he's blocked - This is kangaroo adminship in action! The real danger is that it can be totally arbitrary and retrospective, as it appears this incident to have been. I'm totally quaking in my boots now to learn that any old admin can come along, see me doing something xhe disagrees with, and blocks me without warning. How can this be considered resolved? Tony's block will forever be an ugly wart on his nose, unless it is rolled back or expunged forthwith. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Tony is a persistently uncivil editor with a bad case of ownership over all of MOS. Those of us who know him have learned to deal with this; but the assertion that this block is outrageous is nonsense. He (and his supporters here) are one side of the current date-linking rumpus; Locke Cole is a champion on the other side. We should seriously consider demoting MOSNUM either from being a guideline, or from controlling FA; it is no service to the project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Some context for those unfamiliar with life at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM: PMAnderson is the foremost opponent of Tony's selfless campaign of improving and maintaining WP:MOS and its associated pages. Anderson is notorious at those pages for his weakening of established and new guidelines, in accord with his obscurely motivated wish that there be no clear standards for high-quality editing. Tony himself is a highly skilled professional editor in his life beyond Wikipedia, sought out by academic writers in many disciplines, and we are privileged that he donates so much time and energy to Wikipedia. If he is sometimes uncivil, it is in the face of unrelenting provocation from the likes of Anderson, who should consider (once more) backing off and examining what he might do that is constructive, himself. Let him first look to Tony's additional work in coaching editors striving to improve their work (see this page of Tony's, one of several such initiatives he has undertaken).
I am happy to count myself also as one who believes in our Manual of Style, and who has also worked hard to maintain excellence – though nowhere near as hard as Tony. Surely now Anderson will have some gall to spread against me, too. But let anyone interested enough consult the history of WP:MOS; taking a long view, it is clear who has been constructive and consensual, and who has been negative and a deleterious maverick.
¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I quite disagree that Tony has ever established consensus; after looking over the history, it seems he's outlasted his critics, rather than providing a reasoned discussion. Tony may think he's improving WP:MOS, but there is real debate on that subject. I believe that those parts of the manual of style which have a real consensus should be followed. I just don't see consensus on this particular section of WP:MOS, or any of the specific alternatives proposed. I see a weak consensus that autoformatting is deprecated, and a very weak consensus that WP:OVERLINK provides that almost all day-of-the-year links and most year links shouldn't be linked, but "most" is not adequate for bots or certain editors who don't check each individual link before approving semiautomated edits.
Unfortunately, I agree with Noetica that it's clear who has been constructive and consensual, and who has been negative and a deletionist (pun intended) maverick, but, as we don't agree which is which, it doesn't seem to serve much purpose to dwell on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I am appalled at the above attacks on Tony. We might disagree on some things, but I have found him to be ever sincere, polite, a tireless worker for understanding and clarity, and one of those editors that Wikipedia should fight to keep around performing volunteer excellence. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pete. Tony1 has worked closely with the FAC and FAR groups and his view on the MoS seems to be built after months (and even years) of learning about how people in those areas feel. That is not to say that he hasn't also done the same with those outside of those areas. However, it sure shows that Tony1 has worked with dozens upon dozens of some of the best content contributors in establishing consensus upon MoS before making changes. That is indisputable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:75.49.223.52[edit]

How long do User:75.49.223.52's attacks on another editor get to remain here? This user is not here to be productive. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks from here like he's blocked now, on the way to being banned, and the stuff on his talkpage (Am I right that that's what you're referring to??) remains only as part of an ongoing discussion. It ain't pretty, I'm with you there, but it may fall under the category of "giving him enough rope with which to hang himself". GJC 09:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
yes, it's the stuff on his talk page. His ranting and attacking there has nothing to do with trying to be unblocked, and all to do with giving him a forum to continue his attacks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See thread above, #Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne. Fut.Perf. 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless his Talk page is blocked, banning him does no good, since he still has an outlet for his attacks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BNP members[edit]

At the British National Party talk page links to websites listing over 12,000 peoples names, addresses, telephone numbers have been posted can someone remove these and delete the history this is surely inappropriate. - dwc lr (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly inappropriate. Contact an oversignter. Dendodge TalkContribs 15:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to contact the BNP to inform the of the leak as well. May be a UK version of the "Privacy Act" violation. BMW 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been headline news for two days, they are well aware of the leak at this stage... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oversight is pointless, just remove the links and report anybody who edit wars over it. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the link from the talk page; there are many comments between the introduction and removal of this link, which would all need to be removed if oversight was going to be used here. Obviously that is a lot of collateral damage. BNP will need to specifically request WMF that these revisions are expunged. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer at Kent Hovind[edit]

Resolved

Voicewr (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted a disclaimer into the Kent Hovind article claiming bias against creationists, Christians, etc. He is not responding to talkpage requests. Can someone please help. It has gone on a little too long. Aramgar (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours by User:Arthur Rubin. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through the article as well and don't see any major POV issues myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

203.33.181.133 Shared IP[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=253083965 for reference

This IP has been registered as coming from Catholic Schools Office - Diocese of Maitland- Newcastle, AU and has a high amount of vandalism from it. The recent edit was only the latest in a large number (in my opinion) And they have been given a last warning allready. I just wanted to make it aware for the admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.163.92 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Softblock for {{schoolblock}} issued. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I still say any IP identified as a school-IP should be permanently soft-blocked.
And before anyone starts saying 'Assume good faith', I defy anyone here to show me no fewer than three school-IPs that aren't a giant list of warnings and blocks. HalfShadow 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to extend the block. IMO, some schools when they see their IP blocked, make some effort to educate students about how not to use the school computers to vandalize Wikipedia, so that is why I always start with one month block and escalate the blocks if needed later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
To half-shadow; its because only those IPs which are the source of vandalism are the ones that get checked for WHOIS and get tagged as school-based IPs. Lots of great edits likely come from school-based IPs; and lots of registered users probably edit from school computers. The deal is, no one does a WHOIS check on any IP that isn't vandalising; so the results for your test get wildly skewed towards looking like schools are all vandalising. Its sort of like going to a courthouse and deciding that the entire town must be criminals because everyone at the courthouse is a criminal; law abiding citizens don't show up at court... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Telescope, history of telescope, optical telescope articles have POV[edit]

Hi, these articles have a consensus (in the talk archive) for the inclusion of the Muslim scientists, yet the editors there now have been deleting useful information for "UNDUE weight". Usually, I wouldn't mind so much its just that the editors there now have taken part in the discussion, but only started to edit-war now---after the main group has gone. I don't see why they are so tenacious at deleting information helpful to Wikipedia... Here's the archive. 208.96.109.12 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: This anonymous post seems to be by user:InternetHero based on his continual comment "I'll be back"[40][41][42]. although he is supposed to be hanging with his gf [43]. He gets allot of encouragement from similar (pro Islamic?) editorsUser talk:InternetHero#Don't give up, but also gets into trouble User talk:InternetHero#August 2008, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The sources seem to be valid although they are pretty hard to browse, however, per WP:ROC this does not look to me like something that went into the right article. The articles Lens and Refraction would be a better location for that information, and mention of these Arab scientists should be done in no more than one sentence in the articles listed above. Ibn Sahl did not invent the telescope, and that's that. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The originator of this request has only three edits prior to this request, all of which are related to the content in dispute. Two of those edits are reverts, and the third one contains the exact same text previously inserted by InternetHero (talk · contribs). Now because of dynamically allocated IPs, I would refrain from assuming that we're dealing with a single-purpose account, but it is obvious that we're dealing with InternetHero acting anonymously. InternetHero has been blocked once over a not-too-bright response to a warning, but has been warned for breaches of policy several times. Additionally, the way he/she evaluates "consensus" (8 votes against 5) is clearly not the way things are done in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Sahl, Ibn al-Haytham, Taqi al-Din, and also Leonard Digges, Giambattista della Porta are already dealt with in history of telescope. As to Telescope and Optical telescope, user:InternetHero is adding to a summery something that is not in the intro summery of history of telescope. Besides WP:ROC we have major WP:SYNTH problems re:Ibn Sahl, Ibn al-Haytham, and Taqi al-Din since "History of telescope" articles on the web[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] do not include them in their summery of the topic or support the the synthesis that Ibn al-Haytham was the (only) optical "father of the telescope". History of optics has an awful lot of people contributing to pre-telescope optics, not just Ibn al-Haytham. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne[edit]

Resolved: banned. Fut.Perf. 11:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

  • Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
  • Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.
This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    You didn't feel the need to disclose that you blocked the anon for 48 hours at the beginning of this discussion?[56] I finally got curious as to why the anon wasn't defending himself and went and checked the talk page to find out what was going on.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The user in question has posted some questions on an IP talk page. See: User talk:75.49.223.52. I am not going to answer these questions directly myself, but anyone is free to answer them as they see fit, either here or on that talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal 2. If harassing Arcayne is their only purpose then it becomes P1 by default, but it gives WP the AGF defence that good edits from that range are encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal 1. If this user had any intention of actually working on the encyclopedia, s/he'd have gotten an account. I'd have supported Proposal 2, but this has been going on since January. This needs to end, and end now. Blueboy96 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Per technical concerns expressed by Black Kite, I endorse Proposal 2. Granted, this user would have gotten an account if s/he'd ever intended to edit constructively after this long--but given the circumstances, Proposal 2 will likely have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur with LessHeard vanU. But I am assuming this is a dynamic IP? Is the range too broad for a range block? JodyB talk 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, it's too wide a range - being effectively AT&T dynamic access for the whole of the East Coast of the USA. Black Kite 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I know probably absolutely nothing or range blocks, but as far as I'v seen, whenever one puts and X or a * in place of a number, it is used to denote that that range should be blocked.

To the point, I'm afraid I would be blocked by what I assume is a range block that you are talking about, as my IP is in the range of 75. So um... there's my concern.— dαlus Contribs /Improve 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about blocking all of 75.X.X.X. That would be 1/256 of all IP space. looie496 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going through the provided diffs again, and some of these don't look like a problem at all. For example [57] What exactly is the problem with the edit summary here? What he stated was factually correct, and Arcayne's previous edit summary of "sp error" was in fact a misleading edit summary. This [58] is a table header in which many users are listed (and frankly given the contents of that column a little disclaimer isn't out of place). This particular edit could be seen as bad, but then I'd like the anon to provide diffs to support his assertions there [59] if the diffs can't or won't be provided then it is an attack. So 2 out of the 3 linked diffs don't really seem like a problem at all. However I do take issue with Arcayne's behaviour on the talk around this diff, [60]. He claims that this person is a proven IP troll, yet I'm still having a difficult time seeing it. Not only that he's purposely poking the IP by calling him a troll and fighting over where to place his comment when the IP had placed it first. We still seem to be missing the beginning of this dispute, and frankly I'm not comfortable with recommending anyone be banned from anything until we get some full disclosure here. Which for the umpteenth time its been asked, people seem to be going out of their way not to give. This dispute needs to be laid out from the beginning and I'd honestly like to see diffs from both sides, because there has been questionable behaviour on the part of arcayne, and while it doesn't excuse anything being particular uncivil, this might be far more complicated then simply laying the heavy hand on one side of the fence.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I also believe that there is not precident to ban a user from entering into discussion. Arcayne has a history of accussing other users. He seems to always be in some sort of dispute that ends up on this message board. Also, Arcayne's weakness is that he always has to have the last word. He responds to every little comment and attacks anyone who disagres with him. If he just ignored the anon, then the problem might have gone away by now. Recently, both Arcayne and William M. Connolley attempted to have this user blocked. WMC blocked the anon, but was told by the community, that the block was wrong, so this must be the next attempt for a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Arcayne prove his entitlement to claim multiple Oxon degrees to the Arbcom. Once verifed, the unregistered user can take it or leave it. Left unverified, there will always be the doubt that Arcayne really has these qualifications which he has used to support his arguments in the past. Let's remove all doubt, and have him prove it.Poltair (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Arcayne's real-world qualifications are not at issue here, nor is his overall behaviour (which, I agree, can sometimes be annoying). What is at issue here is the fact of wikistalking. The anon had a clear habit of following Arcayne around, unprovoked, reverting him on a multitude of unrelated pages with no other purpose than to annoy him, jumping into disputes that didn't concern him except for his urge to hit out at Arcayne, bringing up the degrees issue again and again without any factual need, again with no other purpose than to taunt Arcayne, and incidentally also distorting every word of what Arcayne was actually saying about the issue. In fact, Arcayne has very clearly stated what degree he has, it is absolutely plausible and matches everything he said earlier, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt his veracity. Fut.Perf. 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
How civil of you to dismiss my suggestion as nonsense. I think Arcayne's qualifications are an issue here. If he is going to play the I've got degrees in this subject so I know better than you card to brow beat his opponents in argument he should provide reliable sources to show that he is so qualified. I am certainly not convinced, and I think there is plenty of scope to doubt his veracity. Poltair (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you misread, and in fact are both arguing the same point. Degrees don't matter on WP. Asserting special knowledge/prowess because of degrees is bogus. What matters are properly cited edits. Users therefore cannot browbeat, and they're morons if they try to. -t BMW c- 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that degrees are not relevant here at WP, and that reliable sources are. My point is that attempting to block the unregistered user is not dealing with the issue, and is somewhat futile as discussed above. The unregistered user has an issue with Arcayne who, somewhat foolishly, has in argument claimed degrees that he has not substantiated. I still suggest that Arcayne prove it to the Arbcom, for privacy, (or withdraw the claims) so that the issue might be resolved, and there be no need to chase around blocking anonymous IP addresses. Poltair (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne has nothing to prove, nothing to explain and nothing to account for here. He did nothing wrong. There's no problem he'd have to justifiy himself over. He mentioned his academic qualifications once, in passing (and then, later, explained them again a couple of times when pressed by the anon). He did nothing wrong in doing so. I'm sure I've mentioned my own qualifications too at some point or other. Anybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from such a statement, or not to draw any. The anon never had any legitimate cause in making this an issue in the first place. Warning: by continuing to talk about this non-topic, you are actually continuing the harassment and could be treated accordingly if you overdo it. Fut.Perf. 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to threaten me. I am a reasonable person who responds well to well-reasoned argument. I don't agree with you, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. You clearly feel the same. We will have to live with that. I will not press the matter any further as I have clearly made my point. I will ask however, that you take the time to deal with me in a more civil tone in future; I do not expect to be threatened. Poltair (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. What he claims has no relevence. Only how users act in wikipedia matters. Although Arcayne can be a pill at times, I know, through interactions with him, that he is passionate about what he believes. There is no reason to believe that Arcayne is not telling the truth about what degrees he holds. Asking him to prove it is irrelevent. Arcayne, I just wanted you to know that I don't always disagree with you. I have seem many of your edits and you seem to to be smack on most of the time. I just think you need to relax, and don't sweat the small stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, as much as I can sympathize with this case of wikistalking, that still does not justify blocking 65,000 IP addresses in my mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody has suggested a range block. It's a ban on the person in question we are talking about, to be enforced by short term blocks of any new reincarnations. Fut.Perf. 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where all this starts. But [61], [62], [63] seem clear enough. For whatever reason, this anon has some bizarre hang-up about arcayne's degrees, which (properly enough) no-one else cares about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  • every time people provide diffs to try and paint how bad the IP is, I just see more evidence that makes me question arcayne. Your last diff wasn't reported by the IP (he contributed, but someone else started the discussion complaining about Arcayne.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, to refocus the discussion, the fact that Arcayne once, a year ago, claimed some Oxon degree is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is that in the intervening year, this user has done nothing EXCEPT browbeat Arcayne over that fact. Almost on a continuous basis, there is some edit summary, some comment in a talk page discussion, something where this guy gets his digs in. Its rude, its insulting, and its way overboard. At this point, we appear to have 7 in favor of some form of injunction, and 3 opposed to one. I personally feel that Proposal 2, which still allows the user to edit, but prevents him from continuing his harassment of Arcayne a good idea. No one has presented any counterevidence to indicate that Arcayne has done anything in the past year to provoke this guy, so I don't see where he has any culpability in this problem Any further ideas or comments as to how to handle this?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    I just pointed out above, where he insulted him and then edit warred over the placement of the IPs comment on a talk page when the IP placed his first. That seems plenty provocative to me. This is why I'm insisting on full disclosure on all the events leading up to here, not just a few cherry picked diffs which half the time make arcayne look bad.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, #2 is already in place [64] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    The thing for me is that everyone knows a range block is out of the question because it will effect innocent editors. Obviously this guy admits hes been here 7 years, he's well aware of this fact and is in a way using it to his advantage. Again, any kind of block, whether it be contacting Arcayne or a range block, will effect innocent editors from posting their opinions to the guy. Right now Arcayne is not the one in question, his qualifications certainly are not. I could call myself someone famous, I don't have to prove it, just like people don't have to register. However there is a bit of pathetic EW-ing, both disagreeing with each others edits. I don't know what the solution is unless we start a discussion about Arcayne's edits too. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I am the first one to admit - freely - that I am sometimes less tactful than I could be. I also agree that I should never have noted my educational background in a discussion (the only real instance of that ended several months ago, without recurrence), and I was properly chastised for doing so by others.
However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. I have not stalked that person's edits, nor have I done so for eight months. The anon has.
The anon claims that some of the IPs are not his/hers; that might possibly be true. Using fairly ham-fisted IP-matching techniques, it would appear that about 3/4's of the IPs are centered around the Chicago metropolitan area (which includes part of Indiana, for purposes of this discussion); the rest are uniformly from New York. There might be a pattern there to be found - the user might take monthly trips to NY for work or whatever - but I think that it serves everyone's interest to not tar an innocent user editing from 75. with the same brush. Avi mentioned in the related RfCU that 75. counts for about 1% of the internet (about 67.1 million IPs), and the wiki benefits from the input of them. We cannot block them out because one particular user is being a jerk. And don't think I am not creeped out (and a little frightened) by the fact that the anon would appear to be in my own backyard.
Proposal One doesn't block the IP range; it just bans the user from editing here from whatever account or IP they choose to edit from. While this means that anyone being crafty with the same IP domain is going to get probed for duckhood, I think we already tend to do this passively and unofficially with most folk who act similar to banned or blocked users.
By banning the user, we remove ourselves from Proposal Two's added duty (and me the additional nuisance) of reporting behavior which would likely reoccur (case in point: the anon has been blocked three different times for this behavior, and each of nine different AN/I's have all commented about how the user had acted inappropriately - to date, that behavior has only abated by blocking the anon)
It has also been argued by the anon that they have edited anonymously for seven years. While that is a statement we cannot really prove - again, no single IP means edit histories are difficult to track, what is more telling is the stated reason the anon prefers to edit via dynamic IP and the actual effects. The anon has stated in April that they prefer to edit as a "public user", and more recently that they wish to avoid the "social networking aspects" of Wiki, and simply concentrate on articles. Quite lofty; if only it were true. Out of all the IPs connected to the account (and again the RfCU only addresses those IPs that intersected with my edits), less that a tenth actually add content to an article (and uncited content, in point of fact). The remainder of all of these contributions consist of reverting me, attacking me in article discussion or filing various administrative actions, all against me. All of that seems to pointedly fly in the face of someone trying to avoid the non-encyclopedia-building aspects of Wikipedia.
Indeed, if the anon has been editing here anonymously for seven years, I cannot be the only person with whom the (s)he has taken exception to in the past. However, because the anon has chosen to twist one of our most cherished Foundational ideals - that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, can edit here - and used it to avoid repercussions for their behavior, they should not be afforded the same protection that we afford to any other anon who comes here to actually add to the Project. The assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders by which we overlook extensive, recurring and nasty behavior. This user has abrogated their right to edit in our community; using Wikipedia instead to wage a protracted guerilla action against one or more users is not part of our core policies.
Since they have shown they cannot follow our rules, and instead use them to continue action against their fellow users, I think that Proposal One removes the problem user without really interrupting the contributions of similar IP accounts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The thing with blocking the IPs he's caused trouble on is that he's clearly on a dynamic IP, which means someone else is also and theres a chance they could end up on a blocked IP (I know its a super-slim chance but still) Its a very extreme idea to ban IPs permanently. Heres an idea, I don't know if its possible, but is there a way you can block the IPs but still allow registration from them? That way if he does register whilst banned and then abuse Arcayne from an account, then we can sort it from there? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can make IP ranges so that they may only edit from accounts and not anon. -t BMW c- 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
what about registering though? thats what im worried about. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
As I keep saying, it's highly unlikely this will have to be enforced with long-term blocks at all, be it of ranges or individual IPs. Short blocks whenever he turns up again, depending of course on the intensity of his activities. In the unlikely event that more wide-reaching blocks should be necessary, ability for logged-in editors to edit through the block and ability to create new accounts through them are parameters that can be individually fine-tuned, just like we do with vandal blocks all the time. Fut.Perf. 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If we are still counting votes on this, I'd add my support to option 1. In practice, the two options are similar, since if a new IP shows up from this range who doesn't attack Arcayne it's unlikely that anyone will react to him in any way or connect him to this issue. The value of making this a ban is that any admin who notices the usual pattern will be able to block the IP without further ado. Most likely these blocks will be short, a month or less, and they will be anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. You do realize that if the ISP releases his dhcp release and gives him a new IP it isn't "creating a new account" and your usage of that indicates either a complete lack of understanding or an attempt to make something sound worse than it is. Your last CU failed I believe on an account you tried to tie to him. So do you have any evidence that he's actually created an account to harass you?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's assume that for a moment: in every account listed in the RfCU, the anon had the IP for a day (two at the most) before the ISP would reassign a new IP address. However, the anon has had this particular IP (the one most recently blocked) since November 7th - over ten days. Now, for you or I, that's nothing, but those who've interacted with the anon know this is extraordinary in the extreme. I am reckoning that, knowing it would only hurt him/her if a new IP were to pop up amidst an AN/I specifically addressing all these multiple IP identities, the anon has chosen (as opposed to it being an ISP choice - and the ISP apparently hasn't changed since March) to either not reboot the modem (which is what I have assumed the user has done to also reboot their anonymity). In prior instance when the anon was saddled with a template on their talk page that connected them to their prior ids by admin reinforcement, that IP would go silent, and a new one would pop up a week or so later.
The last RfCU did not connect the anon to a known user. Perhaps it is my own bad faith assumption that the user is previously blocked or banned user, and my apologies to Jojhutton for disturbing him while trying to connect some dots about the anon. The current RfCU makes no such mistake, simply addressing the various 75.etc. IPs that keep popping up to attack my edits, and the prior checkusers have been useful in that the anon had previously admitted to editing under the anons denoted in bold there.
As for attack accounts, is it your contention that the anon never created an SPA/rebooted his/her modem simply to have it appear that more than one IP were complaining about my edits? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The current RFCU is pointless as all a RFCU is is to look at the underlying IPs to see if they're the same or similar. Since all you have are IPs, you're not checking anything. I'm not contending anything other than to tell you to stop claiming that this individual has made accounts to attack you unless you have a check user which says accounts are tied to him which you don't. You just have a mess of IPs from the same address. Which are not accounts. Personally I've had occasion where my IP has remained the same for months, and other times where it changed 2 or 3 times in a week. Such is the nature of a dynamically assigned IP address. Sometimes you can force a new IP address by rebooting/leaving your modem off for the lease period (typically a day) and sometimes your ISP just decides to randomly reshuffle all the leases, or there is some other problem going on which causes everyone to grab a new ip address. Generally rebooting your modem doesn't grant a new ip address as the DHCP process will typically give you the same address you had if the lease is still valid, or if no one else has taken that address after the lease is up your modem will ask for the last address it had. So it actually can be a little difficult to get a new IP address that way. If you're not familiar with DHCP and how it works I suggest reading up on, its not always possible on a system you don't control to go and get yourself a new IP address on demand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I would submit that the RfCU is only pointless in that it points out the obvious - that the same user is responsible for most if not all of the IPs. Maybe take a closer look at the most current RfCU; I've listed the prior RfCU's regarding the user, and the anon him/herself acknowledged that the IP addresses were theirs. All I did was point out the string of IPs editing in the same RfCU, and the anon derailed the process by admitting that they were his/hers. Not failed mind you, derailed.
And while my IT-skills aren't anywhere near your apparent level, I am not sure they are really required when the same user keeps popping up in articles you are working to attack your edits. In the same ways. Using the same arguments. And the same unpleasant behavior. I mean, I didn't pull the IP addresses out of the air, Crossmr; they came up because the same person kept attacking me in places where they never had before. It started out in Fitna, but then spread to almost everywhere I edited. The result was antagonizing, creepy and annoying as all get out. I am sorry, but I am not getting where you are coming from here. I mean, if you are asking to be spoon-fed diffs of what everyone else can feast upon themselves, maybe I am not the guy to do it. I realize that the list of IPs in the RfCU is daunting, but I am not the one who chose to edit from that many places, now am I? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking you to prove your case which this is about since you've chosen to make so many complaints about this IP. However many of the diffs I've been provided in the various attempts to show how bad this IP is, don't really show anything bad about this IP which is what makes me question the veracity of the claim here. A previous diff was provided to show how bad the IP was with the note of "see this edit summary" upon viewing the edit summary I found nothing wrong with it. It was a factual and accurate description of an edit made that appeared to be a legitimate edit. That's just an example. So far about 2 out of 3 edits being show as indications of problem don't indicate any problem. I've seen a few questionable diffs, but I've seen them from both sides. My point with the accounts comment is that claiming this IP has made accounts to harass you is wrong and can cause a bias. Someone might read that without actually checking think "wow this guy is bad". If you want to cause someone to be banned, do it on facts and not hyperbole. He's had a lot of IPs, but I don't see anything actually tying him to an account, and if the worst thing he has done is get hung up on a claim you made (which honestly for all your explanation, can still be interpreted as claiming multiple degrees, no where did you ever state when making those claims that those were just classes that were part of a single degree) then a site ban really isn't in order. A mutual restraining order is more in order as I've seen you get just as worked up about him as he gets worked up about you.--Crossmr (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally some diffs[edit]

I recommend everyone who is interested in resolving this and genuinely getting to the bottom of it go and read the diffs provided at: [65]. Per my request the IP stepped back and provided some genuine diffs from the beginning of this dispute. As expected they are a little one sided, however it does let you view pages at the proper time context so you can also read what was said by both parties. There is a lot to read, I'm not going to kid you. However, the more I read the more questionable behaviour I see on the part of arcayne. Frankly its going to take a day or two to digest it, but so far I've seen more than one sock puppet claim being leveled by him but checking the various user pages, I don't see that anyone has been ever tagged a sock puppet. I'm still not taking any particular side at this point, but after seeing some of the diffs here, I think a more thorough investigation is required both to resolve this situation and to make sure its resolved properly. I said it earlier and I will say it again, I believe this is far more complicated than being heavy handed against an IP and calling it a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The troll's diffs, unsurprisingly, omit all the relevant stuff, namely how he kept following Arcayne around all these months. The original dispute in early April is hardly of interest at this point, except as an explanation of where the various harassment memes (such as the "Oxford" issue) originated. I'm trying to condense a few diffs myself, seeing as some people still fail to see the obvious, but as it's across so many pages and IPs it takes a bit of time. – As far as I'm concerned, Arcayne himself is still not the issue here. He was involved in what was originally a legitimate though heated content dispute back at the time; since then, he's simply been the stalking victim. (And I'm not saying this as somebody who particularly likes Arcayne; I know it can be exasperating to deal with him at times.) Fut.Perf. 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't an issue with arcayne here. Which is why I've asked for more detail so we can try and read this dispute from the beginning without bias. I'd like to see diffs of every time they've interacted since April as well as each time one of them started a topic about it on AN/I. We have admittance that you think he can be exasperating and down below Jayron admits that Arcayne could be just as much to blame for the original dispute as the IP. I don't think its a stretch to imagine he might have helped this along (as evidenced by the poking of the IP in august by edit warring over his comment placement)--Crossmr (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the IPs' talk page and still see a pile of difs from April 2008. That dipute seems long over at this point. The IP-user in question has STILL not answered for his behavior in every month since then; one could claim that Arcayne was as to blame for the April 2008 dispute as anyone, HOWEVER, that does not justify the incessant harrassment of him SINCE then. That was 6 months ago, and there has been no defense for the rude edit summaries and the frivolous ANIs and the talk page rudeness that has been cited above, and which dates for every month SINCE then. Seriously, if there is no more recent evidence of provocation by Arcayne, then I fail to see how some diffs from April can be used to justify this behavior... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually addressed them in a subpage, asCrossmr had asked me in the anon's usertalk page to stay away from the anon's edits. I've posted the link, rather than take up any more space here (yes, I am a bit long-winded). I guess its a moot point now, but I thought maybe folk might want something with a bit less varnish on it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but nothing has been finalised yet. FuturePerfect, you should not therefore refer to him as "the troll" its wrong. you can say he has trolling behaviour but thats a bit too far. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Solution[edit]

With a consensus leaning towards an interaction ban and not an all out ban, guidelines for the IPs behaviour have been outlined at User_talk:75.49.223.52#Response and the IP has agreed to them, key points:

  • The IP has to avoid, with all reason, editing any article that Arcayne edits. He's self-imposed on himself all types of articles Arcayne usually edits.
  • He is to refrain from talking about arcayne on wiki except in the case where Arcayne edits an article the IP has edited or revets an edit the IP has done. At that point he's not to engage Arcayne and instead leave me a diff and I'll have a look at it.

This solution should allow us to move forward past this particular situation and avoid anymore drama.--Crossmr (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As recently as four days ago, at the top of his current talk page, the anon was repeating his bogus accusation against Arcayne of "false credentials". Mind you, he was not just criticising Arcayne for using his credentials without giving proof of them, he was presenting it as an outright fact that they were in fact false and that Arcayne was lying. I'm uncomfortable about the message we are sending out by allowing someone back that easily with this serious libellous allegation still hanging around. At the very least, I would expect (as a last word before shutting up forever about the topic) that the anon should fully and unconditionally apologise and retract. The whole topic of casting doubts on Arcayne's credentials was an arbitrary fabrication on the anon's part, thought up for no other reason than to harass him and based on no factual evidence or likelihood whatsoever, and I would want to see the anon acknowledge this.
The second thing is, some of the things that have been said on the anon's talk page still sound as if there should be a reciprocal expectation on Arcayne to avoid the anon. I want to see it made clear that there is none. I'd sure wish he would see no further need of talking about the case much, but it should be made quite clear that Arcayne is under no obligation to restrict his choices of article editing in any way. Fut.Perf. 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate. Otherwise we're creating a situation where one person can poke the other with impunity and the moment the person being poked says anything they can run to AN/I and demand they be blocked. I never told Arcayne he had to leave the IP alone but asked and recommended to him politely that he do so. Unless arcayne is out to start trouble he should have no problem agreeing to that. The IP has pointed out that they generally edit different areas and it was just a coincidence they ended up together on this article. As to an apology and retraction regarding the comments made about arcayne, I'm afraid I don't really see it the way you do. As far as I'm concerned Arcayne still used the language "degrees"[66],[67] when in fact he has only a single degree from oxford and instead the degree is comprised of the various classes he took and he has even stretched it so far to defend his comment of various degrees by claiming larger sections had smaller sections in it. If I take a class of german as an elective I don't think anyone is going to sit here and let me claim I have a degree in german.[68] Its a bit of a hop skip and jump to go from "degrees in X" to "I had some classes that had some of that in it". Those are all his words, his usage of degrees more than once and then his admittance to having a mixed degree. I'm willing to extend him good faith that he didn't try to misrepresent himself, but was he being truthful? The anon provided evidence. Oxford doesn't have those degrees and Arcayne later confirmed that indeed it is a single degree, not multiple degrees. I think they can both learn a lesson here. I've also pointed out that as far as I'm concerned Arcayne is guilty of edit warring in August (that he instigated not the IP) over the moving of his comment on a talk page.[69], [70], [71], [72] It does take two to edit war, but the IP certianly didn't make the first move there, and I have no idea why it was so important to arcayne that he insert his comment on top. With that in mind I don't think its untoward to ask him to avoid the person he seems to loathe so much.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If we "can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate", then I insist on the outright ban, full stop. Fut.Perf. 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The majority is clearly in favour of an interaction ban not a site ban. Last I checked I wasn't under some kind of restriction from making a request of another user.