Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Strange username issue[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by another admin. Will encourage name change or new account creation. NJA (t/c) 09:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed (first in my watchlist) that User:Irongargoyle has been created as a new account. This was the original name of my current account (I renamed it to User:IronGargoyle several years ago for capitalization reasons). I didn't create this new (old) account, and although the account doesn't seem to have done anything harmful yet, it seems to be in violation of the username policy as an impersonation of myself (I find the possibility of a coincidental account naming highly dubious). I didn't bother to make the account a registered doppelganger account because I was under the impression that something in the Mediawiki software blocked the creation of accounts that too closely resembled existing accounts (particularly those of administrators). Anybody have a thought on what happened, and the best course of action for this weird situation? I should also note that any revisions prior to December 31 are my revisions. They had been deleted and thus were not re-assigned when my re-name originally took place and were subsequently undeleted. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like impostor material to me. But if I were you, I'd AGF and consider leaving a message on the talk page of User:Irongargoyle, explaining how you are the previous owner and how there could be a possible identity problem. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with leaving a message on the talk page is that the "talk page" is a redirect from hundreds of my old signatures. Anyways, isn't the software supposed to prevent things like this from happening? IronGargoyle (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That is a serious problem. Yes, the software should automatically prevent this from happening, but it does glitch every once in awhile. IMHO, perhaps you could try waiting and watching the behavior of the old account. If it starts vandalizing/disrupting, then it's probably safe to indef. If not, then perhaps you could try emailing the newbie? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 09:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd block the account and encourage either a name change or registration of a new account. NJA (t/c) 09:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry folks, I blocked before but then the power went out here and I had trouble getting my router to let me back on so my apologies for the delay getting back here to tell you that and save you all from looking. IronGargoyle, you're right that the software now has an anti-spoofing feature which is meant to prevent people creating accounts too similar to existing ones. Admins can bypass the anti-spoofing feature though so I checked but it doesn't seem to have been created for the person by someone else, so I don't know what happened. The same thing happened to me though when I changed from Sarah Ewart to Sarah and before I could re-register my old username, someone else had registered it. I blocked it before they used it to edit and a kindly bureaucrat later renamed the account for me so I could re-register it myself. I will leave the person a message, in case it is a coincidence and not anything malicious, but you should think about usurping the name yourself. Sarah 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
IronGargoyle, I broke the redirect on the talk page of that account to leave a message telling them why they've been blocked, on the off-chance it's not a troll or whatever. I also left a message pointing at your talk page for people who might be looking for you and following old signature links. I will go back and restore the redirect in a day or so. Sorry about that but I just think we need to try to communicate with them the reasons the account is blocked on the small chance it really was just a coincidence. Sarah 12:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks for all your help. I agree that communication was probably the best course of action, and that blocking was the right call. I would have left a message, but I didn't feel like I could block the user myself without a conflict of interest—and I felt kind of silly leaving a message along the lines of "I think your username should be blocked because your username is too close to mine, but I'm not going to do actually block you. Someone should be along shortly though..." It seemed a bit odd coming from me. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of Multiplyperfect[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely

Wikiidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly yet another sock of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), this time impersonating User:Wikidemon. Can someone please nuke this guy's entire site from orbit per WP:DUCK? It's the only way to be sure. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Even the name, Multiplyperfect, sounds socky. The Wikiidemon name does not have an excuse but numerical names do, such as Johann 1 and Johann 2009, etc. That's because there's a shortage of names in Wikipedia, lots of them are taken already. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction restriction[edit]

I would like to request that a community-imposed, non-prejudicial interaction restriction (across all Wikipedia namespaces) be enacted between me (talk · contribs) and JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) (and any other usernames operated by this editor, of which there appear to be several). JohnWBarber (particularly as Noroton) seems to relish any opportunity to attack me, and has done so frequently. A restriction that forces us to completely ignore one another, enforced by the threat of sanction, would seem to be an ideal solution. I would appreciate it if another editor could notify JohnWBarber of this thread on my behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Notified. –xenotalk 15:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that :) -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this request procedurally-acceptable, by the way? I am aware that ArbCom can impose interaction restrictions, but I am not sure if it can be done here. If this is inappropriate, I would appreciate advice about what alternatives there might be. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't why not (in theory, mind you - I haven't reviewed this case). I vaguely recall seeing similar things enacted in the past. –xenotalk 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the notice. About a year ago, I think, I made numerous complaints about Scjessey's conduct, then didn't have any contact with him until earlier this month. I was commenting at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident when Scjessey began replying to my posts there. I responded. I think the tenor of his comments and mine on that page are adequately represented in this thread. [1] Once Scjessey made this statement [2], and in good part because of it, I decided my participation on that page was not worthwhile. When an RFAR came up, I commented [3], mentioning Scjessey's conduct. Which resulted in this comment on my talk page [4], and now this complaint here. I mention all this because I've long thought it would be a good idea for admins to keep a close eye on Scjessey. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I forgot. I notified him about my RFAR comment mentioning him with this [5] comment, and he initially reacted with this [6] edit summary before replying on my talk page and then making his complaint here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There was nothing wrong with my conduct. I'm not interested in Noroton's spin of events. I want the interaction restriction so that he leave me alone and stop making statements and comments that misrepresent me. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IP !voters at AFD[edit]

Resolved: Complainant was blocked as a sockpuppet. Fences&Windows 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are IP users allowed to !vote at AFD? This AFD appears to be dominated with them, and the majority of !votes are plagued with WP:ILIKEIT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IP !votes are allowed in deletion discussions. They are not allowed, however, in RfA discussions. It seems like you are not keeping your objectivity on that AfD since you are the nominator. Ultimately, it is up to the closing admin whether the article is kept or not based on the arguments presented. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
comment This editor has already been reminded how AfD works. Suggest he lets the debate run its course without worrying about whether or not the articles get deleted or kept. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If a flood of single-purpose accounts/IPs pop up, the closing admin can give less weight to such commentary (as the purpose of AFDs are to develop a rough consensus within a cross-section of the community as opposed to outside of the community). –MuZemike 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You can also tag them as single purpose accounts that have little or no contributions outside that topic and this will help the closer to see what is going on. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. using this template.. {{subst:spa|username}} Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a domination there. There are two IP keeps, so I wouldn't worry about this at all. The IPs are also from different areas as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I believe in this case we have a clear case of deletionitis. My recommendation would be that WossOccurring took 2mg of WP:CHILL and 1cc of WP:DGAF and then return to the discussion. (I hope you appreciate my attempt at humor here. :P) > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Daedalus969[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved: Warned both users to knock it off. Will block if necessary, contact me if it continues. tedder (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm being bombarded by this fellow on my talk page. [7]. He's made 13 comments, he is becoming increasingly belligerent. I think it would do him so good to have a break. The argument is near hysterical. I asked him to stop, I told him I'd come to this noticeboard, etc., but that seems only to have inflamed him more. Thank you.Malke2010 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shopping anything, btw. I'm trying to get help. I was once blocked for far less than this. I did not instigate this, Daedalus did. There is no rhyme nor reason for this behavior. He has continued to post to my talk page offensive posts even after I told him to stop and that I would go to this board. I am not adept at reporting these things, I am not shopping anything. I am simply sick of this man's rants about me on my page and I believe that his behavior more than justifies a temporary block for him to regain his perspective. Thank you.Malke2010 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
And please think about this: what reasonable individual starts this in the first place? He puts something on my talk page, said I didn't even have to reply to it. It sounded nutty to me so I deleted it. I'm allowed to do that on my page. Out of nowhere he appears on my page and he's telling me I'm allowed to do many things on wikipedia,but lying is not one of them. I have no idea what he's talking about, so I leave a message on his talk page, "Dude what are you talking about?" And then the next thing I know he's unleashing a torrent. User: Coldplay Expert and I were having a discussion when Daedalus appeared. Coldplay Expert made the reply to him, and then it went on from there. I stayed out of it. Finally, I told Daedalus, I did not lie in my edit summary, I made a mistake. I told him to stay off my page or I'd come here. He is following me all over the place. I go to JpGordon's page, and there he is. I've been blocked in the past so I went to JPGordon's page because I know he lives in California and he's probably still awake. Then Jade Falcon, for reasons unbeknownst to me, archives my request. I don't know what is going on here, but this man needs to be blocked. This behavior, these posts, this entire argument is his, and it has no rationale other than apparently to create all of this distress. So please, I ask you, stop him. Thank you.Malke2010 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I love how you continue to mislabel the facts. I was not ranting to you, or about you, and I don't see how anything I have said was offensive, in fact, you were the one being offensive with your insults about myself, and your insults about my motivations, both of which are completely wrong. I never ranted about you, all I did was try to tell Coldplay that they were wrong in putting words in my mouth, and to read my posts.
Secondly, you did instigate my further posts on your talk page when you insulted me behind my back at CE's talk page. If you can't take the heat, don't play with fire.— dαlus Contribs 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Issues aside, why are you shopping this around? (example, example) tedder (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I love how you continue to misconstrue the facts. Initially I left you 3 messages. I first told you that you cannot tell another person to stay out of any discussion. You removed that with an inaccurate edit summary. I then told you that you cannot lie in edit summaries, as that is what I thought you did. You then sent me a message asking for clarification, and I replied further. That is 3 messages. All the rest were addressing and in regards to Coldplay Expert, not you, so there is no way you can say that I was harassing you. Secondly, I only continued to post to your talk page after you wrongly assumed my reasons for discussion and insulted me by labeling my arguments as without reason.


For any who do not wish to read the discussion here, I'll post a summary of what happened. As a disclaimer, it is the same summary I have posted 2 times now:


There, there is everything that happened. Only 3 of the initial messages(those posted before Mal insulted me on CE's talk page) were directed to Mal, the rest were directed to Coldplay and only Coldplay.— dαlus Contribs 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the {{xt}} template appears to be experiencing some problems.. my summary is there, but I don't know why it isn't showing up..— dαlus Contribs 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was doing something wrong, I finally figured out what with some help, and found it was tad ugly, so I opted for cquote instead.— dαlus Contribs 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
tl;dr. Just stay off of her talk page and let this go. AniMate 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request of Daedalus969[edit]

Resolved: Unblocked by Gwen Gale after discussion on user talk.  Sandstein  14:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tedder has now blocked Daedalus969 for this edit which Tedder believes represents "continued incivility", also citing WP:NOTTHEM as a block reason (see User talk:Daedalus969#December 2009). As an unblock request reviewer, I believe this is a mistaken block. While I hold the strong view that incivility is blockable disruption, I see no incivility in the cited edit. Also, WP:NOTTHEM (which I originally wrote, by the way) is part of WP:GAB, which is intended as nonbinding guidance how to write a successful unblock request and not as general policy for conduct while not blocked. I'll grant the unblock request unless other admins disagree here.  Sandstein  07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) '

Please do not unblock this user. Here are the diffs of incivility: Tedder:[8] 1st. [9] 2nd. [10] 3rd. [11] 4th. [12] 5th. [13] 6th. [14] 7th. [15] 8th. [16] 9th [17] 10th [18] Thank you for your consideration of others. Malke2010 07:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These are unhelpful diffs. Not all of them are by Daedalus969 or are even diffs. Those that are by Daedalus969 are not incivil on their face. "You are an asshole" would be incivil, but "Stop doing this and that" is not. I'm also not examining the whole history of Daedalus969, just the edit that was specifically cited by the blocking admin as the block reason.  Sandstein  07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
in this diff he is definitely incivil. Please keep reading down on the right. [19] Thank youMalke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
(big ec here) I'd like to see some quick admin consensus before unblocking. It's harassment to carry on with this dispute across multiple arenas (~65 edits across User talk:Malke 2010, User talk:Coldplay Expert, User talk:Daedalus969, WP:ANI, User talk:Tedder). He was given many warnings to disengage and to understand it from other points of view, not to mention the warnings on his page. That's my take on the situation. I tried de-escalating both users. I cited NOTTHEM more as advice to Daedalus969. No complaints if he is unblocked, but I did want to explain things from my point of view. tedder (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
forgive me for not being an expert at making diffs. I am not a regular user of noticeboards, etc. But Tedder is correct. Daedalus969 has been crossing over pages, he's insulting, using foul language, abusive language, and being accusatory. He's accused me of lying, etc. This man has come onto my talk page and created this drama. There was no need for this. A block will help him regain perspective. Blocks are meant for that. It is not a punishment. It is meant to give the user clarity and time to reflect on his own behavior. Malke2010 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocks aren't supposed to give a user clarity, they are only for disruption. Blocking to "cool users down" is not the right thing to do. (note: Also removed huge paste of content from Malke 2010, please use diffs or links instead) tedder (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, forgive me, but that is exactly what I was told back in the summer when I was blocked. It is meant for the user to regain perspective. And something else, the jade falcon had adopted me, but apparently after an email with you Tedder he has withdrawn. So this whole thing, not of my doing has cost me a good relationship with someone who was helping me on wikipedia. Now who do I see about that?Malke2010 07:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that nowhere in the e-mail did I say it was tedder who I conversed with. It was an uninvolved user who wishes to stay anonymous so that they don't become involved. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO: this should have stopped after EC made the edit that the "Added comment" edit summary was likely a mistake, if Daedalus969 would have assumed good faith, it would have stopped there instead of him continuing to press the issue that Malke was lying and going against policy, when there was no policy violation, just Deadalus969 assuming bad faith that Malke is out to get him or something. Q T C 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, thank you. He arrived on the page already acting like something had been done to him, that he'd been disrespected in some way. The whole opening line, "You can do many things on wikipedia, but lying isn't one of them." and then the diff of the edit summary, as if something egregious had been done. I don't even know this person. I've never had any prior contact until he came to my page. Malke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to say one other thing: I do sincerely feel bad for this man. I realized this when I started to read over his posts and realized how rambling they were and that the anger didn't make any sense in view of this perceived edit summary insult. Something is clearly upsetting him. I can see where everyone has tried to reason with him in his unblock request and I admire the patience everyone there is showing him. And I want to thank Q for understanding.Malke2010 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone just unblock Daedalus969 or block me as well? After all I contributed to this just as much. The dispute is over so cant we all just get along?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 16:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how blocking you would help anything. I've more or less told Daedalus what he might do, to get a swift unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright then.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hold on a sec. I don't think your actions merit a block in any way, Coldplay Expert, but that doesn't mean you were completely in the right. First of all, you apparently leapt to Malke's defense without actually knowing what you were talking about. WP:UP most certainly does not give users free license to do whatever they want with their user talk pages. Daedalus969 replied thus, and you began putting words in his mouth, arguing (repeatedly) that there was no refactoring of comments when in fact Daedalus969 never alleged that there was. Now, I don't know whether you misunderstood what he wrote deliberately or not, but your behavior wasn't good either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This block should stick. I don't know Malke or the full story here, but the nutshell is that Daedalus has a long-term pattern of uncivil, strident belligerence. He's been cautioned about this many times and has long acknowledged his WP:STICK issue in his editnotice. This block is not for a specific recent diff but for his history of being on the wrong side of a bright line. Daedalus needs to acknowledge the totality of the concerns and agree to change his approach. In a word, he needs to listen. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I thought Daedalus was biteing Malke so I decided to defend her. Yes, I misunderstood what he was saying apparently but not on pourpose.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Threats of violence by SingingZombie[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked by LessHeard vanU. Edit summaries oversighted.

User SingingZombie appears to have posted real life threats of violence or exhortation to violence in several edit descriptions in the edit history of Murder of George Tiller. Here you can see the descriptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_George_Tiller&action=history. His statements appear to constitute a threat of lethal force against anti-abortion activists. I'm not really sure how to handle this, but perhaps authorities need to be contacted (who? where?) and a ban seems appropriate to prevent him from advocating violence any further on Wikipedia. Presumably his edit descriptions should be removed from public view but somehow preserved if needed as evidence by authorities. Also, based on his talk page it seems that there have been previous incidents in this subject area, raising even greater concern. Locke9k (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon review of SingingZombie's talkpage I noted they were previously advised not to make comments in regard to anti abortionist activists, following an ANI discussion. As a consequence of the comments made per Locke9k notice above I have indefinitely blocked SingingZombie. Since SingingZombie's other edits appear generally good faith, if not exactly policy compliant is all cases, I would like a review of my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Non-admin comment. Perhaps if SingingZombie agrees to the terms of a topic ban (via email) and to abide by the letter and spirit of WP:CIVIL, he could be unblocked eventually, however, comments like those in edit summaries, especially after being cautioned against them, are totally unacceptable and if ti weren't for his previous good faith contributions, I would unreservedly support (in my non-admin opinion) an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a large difference between civility issues and the comments shown here. I don't know what other edits this user has made and frankly I do not care. There's no place for that on wikipedia and no place here for the person who writes it. Support the indef block and indef should mean forever.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is just no way that SingingZombie's edit summaries are in anyway acceptable. And in case anyone doesn't know incivility, attacks or any other bad behaviour in edit summaries cannot be gotten rid of. We are stuck with SZ's remarks in edit summaries in one form or another (even if we delete the edits) LhvU's block is spot-on and while I understand HJMitchell's point about SZ's action elsewhere being in good faith IMHO nothing can mitigate this--Cailil talk 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please confirm: oversight can't do anything about it? --NellieBly (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I also contacted Oversight at the time, and they have been removed, but I didn't want to make a drama out of them by noting it then. I worked on the basis they would be visible long enough for people to comment upon my indef block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd point out here that people like SingingZombie make Baby Jesus cry, but I'm non-religious. HalfShadow 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm atheist and pro-choice, but I don't condone violence against those who hold contrary opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That is a less than helpful comment. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Block review please[edit]

Resolved: Block endorsed, editor has resolved to continue socking. Fences&Windows 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a review of my most recent block of Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

The editor has been a decent vandalism fighter, but also has a long history of some pretty strong incivility. After a recent block for this gem, his block has been modified a number of times for further incivility and most recently extended to two weeks for sockpuppetry. However one of the socks he created was Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which appears to have been created with the sole purpose of making this legal threat. I have indefinitely blocked the sockmaster for WP:NLT until the legal threat has been retracted. Note that COM is not able to edit his own talk page due to misconduct during block, but the sock is able to retract it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: COM has been able to edit his own talk page. since the block was modified so both he and the sock are able to retract the threat and/or request {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction 2 :COM is now able to edit his own talk page, and this admin needs more coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Seems to me to be more of a case of a blocked angry editor (who said when blocked, please block me indef so I can start socking) who was more being stupid that really making a legal threat, imo that it wasn't as a legal threat very meaningful and although for the issue and the socking round it I suppport an extension to his block I feel that an indef is perhaps not the best option in this case as having him in a known account would be better than multiple socks. I have left COM a note asking him if his sock wants to withdraw the legal threat. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
May be hard without talk page access, unless he uses another sock, of course! Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
My mistake in my post above. COM should be able to edit his own talk page since the indef block. He also has the capability of requesting {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO, Crotchety Old Man already got consideration for being an established user with valued contributions when I extended his block to one week and removed talk page editing privileges for a vicious personal attack. I can't speak for other admins, but speaking for myself, the edit on his own talk page while he was blocked would by itself be enough for me to indef block most other users. That it was only extended to a week was a leniency that he abused. I recognized the "blocked angry editor" angle as well, but he's still responsible for his own edits. We of course walk a fine line between preventative and punitive. In this case, the right result appears to have been reached, keeping in mind that "indefinite" is not "forever". Todd could have asked someone else to review the legal threat rather than take action himself (since he'd been previously involved). However, we're still within the 1-week extension that I issued, so Todd's request for review here is perfectly appropriate. A review of that behavior by itself might well warrant it being changed to an indef regardless of any subsequent behavior.  Frank  |  talk  15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he is a good vandalism fighter, he reverts as vandalism anything he disagrees. 201.43.205.124 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Note – The IP is a sock of de facto banned user User:Pé de Chinelo, part of a /17 range I just blocked. –MuZemike 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not really sure if the legal threat block was entirely appropriate; he did do it, as another editor mentioned, while he was "playing in character". However, I recognize that we have to take even that seriously. I would be fine with leaving the indef block as is, but perhaps after a week, we should reenable his talk page access so he can actually withdraw his legal threat. Note that his most recent block included: "00:55, 31 December 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Crotchety Old Man (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)". NW (Talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dammit - I thought I fixed that this morning. It's fixed now and he can edit his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef We have 2 issues: the socking, and the use of that sock to violate WP:NLT. The socking is bad enough, the NLT is horrendous. Not only de we need the block for the NLT, but the socking as well. Support indef, with reduction to a week once legal threats retracted/recognition of the absolute stupidity of the action tales place - not concurrent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef until the legal threat is withdrawn. That's standard practice. Durova390 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef. No doubt COM had a history of valued contributions. No doubt also COM had a persistent history of incivility and WP:TALKO violations (see e.g. this AN/I or this thread). The user also vandalized a high-profile article only to prove a point ([20]). Adding to that the fact that the user, in defiance of the block, resorts to socks and add the legal threats, and add the fact that he seems incapable of constructive dialogue with whoever disagrees with him or warns him, I cannot see how anything less than an indef (or a very long, like months) block can be useful. --Cyclopiatalk 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef. If he wants to come back, he can withdraw the sock's legal threat, declare and cease use of any and all socks and abide by policy and norms, particularly in regard to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:SOCK. If he agrees to the above, I see no reason not to unblock him, though any breach of the above should render him liable to an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef - If Crotchety Old Man is willing to make a serious {{unblock}} request that acknowledges the trouble he caused, we should consider acting on it. Lately he has seemed to be off in his own world so an apology is unlikely. If he does make one, lifting the block may be considered. What he's been doing lately is unacceptable behavior for an editor, and there is no need for us to put up with more of that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • COM has replied on his talkpage to the question, does your sock want to retract the legal threat? with... "Hey guys! Todd finally got it right. My attorney withdrew his legal threat"... Which if it is a retraction is a bit of a cryptic retraction . Off2riorob (talk)
  • Support indef - this kind of behaviour, renders an editor irrelevant to the project. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef at least until or if the guy decides to get serious about a retraction and own up to his socking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef. The idea that COM was making a genuine legal threat is fantasy. The two-week block for incivility and socking was already plenty: we should have the flexibility to see when a further block is unnecessary, and this is one of those cases. If he carries on socking and swearing left, right and centre, then we can extend the block. I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that his 'legal threat' justifies an indefinite block, especially as COM's non-existent attorney has withdrawn it: "My attorney withdrew his legal threat." Fences&Windows 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Indef. per above. This has been going on for a bit too long. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indef. Vandalism reverts don't make up for socking, trolling, and legal threats. When asked to desist, he just promised to make more socks. Pcap ping 03:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Given the trolling that has resumed on COM's talk page, I have protected it indefinitely. It seems this discussion has run its course. Toddst1 (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough using main account to run bot tasks[edit]

Over the last 8 months, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made approximately 400,000 edits [21], rocketing themselves to the setting themself high atop of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. The vast majority of these edits were done with AutoWikiBrowser and furthermore, many were primarily cosmetic. Irrespective of that, they are seemingly using some kind of macro or modified AWB build to automate the saving process unless we are to believe that they really are sitting in front of their PC for several-hour-long stretches hitting "save" at close to 30 edits per minute [22].

Most recently, they had been running a task that made three edits in sequence to articles in order to complete a task that could conceivably be done in a single edit. [23] Had the proper steps been taken and Bot Approvals Group was engaged, they surely would've denied a bot using such an inefficient method of editing. I note Rich has since discovered a workaround for this issue after my prodding.

My concern is that the user is blatantly flouting the WP:AWB#Rules of use and furthermore flooding recent changes with tasks that really should be run with a bot flag (if at all). Upon querying the user, their stated reason for running bot tasks from their main account was uncompelling [24] and they resumed the task from their main account.

I invite additional scrutiny and advice as to how to convince or compel this user to respect Wikipedia:Bot policy and AWB's rules of use. –xenotalk 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly in the last 8 months. There's a serious amount of low level dirt that needs cleaning, BRFA is seriously slow, I prefer to fix a problem rather than file a request for someone else to do it. Wiki - if anyone had forgotten - means quick. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
I'm not asking you to ask someone else to do it, I'm asking you to ask BAG for approval to do it from a bot account rather than your main account. The tasks you are running are not in any way mission-critical such that you can't wait a few days or a week for BAG approval. –xenotalk 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You can't just ignore bot policy because WP:BRFA "is seriously slow". Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for Rich and he does a lot of excellent work, however, as an occasional recent changes patroller, I can tell you the AWB edits do flood the recent changes- he can be in the same list 4 or 5 or even more times and the standard 50 edit display only shows the last 1 or 2 minutes on a normal day (perhaps someone can give a statistic for how many edits are made a minute to the whole wiki?). I have to say, it would be preferable for these edits to be made from a separate, bot account, though they do need to be made. HJMitchell You rang? 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
There are roughly 12.57 every second. This is the total number of edits divided by the total number of seconds that Wikipedia has existed (I rounded up to 9 years here). I agree with Xeno though in that Rich has way to many edits. He has already opted out of the list of edits here, and until this recent dump, his name was on the top. He has 250,000 more edits than the guy right behind him as well. I don't see anything wrong with a ton of edits, but the flooding of recent changes and other things is a concern. Also, he practically is a bot with the number of edits that he has. I don't even know of a bot that can make over 106,000 edits in one month, as he did this past month. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
OK guys point made. Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

"My concern is that the user is blatantly flouting the WP:AWB#Rules of use ". Darn this guy is doing a good thing. He makes good edits that nobody else can be bothered to make!!. Guys we shouldn't be sitting around moaning about Rich. His edits in my book have been of great help to this project and I seem no harm in him using his own account to do so. I think this is a case of jealousy over his edit count above anything else. Who cares about edit count? What the frick does it matter whether he notches up 400,000 edits with his own account or under a different account? The same tasks will still need doing either way so who cares? There are far more serious things to be worrying about than Rich Farm having a high edit count LOL!! I will always support whatever Rich wants to do, we should be thanking him for his dedication to making such repetitive edits, he doesn't have to bother making a single edit on here. If you add um the sum of his edits this year they have made a massive difference to the encyclopedia in terms of considtency, formatting and cosmetics. He is clearly content to do so using his own account so why stop him. Have a great new year Rich I appreciate every edit you make even if these people don't. Above all is this ANI report really necessary? I strongly dislike the way such decent editors get reported here like vandals. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do try to assume good faith. The problem is clearly stated and has nothing to do with jealousy or relative edit counts, but with the reason for the edit count: namely, running unapproved bot tasks from a main account contrary to bot policy and AWB rules of use. I'm not saying the edits aren't useful, but they should ultimately be done from a approved, flagged bot account. The ANI thread was necessary because I've brought this up to Rich a couple times, and it did not appear that he was going to modify his approach. I've given him a suggestion as to how he could have a fairly open-ended bot approved for tasks like these and hopefully this can now be marked {{resolved}}. Thanks for your input. –xenotalk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I did assume good faith but the way you started your post saying "he has made approximately 400,000 edits, rocketing themselves to the top of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits" makes it look as if you resent this fact and the way he achieved it... Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It was more to highlight the dramatic and exponential increase in Rich's editing rate. –xenotalk 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any concern about the content of the edits? Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen his bot's block log? He is prone to making controversial changes (moving tags, mucking about with named refs, etc.) which is why BAG should have oversight. –xenotalk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience I'd say the vast majority of his edits have run relatively smoothly and he is responsible enough to sort any major issues out. I wouldn't go as far as to say he is prone to making controversial changes, he seems to get most things right, unlike BetaCommandBot.... As for Smackbot, when it has performed the level of edits it has, one can imagine that issues crop up everynow and then... Actually I have advised Rich to run a bot instead to do certain big tasks as it would be more efficient, but he seems content to do thinks using AWB with his own account even if it takes longer. Do you think he is suffering from editcounteritis? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The tasks that should be done, should be done from an approved, flagged bot. The procedures in place should be followed rather than ignored without good reason. And it looks like Rich has got the message (see above at 19:28), so there's probably no need to draw this out any longer. –xenotalk 19:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh - We had a shit long discussion about this a year ago, and the community decided that it was against policy to run a bot on the main admin account, unless it was still being developed, so he is technically not following policy. However that being said, BAG has been insanely slow at approving anything, for the past few weeks/months, so I totally cannot blame him for continuing to run it. Unless you plan on getting BAG to start fixing and approving shit faster, then I recommend we allow him to continue running the bot. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    The tasks he are running are mainly cosmetic and are not time-sensitive in the least. He can wait for BAG approval just like the rest of us. –xenotalk 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Coffee the problem is that BAG is too slow to authorise things as its projetc members have many other committments on here. Given that Rich often performs a mass of different tasks every day I think it is a tall order to expect him to file requests for each one. Everybody is free to edit and do what they think is an improvement to the encyclopedia. But for the especially big runs that may be sene as "flooding the recent changes" at a rate of 20 odd edits a minute I'd say that might need some discussion if it is a prolonged activity... But to date he has made over 600,000 edits to english wikipedia and is still using the method he has used for a long time and seems to mostly be a success... Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Rich is in agreement. However, I would like to point out that the general consensus with Rich's last BRFA was that it should be approved, even though not technically necessary. At that point, Rich withdrew the request. It's actually faster if you leave the request up to get approved. There's no hurry for general fixes. They can be approved in a fairly timely fashion. --IP69.226.103.13 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think proposing an "open-ended bot" is a good idea. That sounds equivalent to writing a blank check that allows the bot to do whatever Rich (in his good judgment) thinks needs to be done. That bypasses the checks-and-balances that the BAG is there for. On a different note, I'd prefer to see a reduction in unnecessary edits, such as removal of optional spaces and blank lines that has no effect on presentation, but clutters up diffs – particularly multi-version diffs where changes by other editors are obfuscated because the diff engine has difficulty matching paragraphs. Lastly, I think running an unapproved bot because the BAG is too slow to respond sets a bad precedent – particularly so when the bot behavior (partial-date delinking) id different from the bot proposal (full-date delinking). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Over the past eight months Rich has been "rocketing" to the top of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits? Ah, I think he's occupied No. 1 position for years. He has gained the immanent trust of the community. BAG should get its act into order. Tony (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure? [25] Anyhow, this is peripheral to the true issue which I noted was the lack of a bot flag for the vast number of edits being made. –xenotalk 01:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, BAG has been less than helpful to get crap done for the past few months (other than MBisanz). It looks like we might need more people or different people. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to see more people commenting on the BRfAs and more BAG members, however, atm there's a very small number of people active there, and they seem to receive very little thanks. But just because the process takes a long time, does not mean it's okay to ignore it, as Rich appears to have done here. There are good reasons that automated editing is supposed to be done on a separate account which has the bot flag. There are also good reasons to go through the BRfA, for example, the task gets input and ideas. Rich has gone against policy, and what appears to me to be the sensible path. I don't think it's unreasonable to except Rich to always go through a BRfA, and he should do so in the future. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A compromise?[edit]

Obviously Rich is running what amount to multiple bots on his main account. From the comments here it appears that the bot tasks he's been running have been largely unproblematic. (Indeed, if someone had made a half-million or so controversial edits, there would already be blood on the floor.) As noted, there are a number of good reasons to want automated tasks to run under proper bot accounts, and there are also at least a few minor concerns about a few of the tasks. Since bot-flagged accounts tend to draw less scrutiny when in action, it is also proper for us to want the BAG to approve the tasks in advance. Tcncv's point about offering any editor a blank cheque is also well-taken; it wouldn't be a good idea to give Rich a free hand to run any bot task he wants, just because even the best of us occasionally make mistakes.

So, a compromise. Since it appears Rich's bot tasks have generally appeared helpful and responsible, could we get the BAG (and/or the community) to offer a blanket presumption of permission to Rich for running tasks, and only demand the full BAG process for tasks for which an explicit objection is raised? Here's how I envision the process:

  1. Rich posts an 'expedited request' at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. This request will include a brief description of what task is to be performed. As part of the 'presumption of expertise', this step may also include a link to a batch of test edits (fifty perhaps?) demonstrating the principle.
  2. A brief comment period will elapse. (Three days? Five days? No more than seven days, certainly. How long should it take for some reasonable number of BAGgers to skim the new request?) During this time, any editor may raise an explicit objection to the expedited process. If an objection is filed, Rich will have to go through the regular, full BRFA process.
  3. If the comment period elapses without any comment (or with only positive comments) then Rich may proceed with the new bot task.
  4. If any unforeseen problems arise, any member of the BAG can request the suspension of any of these 'presumed permissible' tasks pending review by the normal BRFA process.

It's nice and lightweight; it takes into account Rich's general competence; it avoids overburdening the BAG with additional paperwork; it means that there will be a second set of eyes on Rich's bot edits; and it gets these bot edits under a proper bot account. The BAG is free to add any other standard conditions they feel appropriate (edit throttles and the like) which would apply universally to all of these 'presumed permissible' requests. What do people think of that process? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds better than other possible ideas. Thanks for being the sane one here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think adding a speedy approval process for proven bot operators is a good idea, but I think this would be a policy decision within the BAG, preferably with at least one BAG member granting the speedy approval. If we can't get even one BAG member to review the request (and either grant, deny, or hold for further discussion), we definitely need to increase the ranks. Requests such as SmackBot XXII should not sit for weeks at-a-time with no activity. I would further suggest that requests for speedy approvals be limited to clearly uncontroversial operations and that and have at least some independent discussion as evidence of consensus and need. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The six weeks it took for SmackBot XXII not to go anywhere is impressive, by any standards. Ohconfucius ¡digame!

Agreed, good idea. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, something like this would be fine. Anything to have those innocuous cosmetic edits start to be made with the bot flag would be an improvement. –xenotalk 02:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm pleased to see this issue close to being resolved. Rich is a janitor of the first order, like a big machine gobbling up selectively all the garbage in the sea without doing harm to the ecosystem. His making scale edits in his dynamic way (when he perceives a job needs doing) is obviously counter-culture to the bureaucratic functioning of the BAG. We are all agreed that Rich is responsible and responsive with AWB, and the only concern I note from the above discussion is the potential for problems if another editor starts making non-controversial edits on a large scale. The above proposal is good, in that it streamlines the bureaucratic process and allows Rich to get on with cleaning up the crap floating in our ocean. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Me too. A bot should be running with a bot flag, and there seems to be general agreement that Rich does good work (with a few reservations). So there must be some way for BAG to nod this one through quickly, and I hope that the solution above is acceptable all round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion about the BAG moving to slow ironic. While I do think it does drag out a bit, people need to remember that earlier this year, the BAG took quite a bit of heat for moving too fast. The criticism was they were not waiting long enough for community input. And it was over items that on the surface seemed to be just as routine and non-controversial, but turned out not to be. Well, the community got what it wanted... -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to move Rich's tasks through as quickly as possible. But the problem has been and remains that very few people comment on BAGs. I could quite easily approve most of the pending bots, and then in 2 months get my head handed to me for approving a bot without consensus. So I wait long enough to be able to plead that it looked like silence was consensus. MBisanz talk 04:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is true that BAG has taken heat, and also that individual members (and others) have been great with their work, whether considered opinions on fine detail, or swift approval of requests. It just happens that it is voluntary, therefore sometimes requests languish. As I say, WP:SNOW requests have been approved or approved for trial swiftly, and xeno has made some helpful suggestions. I don't think this is a big deal, maybe I should get a little more involved with BAG, and spend a little less time with reg-exes. I thank everyone for their suggestions and kind words and wish them a great new year. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC).
Isnt it the job of the bot op to advertise the bot? Go to wikiprojects, the village pump, even (dare I say it) IRC? If the bot-op does his/her job correctly, then we wouldn't have the problem we have now. Tim1357 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
If people weren't so wonky we wouldn't have problems, either. But I suppose that's another discussion for another day. I don't see a problem with Rich's edits. But I also am not one to look for rules that are being broken for the sake of it. Don't say that isn't what people are doing. If the edits are fine, and the only complaint is that they did not go through BAG, then that is what they're doing. But of course, we're all free to spend their time however we want to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If nobody comments on a BAG request then silence is consent, BAG can use their own judgment in the lack of community input. If someone complains about it tell them they are welcome to contribute to future discussions instead of not contributing and complaining about it later. If the community decides a bot should not be approved after it has been approved then unapprove it. People are going to complain no matter what you do, don't try to please everyone or you will accomplish very little. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Silence is not always consent. BAG had already had serious problems with treating silence as consent. It has been discussed at WP:BOT. BAG members weigh the community impact of a request. Rich's bot request probably would have been approved and was moving towards being flagged even thought it might not require a flag when Rich removed the request.

If the proposer withdraws the BRFA, it won't get a request. There's no need established with the broader wikipedia community for a special set of policies for Rich. If there is, link to it. Rich can post a BRFA. If he uses the bots responsibly and he's good at coding and he's a communicative editor, and the task is well supported or uncontroversial he can make an argument at BRFA in the BRFA for speedy approval. As can anyone else. BAG needs more members. A useful bot operator is currently running. Others can also offer their services. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If people don't choose to participate in BAG discussions then yes, that means BAG has to use their own judgment. People need to speak if they want to be heard and if they stay silent then those making the decisions need to assume they are not objected. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that most of us here are in agreement that Rich's edits to date have been good and that he is considered a reliable and responsible editor. I'm not saying that Rich shouldreceive special treatment above anybody but I do think that given the scope of his tasks on a daily basis that it would be a good idea for him to forms a good agreement with people like M Bisanz and is given freedom, and reviewed every few weeks or something, I dunno. I also sympathise with Bisanz that the input at BAG is very limited and how he could be blamed down the line for authorising a bot to run with little discussion. Hopefully we can reach a conclusion on this but I'm glad to see that all here are with Rich so to speak and not against what he does in practice in his edits. I believe his edits have overwhelmingly been uncontroversial and are mostly acceptable (and often much needed). A good New Year to you all. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

request block for IP 93.222.90.99[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked 31 hours by LessHeard vanU.

IP number 93.222.90.99 added completely unsourced and false info about the model Iga Wyrwał [26]. The IP is very similar to the IP which was adding the same nonsense in October: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. I suggesting blocking both IPs.  Dr. Loosmark  18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think this is vandalism, it may be better posted on Administrator intervention against vandalism instead. Mononomic (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
ok.  Dr. Loosmark  19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

LoadsofJerks/LotsOfJerksOnHere[edit]

Resolved: I'd point out the irony of this guy being a jerk, but I suspect he wouldn't have the intelligence to get it... HalfShadow 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Two users (most likely just one), User:LotsOfJerksOnHere and User:LoadsofJerks have been posting comments similar to this on editor's pages (User talk:24.176.191.234 and User talk:AussieLegend). Block or ban or something please? Mononomic (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without any 3RR or Warning?[edit]

2/0 recently indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul64. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe this indef blocking without warning is fair? - 59.164.204.229 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning?. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

edit war[edit]

Resolved: 119.173.81.176 (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours by LessHeard vanU for edit warring. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I filled an RPP @ [32]. The reason I am posting here is becuase User:119.173.81.176 has been engaged in 2 edit wars in the past few days. --MWOAP (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days for continued disruption. Since they appear to be willing to dispute any matter they come across I have disallowed their ability to edit their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

michael jackson album invincible[edit]

Resolved: For future reference, these requests belong at WP:RFED.

i recently noticed that the page for Michael Jackson Invincible (album) says 10th album when actually it is his 6th with epic/sony records, could someone with "protection-access" for the article please see this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.89.48 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is part of an edit war. This is a content dispute that belongs on the article talk page. 71.125.80.139 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Resolved: blocked for legal threat

Nableezy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has threatened to sue Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I believe normal practice here is to issue an indefinite block until a retraction is made. Nableezy has requested that the block be made with autoblock turned off as he has a shared ip at work. nableezy - 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...You're requesting your own block? Ks0stm (TCG) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The "legal threat" is that he'll sue if Sandstein doesn't block his account. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep, for reference, the rather weird goings on are occuring on User:Sandstein's talk page. O_o We don't block on request, but we do block for legal threats. Not sure here. :) Ale_Jrbtalk 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Well he could be blocked because of the legal threat, and because he is arguably asking for it in bad faith... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure, I have gone with the "we do block on legal threats". Indef blocked. A request to be blocked is typically ignored, but a request to be blocked coupled with blockable behavior is generally responded to with a block. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor can always ask for an unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Empty[edit]

Resolved: Question answered by Zetawoof.

I noticed that the newpage patrol list is virtually empty, except for every few moments when people create a new article and its dealt with at a normal rate. Redirects, which are not part of the default display, are not empty. That suggests to me that there was not an error in the database, but that someone or some group has essentially cleared out the backlog.

While this is a good thing if it was done as normal page patrol is, I don't believe I've ever seen the backlog clear. This means thousands of articles were marked patrolled over the last few days (last time I remember looking).

Is there some project doing this, or an individual? I'm in the process of looking through the patrol logs to see any strange patterns, but if anyone can help point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. [Cross posted to Wikipedia Help]. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ironholds (and other members of WP:NPP) brought the backlog to zero early on the 31st. Massive, well-deserved respect for all involved. :) Zetawoof(ζ) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what I needed to know, thank you. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to ask there first. Shadowjams (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Conservapedia troll returns[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Antandrus. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DaMo2010 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is outing, trolling, and now edit warring. I've sent an email to WP:Requests for oversight, but I haven't heard back yet. It might be best that we block this one for now until something is done about oversighting; the user is posting my name and making inaccurate claims about my age in edit summaries. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

USER:Cathar11[edit]

how do i report a user. i have been giving the stament of an "authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . but a user keeps removing it. (user:Cathar11)

the stament i used is below

  • critics of islam(such as Nonie Darwish,Geert Wilders e.t.c) think this was a terrorist attack carried out by Muhammad.

i have given the view of the critics and have not called anyone a terrorist or even stated a fact.just opinion to make an article balanced. these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"

but the user keeps removing it. saying this is not possible because terrorism is a word that was invented only recently(about 50yrs ago). his conclusion is that this view of the critics can not be true, so should not be on wiki.

he also has the idea that in an article i am not allowed to say "critics of islam claim that what Muhammad has done promotes terrorism because..." he claims terrorism can not not be used, claiming it is a modern word.even though the references use that word.

in my opinion the way he talks is like saying "Julius Caesur had a house" then he would say, this is false because, the word "house" is a modern word invented 50 years ago (or however many years), so can not be used.

But this is not the case. he would never remove such as thing. but if something is critical of Islam. He removes it !

he also edited the article Islamic terrorism and added a tag that says "the title is not neutral" and is a POV title. I dont understand this person. He is also engaged in edit warring in the article Muhammad and assassinations --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed this issue on the article talkpage? This appears to be a content dispute. All entries must be by WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It would be best to discuss this on the talk page first. Also, I think you need to provided better sources as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It might be worth directing the user to the mentoring process judging from some of his edits. I'd also question how appropriate it is to have statements about maybe killing former presidents on your userpage, but hey ho. --Narson ~ Talk 15:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The position isn't quite as the user describes it. It has been forum shopped on 4 forums which is frowned upon to say the least. His use of reliable/unreliable source(s) is being actively discussed here at the RS Noticeboard.[33] which is probably the most approriate forum. The discussion has been interesting if somewhat confusing in layout. It is normally common courtesy to send a message to a user if they are being discussed here. I can elaborate on his Agenda/POV issues if it assists and I'm not the only editor with concerns.Cathar11 (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN[edit]

Resolved: Admin attention has been achieved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Admins, please see relevant thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ITN. HJMitchell You rang? 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer us to respond on there, or on here? Both?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk now HJMitchell. Where do you want a response?--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoolio9690 again[edit]

User:Hoolio9690 was blocked for [34] carrying on an on-wiki fued about a couple of articles. He's at it again. I don't have time to deal with it. It's party time. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to discuss the matter through my talk page or email. I am trying to establish that I am not carrying out a wiki feud, but am merely attempting to prevent slander and denigration of an article which I started. Now that unreliable sources are being introduced to the article, I am found helpless and only desire the Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) article to be deleted rather than have libelous and untrue remarks about the author. Concerning the other article (Isacovici), that is also my main desire. If you wish to deal with this issue, please write to me. I am more than happy to explain exactly what I've been doing. For example, the primary source material that is sourced in the Isacovici article actually exists and if needed, I can upload it. Even though wikipedia relies on secondary sources, you must realize that the published sources out there are unreliable and do not source the legitimacy of the copyright documents. This is a serious issue and I'm starting to tire of the wikipedia community ganging up against me. Hoolio9690 (talk) Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

OK, you're entitled to discuss it, as long as you're civil. However, you must stop reverting or you'll end up being blocked for edit warring and if you revert 3 times in on day you're very likely to be blocked. Leave the article(s) alone and take it to talk pages to discuss the matter. I'll be happy to act as an informal mediator if needed. HJMitchell You rang? 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
HJMitchell clearly remembers WP:3RR. Oh no. We are doomed!--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"Party time"? This is Wikipedia, not Rambo.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell. I'm perfectly willing to be civil. I just don't want the pages to be constantly reverted back and forth. Thank you very much for your help. I've sent you an email Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

---

I have rolled back Hoolio9690's changes for a number of reasons:

  1. He has introduced non-article text into the article. Hoolio9690 should refrain from doing so, even if he feels that the article should be deleted.
  2. The article seems to be well sourced and so far as I can see there is no libellous material.

It would be best to take this to the talk page if there is a content dispute, however if the article is to be deleted then please ensure that discussion is done under this forum.

With regards to the editor's conduct - may I suggest that they use the talk pages more frequently to discuss the changes they are making? I have done a brief review of their edits, and it appears that they are not trying to find consensus on various articles but are just reverting changes. I have checked the logs for this account, however, and I cannot see that they have ever been blocked. However, after delving into the history of the user's talk page, it appears that they have been, quite rightly, warned about their editing practices. That they have blanked their talk page is their right, however it does not seem sensible to me to have done so.

I would strongly advise that Hoolio9690 review Wikipedia's policies, in particular Wikipedia:Consensus and the 3 revert rule, but only after understanding the spirit of this policy.

I would also ask other editors to please refrain from making comments that could be seen as aggressive, even in jest. It's easy to make these comments (I've done so before, to my regret) even when you are probably in the right. We must really all rise above bad behaviour! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I have also reverted his edits on Salomon Isacovici. I have studied the sources at length, and Hoolio9690 is clearly inserting unverifiable, POV, Original research material in order to further his dispute with the late Mr. Isacovici and his family about the primary authorship of a book. See this previous ANI posting by the other side]. Hoolio9690 has a very serious conflict of interest here. His self-created bio is up for deletion [35], and he is now requesting deletion, which I personally think should be granted, though the AFD tending towards keep. I urge other administrators to keep an eye on this situation.--Slp1 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. It looks like there are some good eyes on the situation. There's no reason for User:HJMitchell to not monitor the talk page discussions-he's an editor in good standing, and that's what is often needed: outside eyes from one more editor in good standing who is not already editing in a situation. HJMitchell qualifies.
If you look at the user's talk page you will see the block notices, just check the last revision before blanking. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 07:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User: MisterWiki[edit]

MisterWiki (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is reverting all of my edits (which were CONSTRUCTIVE) for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and is not explaining why he is reverting me. As of right now, the Internet is barely working, so I can't really do much about it.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I took a cursory look at the anon user's contributions and found things such as [36], which is not obvious vandalism, at least not by my standards. It appears constructive. WP:ROLLBACK explicitly states rollback should only be used for blatantly obvious vandalism. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm used to having my constructive edits reverted. In fact, I've actually been blocked for reverting vandalism at one point.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Being "used to having constructive edits reverted" is not a good thing.... Just because someone has rollback doesn't mean they can stomp all over you. (Note that is not an accusation of MisterWiki, just a general comment about User:66.177.73.86's past history.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't stand up for myself. If I do, they'll just block me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I reverted your edits because of your past history.
I reverted them because I believed they were vandalism. Again, sorry. Cheers, MisterWiki talk contribs 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Everybody hates 66.177.73.86...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to blunt, but you didn't even think to check? Rollback is quite a potent tool and those to whom it is entrusted are expected to use it with caution which, evidently, you did not here. Also, for the record (and I'm not taking a side here, contrary to appearances) this is not the first time MisterWiki has been reported to ANI. HJMitchell You rang? 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rollbacked again my edits. So there is no problem. :) --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regardless of whether or not they were vandalism, at least in my opinion, they were not obvious. On 22 December you were warned for a second time regarding rollback and that it is specifically to be used for only blatantly obvious vandalism (as WP:ROLLBACK states). If there is any doubt, the undo feature should be used instead with an appropriate edit summary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia hates me. Under my countless IP addresses, I have been prosecuted, reverted, blocked, and harassed... and, 99% of the time, I didn't even do anything. People have reverted my constructive edits and then blocked me for asking why they reverted me. People have blocked me for no reason at all. In fact, I've actually been blocked for reverting vandalism. I am really considering just leaving the site for good.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies 66.177.73.86. Sorry. :( --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It's okay. I'm really very used to it. At least I wasn't blocked this time.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well you've come to the right place- ANI is where this kind of thing can be dealt with. Now, I hate to make a fellow rollbacker look bad, but this not being the first (or, apparently, second) time you've been warned, rolling back your own edits is not quite the point. HJMitchell You rang? 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have tried. They've just blocked me for it. Nobody ever listens. When I was blocked for reverting vandalism, they gave me a longer block just for proving to them that I was reverting vandalism.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have revoked MisterWiki's rollback. From the diffs provided above, it is clear that there has been a pattern of misuse of the tool. NW (Talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is not clear to me.--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I hate to say it, I really do, but I think it was the right decision. HJMitchell You rang? 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't!--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I do have to agree with NW on this one as well, regrettably, as another fellow rollbacker. I talked to MisterWiki on IRC and advised him to try to learn from his mistakes, demonstrate this with tools like twinkle, and then perhaps request the permission later after this has been adequately demonstrated. I'm not an administrator, but I assume rollback takes 2 seconds to add and 2 seconds to remove. It shouldn't be a big deal. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite true. It takes two clicks of a mouse to remove or grant rollback. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
To the original IP poster, I would strongly encourage you to create an account on the site. While it is regrettable and A Bad Thing, IPs are often not given the same regard that an account holder gets. I think you'll find your experience here much more pleasant if you use an account rather than an IP. Huntster (t @ c) 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Martins and user:A.montenegro[edit]

Copying my post over here from WP:COIN, where it has gotten no action and the user had continued his/her behavior. If there's a better place where someone will actually read this, feel free to move it there and let me know.

user:A.montenegro has been appearing repeatedly over the past few weeks to do what appears to be a whitewash of the article Edgar Martins. Article before a.montenegro appeared: [37], A.montenegro's additions: [38] (trouble is mainly in section Digital Alteration Controversy"/The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ). Because the user's additions were so non-neutral, I integrated the parts that could be kept and removed the rest: [39]. We've now gone back and forth from his/her version to mine (as seen on [40]).

Warnings have been left on his/her talk as well as the article talk, explaining what was wrong with the user's additions. Other users have expressed on the talk page their agreement with my perception of A.montenegro's version. Based on the user's talk page, which contains a bio of Edgar Martins, and the user's determination to add only favorable information to the article, it appears A.montenegro is someone strongly interested in the reputation of Edgar Martins. I gave him/her a final, non-templated warning this afternoon, explaining the policies he was violating and why, and he/she just reverted the article again to his/her version. I'm not well-versed in what can be done in a case like this- the user is not responding to their talk or to article talk, and their edits are disrupting the article. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any interaction by A.montenegro in attempting to come to any consensus as regards their editing. However, before commenting on possible sanctions I would ask if any of A.montenegro's additions are verifiable? If it is not, then it is also a case of OR as well as COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
His additions are generally cited to the article subject's website or art critics' comments, which is fine as far supplying the artist's or critics' take on the controversy, etc. However, he tends to use these bits to overwhelm the factual matter of the section - posting paragraphs of direct-quoted text where the artist praises himself, etc (i.e. [41]). I'm struggling to find a precise way to characterize it, but I think the trouble is basically...he's overwhelming the encyclopedic quality of the article with shiny, overly-positive quotes. This wouldn't be such a problem if the user was willing to interact on any talk page, and hash out with other editors what he wants said, but instead he just keeps pasting. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The article subject's website is a WP:Primary source, but if the art critic's comments upon the content from the primary source is a reliable secondary source then they can be incorporated. However, given that the only edit outside of the article appears to be a self bio on their talkpage, it seems to me that an NPOV inclusion of any content would be best done without input from A.montenegro. We have the information needed for the article, so perhaps a block on the account for violation of WP:Consensus and disregard of WP:COI is appropriate. I would look to other comments before a uninvolved admin makes any agreed action, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, LHvU. Hopefully some other admins will throw in opinions here... keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempted insertion of Javascript into my talk page[edit]

In User:Torchwoodwho's edit [42], they appear to have tried to add some Javascript into my talk page, perhaps in the belief that it might be activated when the page is read. I've asked them on their talk page to explain this. It certainly does not look accidental: it looks like an attempt has been made to hide it in a link in another editor's comment on that page.

Has anyone seen any similar suspicious activity recently, from this or any other user? -- The Anome (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where that java came from, but frankly, I've been very accommodating in trying to hunt down what happened. It seems to reference a user named Henrik in the code and I'm not sure what the connection is. I have a long edit history as a vandal fighter (just check my contribs) and I'm just as worried about this as Anome. The issue seems to have corrected itself for whatever reason in my end, but I have asked general help if anyone has seen something similar and I've reached out to Henrik to see if he knows what's happening since the java appears to be associated with his namespace.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've tracked it down to an issue with either the Articles for Creation Helper tool or another mod I'm running written by Henrik [43]. There must've been some kind of a wire crossed in my dashboard, but this is obviously not a malicious script. It seems to run rampant sometimes and I've found the code inserted (via google search) in other <script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>wiki pages. [44], [45]. The google search: [46]--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. I certainly don't appreciate being warned about vandalism! I've obviously been doing research into this to discover what the issue was and I've come up with some compelling results that it was either a user error or a malfunctioning helper tool. I'm quite offended with this warning and would appreciate having another admin look into this situation. I've done nothing but constructive work on Wikipedia for quite some time and this is a blatant slap in the face to a good long-term user AND VANDAL FIGHTER! Where is my assumption of good faith in this matter?! I've been communicative, proactive, and engaged on the issue and I get a vandalism warning?!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work tracking down the cause of the problem. Ignore the warning. Give Fastily a barnstar. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 3:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Fastily, hastily slapping a warning template on a user for what appears to be some kind of bug in some javascript I wrote a long time ago is entirely inappropriate. If someone should be warned it's probably me! :) With that said, I hardly remember what that script does, is it still used? henriktalk 12:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's still used regularly. I think it's part of the Articles for Creation tool, but I'm honestly not sure. I've gutted my mods, but I have think it's more of a misplacement of the link in my monobook file. For some reason I've been getting malformed monobook renders lately, although I haven't made any changes to my template files. I've also noticed that there have been issues rendering barnstars and other templates. A link might have overlapped my twinkle, afc, and other helpers leading to an accidental click. It's really strange and I haven't been able to recreate it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this: your explanation above is enough to satisfy me that this is a bug, and not anything more serious. If the old script is both buggy and rarely used, perhaps Henrik might consider deleting it? -- The Anome (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
TheDJ kindly came along and fixed the problem, so hopefully it wont occur again [47]. henriktalk 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hedley Verity[edit]

Resolved

If you look at recent edits you will see that I am involved in an edit war with a person using several IP addresses who is intent on posting original research based on his own interpretation of a film clip on the Pathe News site. Would you please place a protection control on the article to limit editing to experienced members only? Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 09:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protected for a week. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. And it looks like our unwelcome visitor has got the message. ----Jack | talk page 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Xeugene and Pacifica Forum[edit]

This has come up before, but needs a closer look. Xeugene (