Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive78

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

Noticeboard archives


User talk:Bishonen[edit]

Could someone see what's up with that page. Every time I try to look my browser (IE) freezes up. I'm at work and I don't have another browser. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't load for I opened it in edit mode (changing the URL). Some troll had 100 pictures of George Bush on it. I fixed it...seems to work now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew who it was but couldn't look at it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I didn't even notice till after Voice fixed it. :-) Bishonen | ノート 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
Aha! That's what it was! (100 pictures of Bush? I suppose that is worse than the usual pictures they like to plaster on pages.) Geogre 02:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, how would you go about fixing that if someone were to do that to a page? i.e. how do you directly open a page into edit mode? SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) For instance, [1]. android79 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


User:Robsteadman's talk page was twice vandalised today by an anonymous IP that has been traced to Aquinas College, Stockport [2] [3] that placed references to "Jesus" and "homosexuality".

User:Deskana has been indispute with Rob on the Jesus pages and is a student at that college - as evidenced by his user page age/location profile (User:Deskana) and his editing of the article associated with that college [[4]. This is too much of a coincidence. Either Deskana was the perpetrator or knows the perpetrator.

This is unacceptable harassment of another user. I have no idea what is usually done in these circumstances but appreciate your help with making sure the user in question knows how unacceptable that sort of behaviour is. SOPHIA 13:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, it needs to be dealt with swiftly. Would an admin please verify if Deskana has ever used that IP address and, if so, deal with it appropriately. Thanks.Gator (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

seems straightforward enough, I would block Deskana for a day for user page vandalism. dab () 13:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I would. I'd like to hear what User:Deskana has to say first. Simple vandalism even to a user page is best delt with by reverting. Blocking can be used in persistant and difficult cases. As for harassment - that's a bit extreme. Childish vandalism of a user page happens quite a lot on Wikipedia. It's not to be encoraged or condoned of course, but it's not what I would call harrassment if it hapens on this scale. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
well, 12 hours then; logging out to vandalize a userpage is pretty bad behaviour, we don't need to assume good faith to the point of surrealism, and being blocked for a few hours isn't exactly a cruel punishment. But if he stops vandalising without being blocked that's fine with me too. dab () 14:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's worth knowing some of the background. The Jesus page is currently locked and there are some pretty heated discussions going on at the moment on Talk:Jesus of which Rob and Deskana are on opposite sides. Deskana is a regular contributor to the pages and has voted in current attempts at consensus. Rob was not a random victim - hence the accusations of harassment. I'm not out to lynch the guy but I do think anonymously editing someones user page twice shows at best a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of wikipedia. SOPHIA 15:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anselm College has quite a few students. One should not jump to the conclusion that, because an editor goes to school there, he or she must be the vandal. At the very least, a check of Deskana's IP address and that of the school should be done. In addition, before any admin takes action, they should read all the Deskana posts on the talk:Jesus page and its archives and on the talk:Robsteadman page and its archives. In comparison to other editors (this one included) he has been polite and only occaisonally involved in the discussion. --CTSWyneken 17:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a check needs to occur. We don't want to assume that someone is violating policy merely because they may have a similar IP address as another user (SOPHIA can attest to the injustices that such assumptions can create), but suspicion here is warranted. I'm eager to see what Deskana has to say about this and silence will not be his friend.Gator (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm also with you. It's worth checking. But since it's only been four hours and the user appears to be a college student, his silence so far is not significant. --CTSWyneken 17:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That check has been done. It's gone now but earlier there was a special page for that IP address showing all users who had used it - Deskana was on that list - hence the admins saying above that it was a pretty clear case. SOPHIA 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It can't hurt to see what Deskana has to say. I haven't worked with him too much, but it seems to me that he politely dealt with Robsteadman's continual violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, and WP:AGF, longer than most before finally just giving up on Robsteadman. For that alone, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. That said, if he's guilty of vandalizing the userpage of Robsteadman, he should be blocked temporarily. He seems to be a nice guy; I hope he would just come clean if he's guilty. KHM03 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I attend Aquinas College, Stockport. I was talking to one of my friends about a user called robsteadman and how he is convinced that a cabal of editors are protecting the page on Jesus to not conform to a certain POV in violation of WP:NPOV. I pointed my friend towards the talk page for Jesus. He searched the page for Robsteadman, and proceeded to his user page. At this time I was called by my teacher (that was the reason I was in the IT room, I was demonstrating my computing project to my teacher). Once the interview was over, I logged off the PC and went to registration.
I was browsing Wikipedia later and was pointed to messages on User talk: Checking the contributions I saw that when I was being interviewed Robsteadman's page was vandalised. I didn't actually have anything to do with the vandalism of Robsteadman's page.
I'm disgraced at my friend for doing what he did. I had logged on to check to see if I had messages, and was talking to my friend. I never actually vandalised any pages myself. Nor did I edit Robsteadman's page. I am somewhat frustrated that after attempting to offer guidance to Robsteadman (see the archives on his talk page) on matters such as dispute resolution, that I am being accused of this. Although I can see why the questions should be asked about my logging on using that IP address, I feel that attempting to get me blocked is somewhat unfair. If you want me to comment further, I will. Deskana (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Deskana, why didn't you immediately revert the vandalism or, if it had already been reverted, immediately inform Rob that you weren't directly responsible and offer apologies? KHM03 18:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I was browsing Wikipedia during registration, and didn't actually have time to log in as I had a lot of work to do. At the minute I'm feeling a little annoyed that people aren't assuming good faith as I have tried so hard to do with Robsteadman, and aren't exactly in much of an apologetic mood. I feel that this may ruin my chances of becoming an admin one day, and for that I'm actually quite pissed off. I feel my reputation of months and over a thousand reliable edits has been vandalised for some edits not even from my account on an IP which I have to use sometimes, as much as Robsteadman's user page was vandalised by the IP! Deskana (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Could the admins with access to the special page I saw earlier confirm the time lag between Deskana logging off and the vandalism taking place. Since this vandalism was done twice and from what Deskana has said there should be no record of any registered user making edits immediately before or between the two incidents. SOPHIA 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I make it clear that I was probably still logged on while this was going on? As I said above, I was still logged on to my computer when I was demonstrating my project. This would include my account being logged on to Wikipedia. You can check Special:Contributions/Deskana and Special:Contributions/ for the edits of the accounts in question. Deskana (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your account was not logged onto Wikipedia - the edits were done anonymously - it's the timings of the history log for that IP that should confirm your account. SOPHIA 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you not referring to the information on Special:Contributions/ I'm not certain what you're referring to. Deskana (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me weigh in with my opinion. Deskana has been one of the milder voices on the Talk:Jesus page; milder than mine (I am, after all, the one who recently shouted "stop being binary!") I find Deskana's account to be reasonable, so I leave it to others to decide whether this matter should be pursued further. The anon IP who vandalized Rob's page went on to vandalize User:Ben_W_Bell, who to my knowledge has not been involved on the Jesus page. I should also point out that User:Garglebutt was also vandalized, by a different IP, shortly after Garglebutt decided to leave the Jesus talk page. I submit this to point out that Rob is not the only one who has been vandalized. I have nothing more to say. Arch O. La 19:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the vandalism occurred in a 12 minute uninterrupted time period between 10:28 and 10:40 on the 28th (today). Deskana last edited (with his user name) on 07:10 and then not until 18:36 today when he began refuting the vandalism charge. I for one am skeptical and the story could easily be false, but we do need to AGF here and these edits do seem to be outside of the norm compared to Deskana's usually exemplary edits, so....I wouldn't block just yet, but would have no mercy if this were to happen again as it is not Rob's prblem that Deskana has friends who would do something like this (assuming that it's true). Just my two cents. Thanks to SOPHIA for catching this so that it can all come oput in the wash and we can, hopefully, move on.Gator (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gator's analysis and thanks to Sophia. --CTSWyneken 20:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, SOPHIA is right in the fact that I was logged in shortly before (and possibly during) the edits were made.
"I wouldn't block just yet, but would have no mercy if this were to happen again as it is not Rob's prblem that Deskana has friends who would do something like this (assuming that it's true)."
I can accept that, but surely that means blocking User: not User:Deskana! It's unfair to block me because of an anon IP. Blocking for vandalism is fine by me, since I use at home anyway. I don't mind not being able to edit at college if it stops the masses of vandalism that come from that IP address. Deskana (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points:

  • If vandalism comes from a public IP (library, university, etc.), admins don't normally block unless the vandalism is very persistent. We don't want to affect innocent users.
  • If a respectable editor with no history of bad behaviour is known to edit from a public IP, and vandalism comes from that IP on one particular day, and the editor in question denies having carried it out, the matter should be closed. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Deskana is speaking the truth, and I see no reason to have a dozen more posts with "did he or didn't he?" speculation.
  • I noticed this morning that vandalism to Robsteadman's page had been reverted, and I posted a level 4 warning to the vandal.[5] I used level four, because the vandal had already been warned by two other users shortly before. I kept an eye on the contributions, and there was nothing further, so there was no reason to block.
  • Anyone who has been around on Wikipedia for a while is going to have his or her user page vandalized a few times. It has happened to me several times (although I deleted some versions from the history, so some of the records are gone). It's not a big deal. It's certainly not harassment if it happens only twice.
  • Blocking on Wikipedia is not meant to be a punishment. It's meant to be used to put a stop to ongoing vandalism, when it's obvious that the vandal can't be persuaded to stop. That's why we have four different warnings. The idea of blocking a public IP address twelve hours later as a "punishment" for vandalism carried out by someone who probably isn't near the computer right now is against normal practice on Wikiepedia.
  • I'm concerned at the wording used by some people in this section, as if there's no doubt that Deskana, despite his record for civility, vandalized Rob's user page. I would hope that if vandalism were carried out from my work IP address, and reported here, most Wikipedians would say that they didn't believe I was responsible.
  • I don't know Deskana well enough to say whether or not I would support him in an RfA. I will say, however, that no memory of this speculation would cause me to hesitate for a second. He has a good record. He uses a public IP. He says he didn't do it. Let's move on.

AnnH 21:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The page I saw seemed to be some sort of activity log of all the events associated with that IP address including login/out. I've not seen a page like that before and suspect it can be generated by admins for checks. It's certainly the sort of information I could have got from my security systems. It should show Deskana login to wikipedia then logout (as the posts were made anonymously) then a short time delay before the vandalism. If Deskana was away from the computer his wikipedia account should not show any activity (login or out) until after the two acts of vandalism occurred.
I am not pressing for any further action as I'm sure it won't happen again but it's worth looking at the IP log as it would confirm Deskana's account and settle the matter once and for all. The one thing I do know about is unfounded suspicion and in my case I wanted all the information to come out to corroborate my account of events. SOPHIA 22:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins do not have access to the logs. Even if we did it would prove nothing. Think about it. What would the log show if he is telling the truth? What would it show if he is lying? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Deskana's verison ofn events does NOT hold up - it is a total fabrication. I am amazed that he has not been blocked or banned permanently. This is outrageous. His behaviour has gradually been egetting worse on the "jesus" qarticle ober recent weeks and this is the worst example of it. I do hope this incident is noted when he asks for his wish to be an admin. Totally unsuitable. I cannot assume good faith when it is not deserved. Deskana SHOULD be banned. Robsteadman 09:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop trolling and read your rules.Gator (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What behaivour? I've been contributing less and less to the article recently. I think it's your argument that's not holding up here. Deskana (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How does it not hold up? The IP address is a public one that has been involved in several cases of anon vandalism in the past. Do you have more proof than everyone else does on this? You're eagerly pushing for permanent banning with what evidence? --Oscillate 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If he's guilty, permanent banning seems terribly harsh to me; 24 hours should suffice for a first time offense. The vandalism was completely wrong and uncalled for, but if the identity of the vandal can't be proven, the administrators have little to go on. If the identity can be proven...then I'd hope for a temporary block of the vandal. KHM03 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Sweep's continued disruption of Wikipedia[edit]

Mark Sweep has wheel warred with me over his deletion of [[Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians]] , a category that was one of the casualties in his latest deletion binge. I personally don't like this sort of category, but feel strongly that ad hoc deletion binges by admins are more damaging and disruptive to the community than the existence of the categories themselves. Until/unless the proposed policy is passed to delete this sort of user category, admins should not be implementing it. I have undeleted this user category only once, and have no interest in going past WP:1RR, but Mark doesn't share that compunction. Moreover, he violated 3RR at Template:User pro-cannabis, in the process repeatedly using his rollback function in a dispute over the content of the page. How much more of this sort of abysmal admin behavior from Mark Sweep must we tolerate? It is damaging the encyclopedia by pissing off hordes of users. Admins wield a mop, not a sceptre, and when we assume powers the community hasn't given us it disrupts project. Something must be done about Mark's behaviour. Babajobu 10:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, if you don't like a POV advocacy category, why do you restore it in the first place? That's borderline WP:POINT. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, I agree that userbox categories should go, but we are working on a policy for that (and THIS close to gathering consensus on it), and the deletion as CSD C1 was not appropriate. C1 applies to empty categories that have not had any content in them. You can't empty a category and then deleted it as CSD C1. That's borderline WP:POINT as well. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't violate WP:Point at all, I was attempting to head off another angry uprising by users who resent seeing admins act as though the community has knighted them, rather than given them a mop. Regardless, someone should block Mark for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. Babajobu 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Reported at WP:AN/3RR. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Guys, it takes two to make a wheel war, no? Sort it out like grown-ups. Just zis Guy you know? 11:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I undeleted once, I try to adopt WP:1RR both in editing and in admin actions. Babajobu 12:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Categories of Wikipedians by POV are evil and must be deleted on sight. David | Talk 12:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with CFD? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Wheel warring and violation of 3RR is also evil and must also be stopped on sight. Anyway, we are presently having a major communal poll on this very issue, is it really helpful to go on deletion binges implementing a policy that is still being voted upon? Babajobu 12:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally agree that these categories are worthless and harmful, but nonetheless, there is not yet any policy to justify deleting them on sight. We are *this* close to getting a policy implemented to deal with userboxes and these viral categories, but until this policy is implemented, such deletions are more disruptive to the project than the minor risk of vote stacking. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. Not only is consensus as yet unclear in the global sense, the issue is simply not important or urgent enough to waste time and effort on - bite your tongue, walk away and wait it out is the best policy I would suggest. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Physchim62 blocked Babajobu[edit]

  • 11:01, 2 March 2006 Physchim62 blocked "Babajobu (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption over userbox categories, as per WP:POINT, compounded by violation of WP:CIVIL on WP:AN/I). Can we talk about this, now? I've put a note on Physchim62's talk asking him (?) to discuss it, either on IRC or here.
    brenneman{T}{L} 11:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm unblocked now, hearty thanks to User:Bogdangiusca! I think the block was...uh...inappropriate, but whatever. Babajobu 11:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, it would have been nice to get either (a) an initial remonstration explaining the alleged infraction and asking me not to repeat it, or at least (b) a note on my talkpage explaining why I'd been blocked. Just thought about it again, and the block seems cynical and irresponsible. Toodles. Babajobu 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If ArbCom wishes to use WP:POINT as a principle in their rulings, that's their prerogative, but community has not given administrators the authority to block editors per WP:POINT, as has been painfully established more than once. This block is a very good illustration of why that is so. Zocky | picture popups 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy says administrators can block for disruption; WP:POINT is, by definition, disruption; thus, it logically follows that administrators do have the authority to block for WP:POINT. --cesarb 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dissruption to wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't appear to be having many more problems than normal.Geni 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If anyone was disruptive to Wikipedia in this whole mess, it was MarkSweep, for engaging in contentious deletions without consensus that he knows full well will piss off numerous Wikipedians. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 01:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer (talk · contribs) evading Arbcom ruling by use of Anderson12 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Lightbringer is evading the ruling[[6]] against him by use of Anderson12 currently on Freemasonry by disruptive edits on the talk page, removal of legitimate responses by Bueboar. Anderson12s entries mirror those used by Basil Rathbone (talk · contribs) prior to the demonstration that was another Lighbringer sock and subsequent blocking. Can the Arbcom ruling be enforced please.ALR 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, he keeps re-adding content to the talk page that User:Basil Rathbone (see Suuggested Additions to Talk Page) wanted inserted, and was discussed and removed as either contrib by a banned editor, or completely unfactual. Anderson is now pushing the same material and will not believe it is wrong. MSJapan 15:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Wikilawyering by -Ril-[edit]

Shortly after his most recent arbitration caseopened, -Ril- (talk · contribs) filed a seemingly retaliatory "injunction" request against Johnleemk (talk · contribs), the arbitration clerk who opened the case, claiming that he had no right to open the case because he was not an arbitrator, and called for this case to be terminated. In fact, clerks have as much right to open/close cases as arbitrators, and this case already had 4 accept votes from arbitrators. IMO, this constitutes Wikilawyering, and I've witnessed this on at least two occasions before (Benjamin Gatti and Zephram Stark). --TML1988 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the trolls. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note for -Ril-. I explained to him why his request is unfounded, and encouraged him to withdraw it before someone gets around to blocking him for being a disruptive and vexatious litigant. If he doesn't choose to listen to reason, then at least the ArbCom and clerks will get a kick out of his request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You should know that Fred Bauder recently declared that accusations of me being a "vexatious litigant" are unfounded, and in fact commended me for bringing matters to the attention of ArbCom.
You should also know that 3 of the "accept" votes were actually "accept in the sense of remove the material from the other case" and "concur"s with that. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to block -Ril- now for being a vexatious litigant because it was conduct precisely like this that was part of the problem with -Ril-'s original incarnation, CheeseDreams. In the second case against CheeseDreams, the Arbitration Committee ruled that CheeseDreams was a "vexatious litigant" due to very similar frivolous and retaliatory requests for arbitration against her opponents. -Ril-/CheeseDreams is currently banned under that ruling. As additional support, I cite these similarities between the two as given by SimonP:
At this point I am quite certain the -Ril- is the hard banned user CheeseDreams.
  1. Both have the same twin interests in Christianity and Egyptian mythology
  2. Both have a deeply held, and similar, opinions on Christianity and a seeming inability to work constructively with others in these areas
  3. -Ril- first began editing soon after CheeseDreams was temporarily blocked in January 2005. When CheeseDreams returned for a period -Ril- immediately stopped editing. Only once the CheeseDreams account was permanently hardbanned did -Ril- begin editing again.
  4. Both have claimed to be British and to be university lecturers.
  5. Both have very similar writing styles, and similar techniques such as mass messaging users and persistent edit wars.
When faced with this argument, it's worth noting that -Ril-'s response was the non-denial, "Who is CheeseDreams?" -Ril-'s habits in naming sockpuppet accounts also matched those of CheeseDreams, as I pointed out back in August. It is not feasible to address the question by technical means, because both use BT and due to the passage of time, but I believe the evidence should be clearly convincing at this point to anyone who is seriously familiar with the actions of both accounts. --Michael Snow 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
-Ril-'s original reaction was actually who or what is CheeseDreams, which was quite different from his vociferous denials of being Lir. An additional piece of evidence I noticed is that they share a number of stylistic quirks. For instance they both unusually put a period between the "r" and the "v" when using the abbreviation for revert. (CD: [7], [8], [9], [10], Ril: [11], [12], [13], [14]). They also both frequently write "P.s." with an odd combination of an upper case "P" and lower case "s". (CD: [15], [16], [17], [18], -Ril-: [19], [20]). - SimonP 20:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's one more distinctive linguistic quirk that -Ril- and CheeseDreams share with (to the best of my knowledge) no other English speaker, anywhere, ever. Anyone who wants to know what it is can e-mail me: I'd rather not make it too public. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Nameme maybe avoiding arb com ruling with sockpuppetry[edit]

Apparently, Get-back-world-respect left Wikipdia as part of an arb com compromise. However there is reason to think that he is using a sockpuppet in the form of Nameme (appropriate name). I have no opinion or belief regarding the evidence, but this should be explored as a possible violation.Gator (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Nameme is the same person. Do with this as you will.Gator (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What is there to do? He only came to the AC to try and force a deletion of his talk page.(Which failed) He's not banned or anything. He gives himself away by his behaviour. Like i said when rejecting his plea for arbitration - he is his own worst enemy. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well if you'll remember my original objection, it was that GBWR was not actually planning on leaving wikipedia, but rather having his block/warning history erased. That as I understand it, was the policy violation. I'm not a fan of being claimed that I'm a "stalker" by a person who's supposedly trying to quit, but only to have that person immediately turn around under a different username and begin bothering me again (even if their reasons were partially valid). SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
His attempt to have the history erased failed miserably. The fact that he came to your talk page under a new name dispels any claims that he had of you stalking him. He has made himself look a liar and a fool. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me reiterate (or possibly iterate for the first time) that I'm not out to get anyone here. I just don't want to look bad myself. SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 08:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Suess[edit]

I just looked up Dr. Suess and this was the first paragraph. Theodor Seuss Geisel (March 2, 1904 – September 24, 1991), better known by his pen name, Dr. Seuss, was a famous American writer and cartoonist best known for his children's books, namely The Cat in the Hat. He also wrote under the pen names Theo LeSieg and Rosetta Stone. He was a very talented man not like William Shakespeare. You want to know why because Shakespeare is GAY!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This is horribly offensive and someone should take that out of the page!

It's been fixed. I semi-protected the page so anonymous editors cannot add that offensive material. In the future, you can fix these situations yourself. See Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. —Guanaco 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Q: How do people who don't know how to revert vandalism manage to find and post on AN/I? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A: Quantum Mechanics. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Because we're listed in the "Contact Us" page for a place to get assistance.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jodie26 User:Jodie18[edit]

Review contribution histories - not sure what the deal is with this one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the same person, but she admits as such. Is there a question as to whether creating a sockpuppet like this is OK?Gator (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the sockpuppetry, it's the contributions, which are disruptive, at best. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I would agree that they (from Jodie26) are disruptive. Can an admin have a short talk with her please?Gator (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • If the second account was to avoid a block on the first it would be disallowed, but there's enough good reasons to have a sockpuppet account. Forgetting the email you used to setup the previous account for example. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Triumph of the Will[edit]

It seems that some admins are protecting this article to prevent vandalism, even though it is currently linked on the main page and against our policy of high visible articles. I was even reverted on the page protection. [21] Comments? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, we've got what looks like a bot vandalizing the FA with libel and photos of genitalia. How is protecting a bad idea? android79 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
the bots are coming from an AOL IP so we cannot block IP to stop the vandalism, the only move in this case is to protect the article. Sorry but this is a case of Raul being wrong. Better new users come to a protected article than a penis.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Or we could just block AOL... Did I say that out loud? android79 02:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How old are these vandal accounts? Would semi-protection be a viable solution? Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Not on the daily FA, no. -Splashtalk 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with doing what I did...semi protecting it for 10-15 minutes when we get hit with the penis vandals every 10 seconds (literally). --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That phrasing brought up disturbing mental images. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have problems with that, either. I do have a problem with Brian0918 applying full protection without so much as a tag, however. -Splashtalk 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

um, Raul himself protected it now. I defer to him on such matters.--Alhutch 03:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really tired of this nonsense. I'm writing up a bugzilla request now. The vandals are exploiting a mediawiki issue and it's about time someone fixed it. Raul654 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, and timely. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What issue was this? Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
See here Raul654 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We really need a MediaWiki upgrade. Sometimes the auto-blocks happen when we don't want them too, and sometimes vice versa. --Ixfd64 05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Dear admin, User:Aucaman chronically participates in repeatedly violating the 3rr policy, placing numerous dispute tags on articles, [unstoppable] possible sneaky vandalism, repeated violation of the personal attack policy by referring to multiple users as `racist` and other, going against the over-whelming consensus, refusing to compromise, and single-handedly hijacking this and two more articles. He has been engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing Persian people, pushing his POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, trying to establish new 'facts" based on his own personal assumptions, political beliefs, and racist comments. [22] He also repeatedly engages in racially-motivated personal attacks and possibly vandalizes the Persian people article which has resulted in the protection of page. Seemingly, he has single-handedly disrupted the integrity of the page in question, and perhaps other articles too. Furthermore, he is a chronic 3RR violator, but also violates other wikipedia rules by vandalizing and then removing warnings from his talk-page. [23] Would you please take a look at this issue and help us clean up the Persian people page? Please take a look at ( Talk:Persian people & Mediation/Persian_people ). ThanksZmmz 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Greetings admins, the above user is repeatedly adding links to his/her own NASCAR forum to many different NASCAR pages, despite repeatedly being told to refrain from doing so. Pages most often added to include:

though he/she had earlier added it to other NASCAR-related pages. -- SonicAD (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the spamming and personal attacks, the user is very much in violation of WP:3RR, a rule they're probably not aware of. I have now told them about it, so block if they break it again. Bishonen | ノート 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism by User:Roitr[edit]

User:Roitr, who has been blocked indefinitely before, is again vandalizing the pages 2002 Winter Olympics medal count and 2002 Winter Olympics with information he has been told many times is inaccurate. See here and here. Maybe this by itself doesn't rise to the importance of leaving a note on this board but the repeated nature of the change does imo. Thank you,--Kalsermar 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK blocked indefinitely, please review[edit]

I've blocked Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefintely per WP:BP#Posting personal details. I hope it will be obvious which diff I'm referring to, but I don't want to repeat it here because, well, it involves personal details. Please review and adjust block duration accordingly. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought a message on the user's talk page would have been appropriate. In any case I couldn't find the diff you were referring to, is it recent? Leithp 10:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Highly recent; check the edit summaries. However, I'm not convinced that this is an extreme violation, worth a block. Although she didn't need to state his name (or pseudonym, as the case may be), he (that is, the user whose personal details were posted) has identified that as his name/psuedonym at an off-site forum which Selina frequents. A warning probably would have sufficed, and perhaps a deletion of the offending diff from the page history. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Aha, blindingly obvious now you've pointed it out. I don't know about the block either, it looks fairly harmless and could have been handled as you suggest above. But I don't know if MSK has prior form for this kind of thing. Leithp 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I think this was a relatively minor case, although she has used what she takes to be my "real name". I don't think Selina is a particularly constructive editor but I'd hate for her to be punished so severely on my account. Could I please appeal for her ban to be cut to a week or until she writes to you personally to state her intention not to break this particular policy again, whichever is shorter? Grace Note 11:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with everyond else here. I think indefinite is far too harsh. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Indefinite != infinite. I explicitly asked for the block duration to be determined right here, on this board. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The information is actually almost common knowledge, so indefinite block was completely out of line. It is also not surprising who is abusing his administrative powers yet again. MarkSweep, please stop.  Grue  13:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If Grace Note says it's okay, it's okay; however, MSK had zero business doing it, and should not again. There's no point to it. --Golbez 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

She obviously learned nothing from her month long block and took no time upon returning to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. And considering that she's sysop of a site whose avowed purpose is to destroy Wikipedia, is there any reason why the ban should be lifted? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, Grace Note has indicated he does not MSK blocked over this. If MSK keeps disrupting things, there will come an edit worth blocking for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Does 33 blocks in three months, a consistent history of edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism of policy pages, and infrequent valuable contributions indicate a valued editor? Is there a final straw? Malber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • MSK clearly has clearly made more than her fair share of disruption. Yes there is a final straw, and it probably passed some time ago, but if Grace Note doesn't want to be that final straw, there is no reason to force that upon him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think this should not be a final straw because it's so minor and I don't think is significantly indicative of continued problematic behaviour. If MSK has not changed, something a bit more serious will show up and we can permablock, and if she has changed, we should give her one last chance. I do hope she's a bit more careful in the future though. I would've unblocked myself, but Grue already took the liberty (and, I think, went too far in called it an "abusive block" -- Grue, this is a matter of judgement and I don't think where reasonable people may disagree that it's kosher to call someone abusive). --Improv 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • This is not minor. Revealing a user's personal information without his or her consent is one of the worst things you could do. Posting personal details in an edit summary is not revertable except by deleting the related page. Grace Note may not want her to be banned because of this, indeed the information may even be bogus, but this shows what this editor is capable of. She's sysop of a site that is anti-Wikipedia. The site logs IP addresses. What's to stop her from doing this again to another editor using the information culled from that site against editors she has a personal grudge against? She has shown no contrition or repentance for her past actions, and shows no evidence of making an attempt to change her behavior. Bottom line is that she doesn't believe that she's done anything wrong and will continue to do so if she is allowed to continue to edit. And if you look at her block log, you'll see a lot of wheel warring and "last chances" have already been given. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Eh, just to comment on this, Grace Note did create a thread on the old WR forum, specifically regarding his proposal for a new forum, identifying as Grace Note, and including in the text of the thread his gmail address, which includes his alleged name. (I think that this is one of the threads that was "censored" by Igor, however; it's not there anymore, in either case). She shouldn't have stated his name, but really, at this point, the damage it could cause is relatively minor. A warning would have sufficed, and maybe a brief block. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, Grue did not. He unblocked User:User:Mistress Selina Kyle, and that's different. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, with deep doubts about this, I have unblocked properly now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Would someone do me the favor of filling me in on why Grace Note's opinion of whether MSK should be blocked is given extra weight? --Ryan Delaney talk 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The personal information release MSK was blocked for regarded Grace Note. Grace Note then noted on MSK's talkpage that he disd not want MSK blocked indefinitely over this. Kind of the same reason prosecutors listen to the victim of a crime when he advocates leniency. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
MSK returned yesterday after a month's ban, which started life as an indefinite ban, imposed because she seemed to be here only to cause trouble, and since then, she has edit warred over a user box, recreated it while it was going through deletion review, accused me of vandalism, accused another admin of admin abuse, and posted what she believes are the personal details of an editor, an offense for which people are usually blocked indefinitely. What does any of this have to do with writing an encyclopedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing...end her suffering and ours.--MONGO 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunetely, the Mistress is not contributing to the encyclopedia in an constructive manner. She has been given an extreme amount of liniency regarding her atrocious behavior, and certainly more than should be expected. I believe Jimbo best sums it up in this comment in regards to an similar situation: Such edits deserve immediate indefinite blocking. If such a user apologizes then, optionally we might let them back. This isn't a playground, it is an encyclopedia project. -ZeroTalk 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That means there is a conflict between Jimbo's opinion and the blocking policy which says indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression this was Jimbo's website. -ZeroTalk 14:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, therefore Jimbo has full authority to change the blocking policy. It's just that it's easier for me to base and justify my blocks and unblocks with reference to one document, rather than statements from Jimbo which are all over the website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
These aren't isolated incidents. This is a pattern of behavior indicative of a user who has a problem with not being disruptive. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
MSK makes very few constructive edits, and anything constructive is minor. The account is mostly associated with problems; hence the 30 or so blocks in just over two months. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The value of MSK's few valid edits is, I would suggest, lower than the cost to the community in policing (and arguing about policing) the balance. This is a user who has been given so many last chances already that even in full "Mary Poppins" mode I would not bother to argue against an indef-block. As to this discussion, if she's unblocked right now then let's forget it. There will, I am completely confident, be another breach along shortly. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK Edit warring and same old behavior[edit]

Unblocked for only a few hours and she goes right back to edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries and talk pages: [24] [25] [26] --malber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be edit-warring, but it's quite a stretch to call those diffs personal attacks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe they were personal attacks, so I sent the user to time out for 24 hours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MSK update[edit]

I've looked into the Selina situation. Per my comment on her talk page a month ago (wherein I said she could expect a 30-day block for every instance of trolling), I have blocked her for 60 days for posting personal information, plus her comments on User talk:Netscott. Raul654 21:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, the "personal information" is all but public knowledge, and Grace Note has, at one point, posted his email address to the off-site forum, which includes his alleged name. The harm done by posting what is nearly public knowledge is virtually nil, although I agree it wasn't appropriate for her to do so. Nonetheless, I don't think it was trolling, just that it was ignorant. She should have been warned for that. As for her comments on User talk:Netscott, you may wish to observe Netscotts comments on User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle, where the user in question thanks her for her comments. [27]. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
She wasn't referring to Netscott, she was referring to the editor she was calling an "Islamic POV-pusher." -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if someone is pushing Islamic PoV, what does that make them? True, there are more civil ways to express it. Selina's blunt, but she means well. To classify that edit as "trolling" is, to be frank, is rather innappropriate. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how being polemic and calling names equates to meaning well. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The block won't stick because the previous 24 hour block was never removed -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks in the diffs Malber submitted. I'm inclined to half the block duration to 30 days, but I won't do it without Mark's expressed permission —why? because, in contrast to many here (who have, do, and will), I have never engaged in wheel warring, and am not about to start now. Yes, a lot of energy gets expended with little returns, but it isn't such a big deal to expend it again in 30 days (and there's always the chance, albeit it seems increasingly remote, that next time will be the one). El_C 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The personal attacks I'm referring to are in the edit summaries. Without discussing first, she assumes that when she's reverted it is vandalism and in effect calls the other editor a vandal. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am OK El C's proposal to halve the block. Raul654 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Raul. I've gone ahead and implemented it. El_C 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of MSK[edit]

I decided to go look at MSK's history to see just where things went wrong: About seven and a half hours after she joined.

Her first edit is at 14:19 eastern on December 17. By 15:05 - 46 minutes later - she had plunged head-first into the Londonderry/Derry fight, which is one of those things that is as close to settled law as you can get on Wikipedia, even removing the comment at the top of the page explaining this (first done at 15:08 - other edits were to pages which did not contain this notice). She did this without edit summaries, thus giving the notion of trolling or vandalism. She started dabbling in userboxes at 16:05, 57 minutes later.

In her first edit to her user page at 16:07, and in this first edit she added a box stating she was an administrator. (and a cute "merow" statement) At 21:36, after 5 hours 29 minutes, Sean Black removed it, with the summary "You are not an admin". Two minutes later - having begun editing or left the page before Sean did it - WAvegetarian informed her that it's not good for her to have that box. At 21:44, she responded to him saying "ok sorry :( removed" and "I doubt I could become an admin since it seems a bit biased towards those who spend nearly ALL THEIR LIFE on wikipedia but who knows, probably not even worth a try though, no?" Time elapsed: 7h25m.

She makes some legitimate edits (in fact, apart from the Derry stuff, all her mainspace edits that I've seen so far seem legitimate), then mentions her new World Citizen userbox on a hundred or so user talk pages. The few responses are all positive.

At 21:47, 3 minutes after her initial response on her talk page, she replies to Sean Black with "You could've at least had the common courtesy to let me do it myself, but the grumpy/oppositional tone "YOU ARE NOT AN ADMIN." suggests doesn't exactly give the impression that you have any, anyway."

7 minutes later, Sean responded apologizing for what could have been seen as a grumpy tone.

Now, before all of this, she had received several vandalism warnings, presumably (I could go through again and check) due to her Derry/Londonderry edits. While I think they should have explained to her the situation, it kind of already was in the comments on Derry. But still, they should have pointed her the way, they were biting a newbie.

MSK, the way I see it, got involved in a fight without reading up on it - forgiveable, as there can be lots and difficult to find documentation on such things. And they bit the newbie by not explaining this to her. However, when she deleted the comment explaining it, that was a bit far. Claiming she was an admin was a poor choice, and Sean did nothing wrong in removing it, and she decided - within 8 hours of joining - that apparently all admins are shutins who have a clique. Either she wasn't a newbie, or she easily resorts to insults. Based on her history since then it just seems like she hunts for fight, but I could be mistaken based on a small sample size.

If MSK truly wishes to contribute - and I do see many legitimate edits - perhaps she should come in with a new name. After all, even NoPuzzleStranger and Gzornenplatz were tolerated until they started exhibiting tell-tale signs of being Wik, which were not positive traits. If it's possible to spend a few months being a good quiet user, then pop up and say "Hi, I'm MSK, I decided to try a new beginning," I'm sure that they would welcome you with open arms. I certainly would. --Golbez 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very well put. Thank you, Golbez. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Danny L possibly defamation[edit]

Looks like this userpage is used just to insult somebody. Lapinmies 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I must be a bit slow, but what? El_C 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Learn to use page history you dumb fuck. Lapinmies 10:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No need to call someone a "dumb fuck". You could just have said that someone included <insult> which can be found in the history. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It was the newest revision when I posted the message, somebody just blanked the site and after that it was history. I don't think I have to guide admins in basic functions of wikipedia. Lapinmies 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Do not refer to someone as a "dumb fuck" again. That's completely unacceptable.--Sean Black (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Karmafist petitioning new users again[edit]

It seems that Karmafist (talk · contribs) has resumed his old practice of including his combative views on WikiPolitics in his welcomes to new users [28] [29] [30], despite repeated requests to stop doing so by multiple users (see e.g. User_talk:Karmafist#Petitioning newbies).

While I understand that Karmafist believes that this is the only way to fix Wikipedia's ills, in my opinion this will serve to poison WikiPolitics further and give newbies the wrong idea of what we're about. It is a severe violation of WP:BITE and will undermine our core mission of building an encyclopedia. Action is necessary, regrettable though it may be, to encourage him to stop.

I propose to warn Karmafist to cease and desist, followed by a short block for disruption and newbie biting if he continues. This is the least drastic course of action I can think of. What do other people think? -- SCZenz 23:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist, as I already said (perhaps you missed my small text), I don't think it's appropriate to present the petition to newcomers because it's a bit overwhelming and they should probably be given time to orient themsleves around the wiki first. El_C 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, lots of people have told him not to do that. Now he's forging ahead anyway, and I'm asking what we should do if he won't stop. -- SCZenz 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a good disruption block will do if this keeps going on, or maybe Arbcom could settle this and other issues.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll cross my fingers that he's stopped. I see this as a clear problem. I don't know what else can be done if he keeps it up. Aaaaarg. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may be so bold to say this, I believe I'm one of those few he trusts more. I'm willing to do all the talking (and subsequent blocking), I don't think anyone else should. It just gives him the idea that the cabal is indeed against him, and would surely make his manifesto stronger if smart newbies realise that they won't get much of a say, cos let's face it, what with the recent userboxes, there cearly is a group of admins that would band together and do the same things. I'll drop a note on his talk page warning him. I feel I'm most suited for dealing with him. If there are objections to this, please go ahead and voice them. NSLE (T+C) at 00:57 UTC (2006-03-03)
If you think you can stop him that'd be best, but if he keeps it up he'll know he's doing it in the face of uniform disapproval. Speaking for myself it's just wrong, wrong enough for a short block. Rx StrangeLove 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with his newbie welcome message, and he knows that the community in general disagrees with it too (it was brought up by many during his recent RfA), I'm not sure I concur that it's enough of an offence to warrant a block. I can't quite see it breaking any current policies per se. Has an RfC been tried yet? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't enough to warrant a block, but i'm sure a cabalist will do it anyway. Give me another way, or get out of my way. Karmafist 02:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Another way... to do what, exactly? android79 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This has to be better defined. Does the "other way" intimate exposure to the petition? If so, to what extent? Where? How? El_C 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Karmafist means another way to get support for his petition—see his comments at User_talk:SCZenz#My petition. Also, I rather strongly object to the concept of negotiating on this point in some manner. There is community consensus, as I see it, that this is damaging to Wikipedia. I'm not sure, for example, what an RfC would accomplish if he's set on ignoring the thoughtful requests users have already made. So, for those who are opposed to a block, what realistically do we do? -- SCZenz 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact that this is all about a petition is key here. The very concept of a petition is to gather consensus in a structured form. The fact that he's doing a petition suggests that Karmafist has not forgotten about consensus, nor has he stopped caring about it. That's why I think an RfC might work. Once he sees that those disagreeing with his actions isn't a shadowy and mysterious "cabal" but the very heart of the Wikipedia community he cares about... reason will prevail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the opposition isn't shadowy or mysterious, there's been consistent disagreement to this everywhere it's been discussed. It's clear he's acting against the communities approval. I don't see why we should have to jump through another, larger hoop to get him to stop. If Karmafist is interested in consensus he'd respect it and stop. And in any case, gathering a bunch of signatures on a petition, many of which are from new users who don't have the background to make an informed decision, is not consensus making. It's a petition. I'll certainly consider blocking if he starts again. Rx StrangeLove 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not RfC the petition, instead of Karmafist? I feel like I already know what the latter would look like, and let's not do that. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No matter the target, it will probably have the same ugly result. android79 03:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Contemplating a block is premature at this point, but the immediacy in tone of the "another way" is not constructive, either. At ease. El_C 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware that he did this a couple of weeks ago, was asked to stop, and stopped temporarily—only to continue again? -- SCZenz 03:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dragging newbies into politics is despicable and inexcusable. I would certainly consider a block if he continues. — Dan | talk 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries then, he's stopped. ... he'll start again in a another week or two so once more we can say "stop, and if you don't stop we'll tell you to stop again."--Gmaxwell 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a violation of WP:BITE, which has to do with responding aggressively (or overly sternly) to newbie mistakes. I'm really sick of people misquoting policies. Calling this "biting the newbies" is like saying:

  • "I get to rewrite policy pages to say that I'm the king, because I'm supposed to be bold."
  • "I'm allowed to ignore bans and circumvent blocks, because I'm supposed to ignore all rules."
  • "Anyone who dislikes my edits and says so should be banned, because they're not allowed to make personal attacks."

These are all well-known abusive tactics here. Accusing Karmafist of violating WP:BITE when he communicates his views in a friendly way to newbies is the same sort of abusive argumentation. It's either a serious misunderstanding of policy, or a deliberate twisting thereof.

That said, there is a legitimate concern that newbies may believe that Karmafist is speaking for Wikipedia as a whole. People tend to assume (however wrongly) that form letters represent some sort of official recognition. (This thought may come from the same underlying error as "It must be true, it's in the newspaper" but it is still common.)

Out of respect for the independence of editors who don't agree with his positions, Karmafist might consider revising his form letter to explain what he's about ... and that he doesn't purport to represent a known majority. --FOo 04:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying it violates WP:BITE perhaps goes to far, but perhaps it's not. He's setting up these users to be bitten by thrusting them into his personal battle before they've learned enough about the community to avoid trouble. So while he may not be biting them himself, I think the end result will be the same. It is very important the a users early interaction with the community is positive and cooperative, if it's any other way it will taint their entire involvement with the project. --Gmaxwell 05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100 percent. Don't involve anyone in this whole mess of conflicts that doesn't need to be involved. let new people write articles and enjoy wikipedia. It is after all, an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 06:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This may not be "letter of the law" WP:BITE, but it's newbie-abuse of a fairly clear and unfortunate sort, and distinctly in the scope of WP:POINT. I find the sheer scale of some of this mass-welcoming probematic in itself: if it were desirable to emulate a welcome-bot, we'd just have implemented a welcome-bot, not left welcoming to be done on an individual basis. Alai 06:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and to be fair, WP:BITE isn't the only objection people have been citing. Rx StrangeLove 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I like Karmafist a lot, and don't think this constitutes newbie-biting at all, but it must be a bit unnerving for a brand new user to be asked to sign a statement saying "I am a Wikipedian. I believe wholeheartedly in the ultimate goal of Wikipedia set forth by its founder, Jimbo Wales"!! Babajobu 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

...and then being asked to favor a manifesto which he has not endorsed and which is regarded as unworkable by many Wikipedians. Yes, that's a good idea all right! Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I just can't shake the feeling this is too much like the Catholic Alliance flap. There, you had a group of people using catagories associated with userboxes to try and reach people to influence consensus in a massive way, here you have someone using...whatever method Karamafist uses to identify new try and reach people to influence consensus through his manifesto. I just don't feel like userspace is the place to be campaigning for anything. Maybe it belongs in projectspace, or as a proposed guideline somewhere (where it'd probably die a quick death under MfD, but there you go). Course...I could just be bitter because I never got welcomed by anyone. ;) InkSplotch(talk) 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've told Karmafist precisely what it is about the content of his welcoming message that I find worrying. I've asked him to consider stopping, or else use the standard message. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

List of British Jews[edit]

Would someone mind sorting out the talkpage? A move vandal stuffed it up as I was writing to the page, and now there's a Talk:List of British Jews with my one comment and Talk:List of British Chews that can't move there. Oh, and can someone block the fool who did it? Grace Note 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Splash got the move sorted while I was blocking the fool. All better now? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Bah. I blocked the fool, too. My block was shorter, so I've lifted it and reblocked. Juding from User talk:Xizer, the Wiki is better without the usual practises of this particular editor for a while. -Splashtalk 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This particular user has been a headache from early on, when he started spouting racist language all over the place. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's parole[edit]

Per an ArbCom ruling, Netoholic is serving a 12-month parole, during which time he "is banned from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces ... and [is] restricted to one revert per page per day."

Late last year, it was believed that there was a developer mandate to eliminate as many meta-templates as possible, and Netoholic volunteered to rewrite them. As he possessed a level of technical expertise and motivation that others lacked, several arbitrators indicated that the terms of his parole should not be enforced to the letter. Instead, admins were to permit productive edits, enforcing the terms only if Netoholic edited in a manner that we deemed "disruptive."

Unfortunately, Netoholic interpreted this as a de facto termination of the parole. He soon began editing (and revert warring on) templates and articles that had nothing to do with the meta-template situation, all the while citing the ArbCom clarification as a license to behave however he pleased. This was largely tolerated (including by me), due to the perceived importance of his work.

Now that we've learned that the great meta-template purge was not developer-mandated or backed by policy, the situation has changed. Nonetheless, Netoholic constantly reminds everyone that the literal terms of his parole remain inapplicable. I'm more than willing to accept that, as I have no desire to block a productive editor on a technicality. The problem is that Netoholic is engaging in precisely the sort of behavior that led to his sanctions in the first place, but he insists that none of his edits rise to the level of "disruption."

Last night (UTC), it came to my attention that Netoholic was revert warring on the article entitled The Amazing Race 9, insisting that the onus was on the other editor to initiate discussion and justify edits contrary to Netoholic's personal preference. This, in my assessment, was disruptive, so I blocked Netoholic for 24 hours. Netoholic protested the block, and I provided a detailed explanation of my rationale on his talk page. As I noted, aside from the fact that Netoholic violated his one-revert restriction (in what I deemed a disruptive manner), any editor can be blocked for repeatedly revert warring, even if the 3RR (which is not an entitlement) isn't violated.

This morning at 4:14 (UTC), Snowspinner announced the following:

"I'm lifting this one. The parole on Netoholic is not to be used to bully him into silence, and I'm very distressed to see it being used for that."

Snowspinner did not address any of my comments on the matter, nor did he make any attempt to contact me or discuss the situation. Instead, he immediately assumed bad faith on my part and "overturned" my decision. I feel that this was extremely inappropriate—not merely because it's a breach of decorum, but mainly because it further undermines all efforts to enforce the spirit of Netoholic's parole (and reinforces his apparent belief that he possesses some sort of immunity).

This is extremely frustrating, as it appeared at one time that Netoholic actually was beginning to reform. I honestly believe that he has the potential to become one of our most valuable contributors. By tolerating his misdeeds, we actively encourage his recidivism, and that's a shame. —David Levy 06:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Individual admins don't have the authority to override Arbcom decisions that they disagree with. This behavior is particularly unbecoming from one of the clerks. I'm at a loss as to why Snowspinner feels the need to defend Netoholic's blatant and repeated violation of the conditions of his probation. This has gone on for way too long. We're not talking about technicalities, but about the exact same behavior patterns that led to the sanctions in the first place. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Important: You are both making a bad argument by repeatedly stating that I am showing the "exact same behavior patterns that led to the sanctions in the first place". Read the Findings of Fact of my case... the only revert warring that was found to be bad was within Templates over the meta-templates -- not articles, not Wikipedia pages, and not even all Templates. The broad 1RR is not what the arbitrators intended. -- Netoholic @ 07:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You violated consensus on the page David blocked you for edit warring. According to Finding of Fact #7, this is one of the forms of misbehavior that led to the prior case. And, whatever the arbitrators "intended", the actual decision does indeed set not only a 1RR, but a blanket ban on editing in certain namespaces: "Netoholic is banned from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day." Given that the offensive behavior continues, and that Netoholic has very few such contributions that do not involve troublemaking or edit warring, I see no reason why this should not be fully enforced. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The clarifications I've gotten from the Arbitrators and even Snowspinner (one of the people who brought my to the ArbCom) is that the broad 1RR and namespace restrictions were not intended (mentorship was the true goal). Raul654, who was assigned as a mentor, has said as much as well. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec)On the face of it, it appears to me that it would have been preferable if a) the 1RR vio had been reported, and enforced by a neutral admin, and not by someone who is, or even could be accused of being, "involved"; and b) the block had not been reversed without prior communication (which is in fact WWing by the definition the arbcom have on at least one occasion used). What to do about it after the fact (other than make such observations), I'm not so sure about. Alai 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic has stepped on quite a few toes, and I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect all admins with whom he's ever engaged in a conflict to recuse themselves. If I'd been looking for an excuse to block him, it certainly wouldn't have taken me this long. But in fact, this was something that I've gone out of my way to avoid doing until now. At one point, Netoholic reported another editor's 3RR violation (a valid claim), and I informed him I couldn't block that user without also blocking Netoholic (because he violated his parole by participating in the revert war). He basically requested that I block both of them, but I declined (purely because I didn't want to block Netoholic). —David Levy 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring of any sort=bad.--Alhutch 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reasonable definition of wheel warring to say that overturning unjust blocks is a wheel war. This isn't even a wheel border skirmish, as I said elsewhere. If David reinstated, and especially if I unblocked again, it would be a wheel war. To cripple the administrator right to overturn each other, however, is to remove a key check on administrator power. Phil Sandifer 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this situation doesn't fit the definition of what typically is referred to as a "wheel war," and I was careful not to allow it to escalate to that point. Irrespective of terminology, however, I believe that Phil's intervention was inappropriate, especially given the fact that he assumed bad faith on my part (without even bothering to contact me or address the lengthy explanations that I'd posted). —David Levy 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Reasonable" is as maybe, but as I say, it's one the arbcom have applied. Alai 16:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that in this particular case Netoholic's edit warring was in clear defiance of consensus. His position was that country flag icons should not be included on The Amazing Race 9. So far, on Talk:The Amazing Race 9, a straw poll has six users in favor of keeping the flags and no one but Netoholic in favor of getting rid of them. This is exactly the behavior that Arbcom found in Finding of Fact #7: "Netoholic consistently tries to push his views through, rather than working with and accepting consensus, using disruption to make a point and revert warring." Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In "clear defiance of consensus"? Are you serious? That poll was started after I made my edits. See also Historian's fallacy. -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, my objection to the block is that it is unbecoming of an administrator with a history of conflict with a user to start using their administrative powers to enforce rulings on users, particularly rulings that the arbcom has indicated are in a relatively narrow class where tehy should only be enforced when Netoholic is being disruptive. To treat any time he gets into a revert war as blockable disruption is to construe the ruling, to my mind, very broadly and harshly - something that may be fair, but should be done by someone more uninvolved than I consider David to be. Phil Sandifer 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read the comments in question (linked from Netoholic's talk page), it's clear that the arbitrators created a narrow exception (to enable the template rewrites that were considered very important at that time). I'm more than willing to apply that exception to any productive editing, but revert warring doesn't fit that description. It is disruptive, and an admin doesn't even need an ArbCom ruling to block over this type of behavior pattern.
If the fact that I've engaged in past disputes with Netoholic means that I'm to be branded permanently "involved," I could just as easily argue that you should have found another admin to overrule my block (given the fact that you and I have a history of conflict). —David Levy 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We have a history of conflict? Huh. Because I honestly have no clue who the hell you are past an awareness that you really dislike Netoholic. Phil Sandifer 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I accept your claim that you assumed bad faith on the part of someone you didn't even remember knowing. But for the record, I don't dislike Netoholic. (I dislike some of his behavior.) —David Levy 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Further violations[edit]

Snowspinner (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Netoholic (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) at 04:15, March 3, 2006 UTC. Almost immediately he violated his ArbCom ban again

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates[edit]

Template:Ship table[edit]

Clearly he has no intention of stopping his disruption. —Locke Coletc 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 Hours by me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Afshar[edit]

User:Afshar has requested a ban for his similarly hotheaded opponent, and is making legal threats. I don't know what the debate is about-- he chose me at random. I dunno, this dispute needs to be cooled down somehow but I've got no experience in mediation. Ashibaka tock 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Afshar and Danko Georgiev MD are just as bad as each other. Now that their argument has tumbled into legal threats and personal attacks, I think the offer is they cool it and start mediation or get blocked. Do you want me to speak to each of them? — Gareth Hughes 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like the best solution for now. Thank you-- go ahead and let them know. Ashibaka tock 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. I've left a message for both of them. Afshar's legal threats were quite strongly worded, so I made it clear that he now has the choice of withdrawing them or being blocked. Both accounts seem to be inactive at the moment, so we'll wait and see. — Gareth Hughes 16:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Routine block evasion by IP 80.90.*.* and User:Rose-mary[edit]

The anonymous Phaistos Disc editor 80.90.*.* and his proven sock-puppet Rose-mary (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) have developed a pattern of routinely evading blocks by getting a fresh anonymous IP every day. Within the last 2 weeks, I count at least 5 separate instances of 3RR violations, 5 blocks (on different accounts each), and 5 days during which this user has edited evading earlier blocks, including today.

Lukas (T.|@) 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've taken it upon myself to reblock per William's one week block until 6 March, see User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Rose-mary. dab () 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My original block of Rose-mary was intended to be 24h. It would have expired by now, but the issue of the socks confuses it; as said above, R-M has routinely evaded the block with a new IP. Advice on what to do would be welcome. William M. Connolley 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I see. I would suggest letting her sit out another 24h from now to impress that by "block" we mean "no editing" and leave it at that. But I am involved here, and would appreciate uninvolved judgement from others. dab () 17:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that it's time to semiprotect the article. We can't block each and every IP of this range each time this person logs in anew and switches one tick up or down and begins edit warring again. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to sprotection, but in principle, we cannot sprotect in every instance where an article is plagued by an anon with ADSL. half-hour rangeblocks should be enough to frustrate anyone. dab () 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I would think that a large rangeblock would be more disruptive than an sprotect to one article, but that's just me. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
on AOL IPs, maybe. This particular ISP does not have much activity on en:. In any case, sprotection will be for days and weeks, rangeblocks will be in half-hour intervals for as long as Rose-mary keeps reconnecting. But for the moment, sprotection is fine too, go ahead. dab () 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hunley vandal (South Carolina)[edit]

The CSS H. L. Hunley article has been repeatedly vandalized by someone (and I assume it is the same person) using anon IP addresses registered to the State of South Carolina. For example, yesterday there was an attack from (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log); that user is blocked so today the attack came from (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), which has had numerous short-term blocks but is open today. There have also been identical patterned attacks from (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and I'll bet those are ISPs in South Carolina as well. The attacks from state IPs come during lunch hour and the attacks from private ISPs come at night. Regarding the attacks from the SC State websites, User talk: threatens that vandalism will be reported to the state. Can someone follow through on this threat, please? If this is a student or a state employee misusing official computers on lunch break maybe we can stem the tide at the source. Thatcher131 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I've blocked (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a month for violating WP:LEGAL on at least three occasions [31] [32] [33]. Although it's an IP it appears to be fairly stable - the same vandal was (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for three months until mid-Feb, so it looks like a slow-turnover lease on an ADSL line - so I think the risk of collateral damage is pretty low. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Carie[edit]

Could someone look into User Carie, who added personal and libelous information on Jessica onto TML1988's page here:

Thanks. Jane8888 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks to be an isolated incident, albeit an odd one. --InShaneee 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this is a big deal - I've already reverted that edit and warned Carie several weeks ago, and Carie has not reinstated that edit since. --TML1988 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of a big deal for Jessica's parents, especially when that same person is going around posting that Jessica's a "selective mute eurasian." Jane8888 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator tools by JzG[edit]

JzG is using sysop powers abusively in an ongoing dispute over at Arbustoo's RfC. JzG has been systematically removing evidence contrary to his position, and deleting the edit histories involved, in an attempt to protect Arbustoo's incivil and libellous behavior. I hope someone with appropriate authority can investigate this immediately. Thanks, Bannana Peel 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What Jason Gastrich (for it is he) is referring to here is the blocking of another of his sockpuppets, King_Blinger (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), which removed unflattering comments from the above RfC using misleading edit summaries (e.g. 'rv willy on wheels') in an attempt to disguise it. --Malthusian (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
No sysop powers were used in the edits described. I removed discussion to the Talk page where it belonged, and struck two endorsements with reasons given (for example, users with no edit history who admit to using multiple accounts and who have taken no part in attempting to resolve a dispute (other than personal abuse against its subject) are not normally accepted as appropriate to endorse an RfC). These actions can be reviewed and revised by the community if they see fit, in the ususal way. The RfC is vexatious and quite likely a violation of WP:POINT but some of us at least are trying to ensure process is followed.
However, I congratulate Bannana_Peel (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user •