Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive79

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

KDRGibby breaking parole with impunity[edit]

I wish to bring to your attention the recent activities of KDRGibby, who I'm sure you'll remember from this ArbCom case. Since the closure of his case (which resulted in him being put on parole and probation for personal attacks), Gibby has made the following comments on the talk pages of articles on my watchlist. Keep in mind that I have not covered all his contributions; many more personal attacks could exist. What I find amazing is that no admin has yet taken it upon himself to enforce the ArbCom decision and block Gibby (I believe the maximum punishment is in order for such blatant disregard not only for the community, but also for the ArbCom itself):

  • [1] "Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please."
  • [2] "the complaint is actually...stupid"
  • [3] "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade."
  • [4] "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."
  • [5] "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
  • [6] "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
  • [7] "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
  • Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: [8] (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
  • [9] "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
  • [10] "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
  • [11] "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
  • Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: [12] "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
  • [13] "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
  • [14] "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
  • [15] "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
  • [16] "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

Collected by Nikodemos 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

This is from my talk page. Parole is enforced by administrators. Fred Bauder 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby[edit]

KDRGibby was blocked for supposed violations of his personal attacks parole. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. His comments may have been angry, but, if they're in response to someone removing sourced edits without explanation, to a certain extent justified. If he's blocked, at least the people deleting valid info should be too. Please review this block.- Mgm|(talk) 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Personal attacks are personal attacks, and KDRGibby knows full well what making personal attacks will cost him. To quote WP:NPA, "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors." Incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Then could you explain exactly what part of his edit was a personal attack. All I see is anger, but as far as I know that's not a blockable offense. - Mgm|(talk) 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that when KDRGibby says, "You lefties are so gd amazing!" he's not referring to his fondness for southpaws. Lumping his opponents together using a term clearly meant to be pejorative, all wrapped up in a number of comments that certainly fall outside the bounds of civility, is a personal attack—and moreover is something that someone who knows he is on an attack parole should know not to do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, we don't block for "removing sourced edits without explanation". If an editor has violated WP:3RR, please feel free to list that at WP:AN/3RR. Jkelly 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
We should. Why wait for an edit war if it can be nipped in the but my simply requiring an explanation? - Mgm|(talk) 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You might then propose a policy change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That was only one edit among 20 others — see the top of this page - see header 2 of this page. He's started similar behaviour again, after his block. Can someone please review his edits. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to investigate Gibby's most recent behavior, since the expiry of the block instituted by Tom Harrison 22:23 on March 1. Since it expired he has made an incredible 60 edits,

Firstly looking at his edit summaries alone I see:

  • "the nuetrality dispute is because the leftists won't allow factual cited criticism to be present. stop abusing wiki rules for political purposes.)"
  • "that is not a legitimate reason to revert the text. You will do anythign to keep outstuff you don't like won't you. The other editors deletion excuse was it need sp corrects. I say fix it then"
  • "sorry you deleted cited credible material again, this is bordering on vandalism..."

In the arbitration case, it was found that KDRGibby has said things like (names etc removed):

  • "X is an immature communist brat from P who keeps deleting this and my other sections from Wiki, she has violated the 3rev policies multiple times and gets away with. Has no logical arguementation skills, and no ability to defend her deltions.
  • "Y you are an Fing MORON! You delete Hayek's interpretation as PROPOGANDA? What BS"
  • "rules mean nothing here, fuck the wikis the little bastards can't follow their own rules, and dont edit my own discussion page."

and that these were personal attacks. Okay maybe the edit summaries weren't in quite the same category. Accusing people of abusing the rules, activities bordering on vandalism, and being willing to "do anythign to keep outstuff you don't like" may all be legitimate criticisms, though the edit summary is hardly an appropriate place to make them.

Of those recent edit summaries, only calling someone a leftist could possibly be interpreted as an attack. What he said before his arbcom case is not relevant to a block one places now.

While he was blocked, KDRGibby said this on his talk page:

  • "I try civility, but its very hard when dealing with so many moronic logically inconsistant editors and biased lazy administrators who only follow the rules to suite their political prefrences against users they ideologically disagree with." [17]

Well that's a personal attack but it's a fairly diffuse one. The "moronic logically inconsistant editors and biased lazy administrators who only follow the rules to suite their political prefrences against users they ideologically disagree with" aren't actually named (though we could infer). And in any case it could be a legitimate complaint (has he filed an RfC?)

So let's see what else he's been up to:

Since being unblocked he has said:

  • "Oh and comparing classical liberals to "elitist republicans" not only shows your own bias, but extreme ignorance!!! They are nothing alike! Not to mention you have no citation for your little original research. Your entire edit is predicated on your own original research while erasing the publicated cited researched sources that say things you disagree with. YOU HAVE TO DO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS! (Gibby 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC))" [18]
    • Pretty angry stuff. And very strong criticism. But not perhaps in the realm of personal attack. Just not polite.
  • "I'm not calling you a vandal, i'm calling you a left wing censor." [19]

But the sheer weight of these edits must be crippling to dialog. He is permanently angry and he had made 60 edits to just 10 or so articles and their talk pages. The Committee found that he "consistently fails to assume good faith" and this seems to be what is at the bottom of his disruptive behavior.

While I don't think another block is necessarily merited (he's angry as hell, but not as bad as he has been), his behavior still falls far below an acceptable level and if it continues he *will* be repeatedly blocked for personal attacks. I do think this problem editor's activities on the following articles, amongst others, should be monitored, and if necessary we should consider banning him from those that he disrupts:

In the arbitration case, it was found that he had engaged in tendentious editing, edit warring, removal of large blocks of information, and acting immaturely (WP:POINT was cited). Remedies include an impressive array of probations for disruption. It would probably be a kind act to ban him from editing articles that obviously cause him great mental anguish, rather than letting him continue to get angrier and angrier until he lashes out again. --Tony Sidaway 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gibby has continued his behaviour and aggressive revert warring. Any action going to be taken? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

A number of administrators are now trying to modify this editor's bad behavior. If he acts badly, he gets a very brief block (a few hours at most) and a note explaining precisely why he has been blocked. We can hope that he will quickly learn to stop doing the things that cause him to be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He was just blocked a couple of minutes ago for three hours. I subsequently protected his userpage (warning removal vandalism), afterwhich he attacked me in email. I told him I wouldn't tolerate another outburst, because, and I believe strongly that, most of us want to see him become a conducive editor, and I was trying to be fair. I haven't listed the page on WP:PP (useless, since it's only three hours), though. NSLE (T+C) at 02:03 UTC (2006-03-07)

StrangerInParadise spambot spamming userpages[edit]

I've just blocked this user 31 hours for, as the block message puts it: "Personal attack spamming on userpages (apparently bot-assisted)". This [20] is a good example. He's been cranking these out at a steady pace. Mindspillage tried cluifying him [21], but it appears to have been clues to the clueless - he responded and kept going, somewhere past thirty or forty. I recall IZAK was strongly rapped by the AC for hitting ten or so userpages, and not even with personal attacks ... this sort of partisan spam attack is exactly why many people regard userboxes as blatant encouragement to factionalist attacks of this sort. And why they deserve immediate attention. Anyone severely upset by this block? - David Gerard 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Using Assisted-AutoBrowsers and what not for this use is dispicable.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As mindspillage says: "Vote stacking. It's not good. This is the reason people are against userboxes in the first place. It's just not on to go rally people you think will support you and urge them to sway a discussion a certain way." (the emphasis by bolding is mindspillage's own)
Let's stop this now. It must be killed, dealt a blow from which it will never recover. We need a solid ruling from the arbitration committee against all vote stacking. Otherwise, I just cannot see our principles of making decisions on policy by consensus surviving. We cannot have decisions by consensus if some editors feel free to subvert every attempt to determine that consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The vote-stacking part of this is bad, of course, but it isn't the only concern. Would his actions have been any less reprehensible if he hadn't mentioned the ongoing policy discussions in his message? —Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What amazes me is the lack of comprehension that spamming is bad. Doesn't he have email? - David Gerard 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
He probably thinks it's acceptable if it's for a good cause. There are a number of people who have spammed various people with messages that essentially boil down to "DOWN WITH THE ADMIN CABAL!" recently; maybe we should just go ahead and create Wikipedia:No revolutions, to discourage such things. —Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
He claims on his talk page that he did not use a bot. He does appear to have been using cut'n'paste or subst:ing a custom template. Not that I care deeply - it's odious behaviour and you will see from his talk page that he's utterly unrepentant. I noted that IZAK got ten days' ban for spamming talk pages with personal attacks, which suggests that 31 hours is so short as to be out of process; presumably StrangerInParadise should have the option of the longer penalty if he prefers - David Gerard 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly possible to do this sort of thing just using Firefox with a large number of open tabs. —Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Or javascript tabs.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've done something similar doing cleanups of double redirects in article space without a bot handy ;-) - David Gerard 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Tony people have been trying stop this now for quite a while. The only result is anger and the ocassional counter strike. It isn't a time for action any more. It is a time for talk. For negotation. The reasonable people on the various sides need to come to an argreement and freeze out the unreasonable ones. This is of course going to take time. However the is no other option that has any chance of working in the long term.Geni 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I entirely support the block and agree with David Gerard that it's a relatively lenient one in all the circumstances. However it is in some ways fortunate that StrangerInParadise has come along to demonstrate exactly why Categories of Wikipedians by POV are wrong at just the point that it comes under discussion. For myself I would say that I would have much less hostile feelings toward Userboxes in general if none of them had included categories. Whatever process is used, we need to have a resolution of the Userbox problem which reminds everyone that Wikipedians are supposed to leave their POV behind, and Categories by POV are so far away from that that I really can't see why anyone can defend them. David | Talk 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Butting in here, I just want to note that, as far as I can determine, every proposed userbox policy, old and new, has included language to the effect that double categorization (by templates and categories) is unnecessary. I believe it's not far fetched to say that there already is a consensus for the position that, no matter what one may think about templatized userboxes, the inclusion of categories is at best redundant. Until SIP came along, nobody seemed to particularly mind the removal of categories from templatized userboxes. In the present case, insisting on having an advocacy category as part of an advocacy template is especially wrong. The usual disclaimers about "disclosing biases" etc. don't apply: the "pro-cannabis" template and category are advocacy for a cause that is completely external to Wikipedia (and the same would hold for a hypothetical "anti-cannabis" category, in case that wasn't obvious). The point is that no amount of editing Wikipedia can effect the changes advocated by the people who sign on to this template/category. As such, the advocacy is purely external, as opposed to Wikipedia-related advocacy (e.g. "school articles should be improved not deleted"). The way SIP went about this makes me question his motives and wonder whether a longer block (say, for the duration of UPP) may be more appropriate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's becoming clear that internal WikiPolitical categorizations are an even greater problem that external political ones. —Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I fear you may be right. David | Talk 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians has been around forever and even killing the more recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion is probably more trouble than it is worth.Geni 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, that particular group is rather less confrontational that some of what we've been seeing lately. —Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. It's not a problem until it's a problem. Userboxes weren't a problem until (1) the Association of Catholic Wikipedians (2) the idiots who tried to vote copyright violations into force in userboxes in the face of Kelly Martin foolishly doing the sensible, legal and on-policy thing. When it is a problem, then treat it as a problem - David Gerard 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall much (other than complaining) being done about school watch back in the day. The on policy thing would have been to remove the images and leave the boxes. Unfortunetly Kelly Martin chose not to do this. A lot of stuff later here we are. No you can either try and continue the conflict or you can let people talk things out.Geni 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This example seems on the face of it disingenuous - as you know, Schoolwatch actually did lots of work on improving articles in the face of people who wanted to delete almost all school articles. That is, it was directly for the encyclopedia - David Gerard 12:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where Schoolwatch fits in. It wasn't an organization, just a regularly updated wiki page. All Wikipedians were free to edit it and anyone could add the page to his watchlist. There was no spamming of user talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. The sensible and on-policy thing would have been to remove the images and leave the boxes themselves alone. (And I'm not at all convinced that this is a "legal" issue - I'm not aware of any cases where anyone has even been sent a C&D letter, much less actually sued, for using fair use images in this way. It's simply a matter of Foundation policy. No need for m:Copyright paranoia.) And I also don't see why every user on Wikipedia should have to pay for the sins of the "Association of Catholic Wikipedians". Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I have written up an idea that would take us out of the userbox wars while removing the ability to vote stack. I think this could make people on both sides of the userbox debate happy without resorting to any more mass deletions. Please tell if this would be possible. Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Technical_Solution.--God Ω War 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it mentioned here, so I'll just note that Babajobu unblocked at 01:22, 5 March 2006. Rx StrangeLove 06:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Conversation with StrangerInParadise in IRC led me to believe that he does not see why his actions were inappropriate and that he would continue them, reducing the issue to the oversimplified "why can I not contact a list of people?" and not acknowledging his actions were any more than that. The thought that this is acceptable practice is more harmful than the placement or removal of any silly colored boxes. As such, if StrangerInParadise doesn't realize how his actions were harmful and plans to continue then, I'm fine with the block, and would like to know why Babajobu believes it should be undone; I'm inviting him to this thread. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Addendum to this: after a long conversation with SiP in private message, he's agreed that the mass of dissent this is attracted is cause to question his actions. He's also taken issue with my statement that I believed he would continue. I'll accept that he was done with that round of notifications, and in light of the reaction to it would seek clarification before undertaking other such actions, but I'm still not quite convinced he sees why I and others believe this was so wrong. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Just as you were writing this I put the block back on for 12 hours, I thinks it's a basic courtesy to make a note of it when someone reverts an action when there's an ongoing discussion. There seems to be a decent consensus for this block here. Rx StrangeLove 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel like I want to expand a little why I re-blocked, when Babajobu unblocked he mentioned in the summary that the block needed a discussion, but he didn't discuss or mention the unblock anywhere. I wouldn't have done this if he had said something here, on Davids page or even on StrangerInParadise's talk page. But I don't think it's right to do it and then not mention it to anyone. Rx StrangeLove 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted three of this user's subpages, as they were only used to stack votes by spamming user talk pages. Note that the user encouraged other users to do the same using these user templates[22]. The pages in question are {{User:StrangerInParadise/PCI}}, {{User:StrangerInParadise/AbstainerMsg}}, and {{User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP}}. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF. That's an unrepentant spammer. When the block comes off, I hope admins will be watching this user extremely closely - David Gerard 13:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
hmm did we ever get an outright apology from Ram-Man? Should we be watching him to?Geni 15:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to apologize for unblocking Stranger last night without discussing it first. In fact, I wasn't even aware of this discussion, but my normal M.O. when I disagree with a block is to query the blocking admin (in this case David Gerard) rather than just unilaterally lifting the block. What I did was in very bad form. I had an overly pleasant Saturday evening out in Dublin with some friends, returned home on the Luas and then made the egregious error of WWD--Wikiing While Drunk. First time in over 7000 edits that I've done that, and it shan't happen again! After revisiting the issue, I must agree that Stranger's spamming of talkpages (though AWB isn't a bot, each post is still submitted by the editor) with uncivil vote jockeying was very much inappropriate, and that because an initial effort to discuss it with him didn't meet with any success, a short block was not inappropriate. I do think, though, that 31 hours was far too long, given that there are what I consider to be very real mitigating circumstances. Users like Stranger are being relentlessly provoked and antagonized by admins who continue to implement the proposed template and category space policy while the poll is still ongoing. I support the new userbox policy, and will implement it if it is passed. But it makes a mockery of the entire process, and is a slap in the face of those users who are participating in the poll in good faith, to go on ad hoc deletion binges while mocking the concerns of affected users, all while we are supposedly still going through the process of developing a protocol about how these issues should be handled. As a wise man has said, "admins wield a mop, not a sceptre". When we act as though we wield a sceptre, it shouldn't surprise us when an irritated user starts spamming about rogue admins and attempts to "rally the newbs" against us. Anyway, again, apologies for my rash and undiscussed unblocking last night, I should have raised these issues with you rather than lifting the block. Babajobu 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that you think administrators should sit on their hands until a new written policy is formed? Sorry, doesn't wash. Wikipedia doesn't have a written policy on a lot of matters, but administrators will take action to defend the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What I think is that the ad hoc deletion binges are sowing enormous resentment among ordinary users, and are controversial even among admins, many of whom (myself included) believe that these deletions have done more to distract the community from its task of encyclopedia-building than the existence of the userboxen ever did. Moreover, Jimbo has explicitly stated that his words should not be interpreted as support for these sorts of deletions. I've never doubted for a second that admins who continue to delete the userboxen are doing so because they genuinely believe that they are acting in the best interests in Wikipeda, but not only do I disagree with them, I also think they are exercising a degree of authority that no one has ever given them. I think they have made adminship an *enormous* deal, have chomped down on tons of newbies, have fomented a pointless and unnecessary wiki-class-war, and accomplished very little else in the process. That's how I see it, obviously I know you disagree. But why not just wait until the new policy is established, when the same thing can be accomplished with considerably less controversy? Babajobu 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what? Grossly non-encyclopedic categories in userboxes have been considered a bad thing since they first showed up. And notably, Mark (and others) has been removing such categories from userboxes for the last while now (particularly since the Catholic Alliance thing showed they were susceptible to gross abuse) with no objections whatsoever ... until SIP decided it was a great case with which to demonstrate just why such categories are a serious problem. Are you seriously saying Mark should have been continuously checking just in case someone had written a poll on a heretofore uncontroversially-accepted action? That really doesn't seem reasonable or workable. The problem here is not that Mark was deleting odious categories that were accepted to be a bad thing, but that a user then objected to the removal of an odious category by acting in a further odious manner - David Gerard 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying he shouldn't go on deletion binges of categories and templates that as yet meet no criterion for speedy deletion, and then wheel-war over those deletions. If you think his doing so is fabulous for Wikipedia, we'll just have to disagree. I think we'd all be better off if he spent that time working on articles. Babajobu 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The unfortunate thing is that the new proposed userbox policy is slowly losing any consensus it once might have had and editors are pushing to have T1 removed and probably will do so over the next day or so as there hasn't been much opposition to it's removal. We'll be left with no real userbox policy at that point. Rx StrangeLove 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh I don't know. There will still be the wikiproject's standards and the copyvio rules.Geni 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is an operational consensus for the new proposed policy, and that it or something similar will likely be declared our site policy before long. Straw polls are useful, but they're not definitive, and we can make allowances for the preponderance of oppose votes by editors who were alerted through the Anti-censorship WikiProject and those who were alerted through talk page spamming. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What I also find very disruptive was the mass reversion of people's talk pages who did get this message. I got the message, and, well I have quite a few userboxes. Alot of them have been subst'ed via Pathoschilds list, which I think is a nice thing, but I also voted against the overall policy. But that is not what this is for. I agree, there could have been a better way of going about telling users about the new Userboxen policy vote, but it was effective. Mass spamming is bad, but so is mass reversion. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As the talk page spamming was directed exclusively at those who possessed userboxes, it could never be effective in alerting people about the poll. A small minority of Wikipedians have any userboxes at all; an even smaller minority have userboxes that would be affected by this poll. Alerting only a selected subsection of Wikipedians on a site-wide policy is de facto vote rigging. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That depends. Alterting those most likely to be affected is logical justifable.Geni 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
For a system-wide policy? Uh uh: vote-stacking is vote-stacking. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't system wide. The new policy wont effect me in any way shape or form (unless Template:Userpage is declared a userbox). No userbox policy can or ever will.Geni 23:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, I thought this policy applied to Wikipedia, being, you know, policy. And since StrangerInParadise himself calls it a "Wikipedia-wide poll", he's undercut your defense of him. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how it applies to the article namespace. The rest of your edit is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.Geni 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this a bit like asking that notices about a policy forbidding smoking in elevators should be preferentially directed towards people who are likely to smoke in elevators, with the intention of ensuring that they would comprise a disproportionate number of those peple voting on the new policy? This is a system-wide policy in that it would affect you and me as much as anyone else--to observe that we don't want to do what would be covered by the policy is fatuous. Of course we don't! But some people do, and that is why a policy is needed. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The alturnative is generaly refured to as the tyrany of the majority. Whatever is decided on needs some level of acceptance amoung the userbox users as well as the non userbox users. It looks like more talk is needed. If people would stop trying to finsh things by dramatic gestures in the meantime it would be much apeatated.Geni 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

At long last, Stranger is free to reply to his many detractors[edit]

I did intentionally place a notice urging an Oppose vote on WP:UPP on the talk pages of 43 United Nations Wikipedians, and intended do 12 more (completing Wikipedians S through Z), and call it a day. Apart from knowing them to have been subject to MarkSweep's mass blanking and category depopulation efforts, I had no personal connection that I can recollect with those 43 contacted.

I intended to be partisan, and although I felt a strict obligation to be accurate, I did not consider myself any more obliged to present both sides of this discussion than those who go about declaring Userboxes are evil in official proceedings. Therein, I characterized certain acts as those of a rogue admin, as I believe that to be an accurate description of a mass blanking campaign using admin tools to disrupt an established Wikipedia process of categorizing Wikipedians by perspective, as well as to thereby depopulate categories so as speciously to qualify them for CSD-C1 (empty). My note did not constitute a personal attack, but did reference the specific reprehensible acts of identifiable persons.

I was unaware of either any policy prohibiting this, or the degree of outrage on principle this act would provoke. I was unfamiliar with the ArbCom ruling cited, and do not see that it would necessarily apply to a Wikipedia-wide poll. I did not at any time receive notice that my actions were prohibited, though I was paused in discussions with Mindspillage over her express concerns about them at the time I was blocked. The reader should note that this is the first time in five years at Wikipedia that I have been blocked for anything.

As to charges of vote-stacking, it remains unclear to me how one can stack a vote in a Wikipedia-wide poll. As Avriette has pointed out, this is somewhat counter-intuitive. To DavidGerard's comment that my acquaintance with email should have clarified for me how this is odious spam, I would point out that (outside of the peculiar world of Wikipedia) spam is an unwanted message undesired by and of no relevance to the recipient. In DR's own experience of email, how often does spam receive positive action and thank you notes?

Contrary to statements by Mindspillage and others above, I did not at any time indicate that I would continue to place notices if told it was prohibited. I was unblocked by Babajobu within minutes of my block- and correctly, as there was no prior notice and the allegation of a spambot was patently false. Reblocking was unnecessary, and only allowed the above unfounded criticisms to go unanswered. My intention was- and is- to seek clarification on what appears to be an undocumented region of policy about which several Wikipedians nevertheless have strong feelings.

As previously discussed, I placed the notices by hand, using a subst'd page from my userspace. This and two others personal pages have been deleted, without sanction by policy. Though recreating them would be trivial, I will ask that at least the latter two be restored to me, especially as that it was done by a coauthor of WP:UPP to pages critical of it seems more than a bit improper. Only one was used in the UN campaign (User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP). Another (User:StrangerInParadise/PCI) was used to personal contacts and pages I frequent at Wikipedia and only said that there was a vote, but did not make a recommendation. The third (User:StrangerInParadise/AbstainerMsg) was not used, but the intended use was an alternative to the lobbying on the pollingspace itself, which I thought unseemly (JesseW, the Juggling Janitor comes to mind as having been prolific, though I and others did as well).

Finally, I note with that combination of dismay and amusement unique to Wikipedia the naked politicking above by coauthors and proponents of WP:UPP, calculating the political influence and how best to salvage their losing proposal. MarkSweep's suggestion that I be banned for the duration of WP:UPP was extra-special in this regard. Any charges of undue influence and corruption of process should be considered in this light.

StrangerInParadise 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise, I'd like to take this opportunity to repeat some of our founder's words and ideas: here, we're all Wikipedians. We strive to be as civil as possible, to respect each other as much as humanly possible, and to assume good faith to the greatest degree. Calling admins "rougue", regardless of what you thought of their actions, is simply uncalled for; if you disagree with their actions, simply say so, but characterizing them in a negative fashion is uncalled for. In addition, as Mindspillage (who is a she, by the way) told you earlier, we generally don't like people trying to influence other people by placing mass notices on user talk pages. Remember, we're all here to work on an encyclopedia; calling a certain proposal to attention for selected Wikipedians is generally frowned upon. There are other ways of getting your point across. Please, Stranger, take time to reflect upon Jimbo's plea for calm and unity, and act accordingly. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've commented previously that the actions described as rogue were so far beyond either civility or sanction that no assumption of good faith is possible. The term indicates restraint on my part. As to consensus, influence, and policy formation, this is a different and evolving discussion. I point out in my defense only that the proposal is already before an audience of largely selected Wikipedians, and that it is likely that, should it close at a significant number, the policy will be slammed into effect without reprieve. StrangerInParadise 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
As to charges of vote-stacking, it remains unclear to me how one can stack a vote in a Wikipedia-wide poll. By notifying only a small subset of people who can be predicted to vote your way, duh. This is so obvious I can't imagine how he could type this and still keep a straight face. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The very dynamics of how people have became aware of the vote suggest vote-stacking of a sort. The pretense that this corrupts the poll assumes it was not corrupted to begin with. The fact is that I could choose pools of Wikipedians at random to notify in the most neutral fashion, and support would continue to drop because this only has minority support. Make no mistake, I sought to notify only a small group of affected Wikipedians. If you like, do the same: where is this pool of anti-userbox sentiment? If you polled those who have responded to the poll as to
  • how they learned of the poll
  • whether they were administrators
  • whether they were motivated by an experience of vote-stacking
  • whether they were motivated by POV issues generally
...you would see how self-selected the respondants were. There are all kinds of interesting possibilities for, say, randomly-selected juries and voire dire, but that is another discussion to which to look forward. This is more than a small straw poll, there is every indication that the policy would be slammed into effect without reprieve. StrangerInParadise 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You claim that "The fact is that I could choose pools of Wikipedians at random to notify in the most neutral fashion, and support would continue to drop because this only has minority support" but that claim is very easily exploded. Within days of its inception, this poll was publicised on Wikipedia:Village Pump (Policy) and Wikipedia:Current surveys, and Template:Cent. I do recognise that you're on a very sticky wicket here, defending what even you must recognise is morally indefensible, but it really isn't on to pretend that we're all stupid. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I stand by what I have said, which is hardly exploded by your statement. Village Pump (Policy) is read mostly by policy wonks like us, and cycles to archive rapidly. Current surveys and Cent I have never heard of, a shortcoming on my part shared by most of the people affected by this proposal. It is not difficult to see that this is, again, a self-selected group- not a bad group, just not representative. As for morally reprehensible, don't get me started.... StrangerInParadise 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, Template:Cent appears on a lot of pages ( there a lot of archived pages on that list but plenty of active ones). Anyone both interested in this issue and at all active will run into it. I don't know how you can assume that most people affected by this have not heard of it. Rx StrangeLove 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I can only say, Rx, that your grasp of demographics is fanciful at best. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think you can be uncivil like that? Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I find get-out-the-vote efforts, however they're conducted, to be democratic rather than anti-democratic. I don't see what's wrong with informing people of a policy debate, as long as all sides have the same right to do so. And I have zero opinion on userboxes. moink 03:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you saw the message itself? What I really took issue with was the loaded language and serious assumption of bad faith in it. Accusing those on the other side of "sabotage" and destroying things, and urging them to vote one way or another, doesn't sit very well with me. A neutral message on the Village Pump or something would be fine. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The willful destruction and bad faith is a documented fact, a fact you find distasteful, but a fact. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Each side of this debate can campaign for votes. Since consensus is suppossed to be from all of wikipedia then the side with the most side should win.--God Ω War 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This and other issues are not votes, nor a count of the most supporters. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite. It doesn't matter, in the end, how many of these activities are engaged in. If as I am now certain is going to happen there is a clear and very solid consensus for the proposed Userbox policy, it will be adopted. Those who engage in "getting out the vote" have completely failed to understand how Wikipedia's decision-making process operates. --Tony Sidaway 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you say this now, Tony and Rx, but had the vote gone your way, it would be the most important thing. What evidence do you have of this consensus, which as we speak falls below 60%. StrangerInParadise 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But my point is that things are going my way. That you've attempted to sabotage it doesn't alter that. Allowances can be made. My evidence? Until the sabotage attempts began, when the poll was gathering a more broadly representative subsection of opinion, support showed well over 70%. Make no mistake, that you have resortee to blatantly underhand techniques is a sign that you have failed. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know things on Wikipedia are not straightforward counts (although they're often treated that way). But having more opinions, more arguments, more viewpoints represented in a policy discussion... is that really a bad thing? moink 04:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad thing. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it was Gandhi who said, We have but to spit and the British would drown. This is the issue with this userbox policy, once even a few of those affected learn of it, it's over. StrangerInParadise 05:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"I can only say, Rx, that your grasp of demographics is fanciful at best" -StrangerInParadise. I'm growing tired of StrangerInParadise's tendancy to engage in personal attacks and incivility when discussing issues. I'll just leave it at this, drawing large numbers into a debate is good, but Mindspillage said it best and I don't feel like repeating it. When the abuse starts I tend to tune out. Rx StrangeLove 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I can only direct you to the spectrum of abuse, threats, condescension and insults directed at me in this very proceding, and ask who has been more the subject of personal attacks. Then I'd direct your attention to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cent, and ask you to count the pages that remain after eliminating Log pages, other templates, obscure policy process pages and links to the template, and reassess the statement, Anyone both interested in this issue and at all active will run into it? The odds of an interested party seeing this are very small, indicating my original point, that the poll has been largely before a select audience. StrangerInParadise 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Two things: 1) two wrongs don't make a right; 2) advising you you that what you are doing, in the strong opinion of a large number of commentators, is wrong does not constitute "abuse, threats, condescension and insults". The martydom act doesn't look good on you, and certainly doesn't grant you a self-serving exception to the norms . --Calton | Talk 07:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If you have a problem with an editor there are dispute resolution procedures available for you to use. Personal attacks are not allowed and WP:CIVIL is official policy here. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
With people performing out-of-policy blocks (and reblocks), incivility towards me is the least of my concerns. My commenting on your argument is not uncivil, even with a clearly facitious judgement on your reasoning powers. Don't take it personally. StrangerInParadise 06:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The "I was only joking" defense doesn't really work and I'd ask that you stop making personal attacks and violating WP:CIVIL. If you'd like to continue this on my talk page fine, this isn't really the place for it. Rx StrangeLove 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice once more[edit]

Deeceevoice, just back from a block: "...JFAS seems to believe only white academics can have any credibility..." User on probation for racially related incivility, among other things. [23] Justforasecond 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit that this could have been taken the wrong way. I understand what you meant, but I do believe that it was that particular comment that deeceevoice was responding to, and she was, in fact, answering your question. Chick Bowen 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think its pretty obvious I was responding with Urthogie's language. There was no need for DCV to elevate this into a personal attack on me. If this were in isolation it should slide, but DCV has an extensive history of incivility and not assuming good faith. Justforasecond 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
And you have an extensive history of needling her. Given that and your direct involvement in the present example, I'm sure you can understand that I'm having difficulty with the mental gymnastics of casting a good faith view on you bringing this up here - David Gerard 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder regarding core Wikipedia policies Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox [[24]]

Deeceevoice removes sourced [25] [26]references prior to the 1920/30 Jazz era [27] and [28] and [29], and eventhough Deeceevoice included the etymology of "hipi" into Cool (African philosophy) [30] she removes the etymology of Cool from Cool, [31] and changes the section header from "Origins" to "Origins in African-American culture" [32], After a 3RR warning she single-handedly moves the whole page [33] "This page should be deleted" [34] [35] and refuses to source her edits eventhough Urthogie asked her to provide sources:

DCV, since you posted those statements of fact, can I expect you to have a couple sources by 2 weeks from now?--Urthogie 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is Deeceevoice's response:

No. deeceevoice 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC) [36]

CoYep 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, is there a particular reason why you feel the need to bird dog Deeceevoice? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the user is upset about his white-history.com link being removed, see documentation here. - FrancisTyers 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
For serious. The last thing you pointed out was block-worthy, but this just looks like Wiki-stalking. See also Alabamaboy's RfA statement Ashibaka tock 05:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You guys wouldn't think it were uncivil to say that you considered only contributions of white academics credible? Justforasecond 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We know Deecee has a temper, but she makes good edits too, and in this case she is in the middle of a discussion about an article. Come back if she is actually being disruptive. Ashibaka tock 20:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Images in the Kelly Clarkson article[edit]

I've left several messages on the talk page of HeyNow10029 (talk) concerning images that he/she uploaded. Each one lacks a fair use rationale, and despite being informed of the policies at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Images, the user continuously reinserts the removed images. On one occasion in the edit history of the Kelly Clarkson article, the user wrote: "Image is fair use screenshot and should not be removed for copyright reasons, if you think there's a copyright problem get an admin to sort it out". This is rather peculiar — are they stating that removing the image from the article would qualify as copyright infrigment? Unfortunately, I am not aware of all of the guidelines regarding images and screenshots, however, another user, WAS 4.250, explained to him/her that the images did not justify as fair use. HeyNow10029 has been repeatedly insisting that because numerous other articles include images lacking fair use rationale, the Kelly Clarkson article should as well. I cannot locate the logic in this mess that has been created, but could someone help me with the situation? The current discussion between myself and this user is taking place here.

Since this predicament began, there are now several IP addresses (presumably devoted Kelly Clarkson fans) who have started reverting the new images that directly relate to the article to the former ones, which currently include questionable fair use rationale (with only two concerns). I would really appreciate it if someone more familiar with the image criteria would participate in this incident, because I can't promote the article with the current state. It may also be notable that several IPs are including patent nonsense and restoring vandalism. Any help would be appreicated. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:26, 6 March 200

Geni has stepped in to attempt removing the "fair use" images. However, IPs have once again been constantly reinserting them. Since I've nothing better to do, here is a run-down of the edits that have commenced in the last twenty minutes:
Geni, "rm "fair use" image not being used for "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents""
Geni, "rm "fair use" images that are not "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents""
Eternal Equinox, "Placed appropriate image"
205.188.116.136, "identification ... (of a) ... program and its contents". The contents of the programs being screengrabbed are Kelly Clarkson, who is being indetified in this article. Thus fair use"
Geni, "nice try but even if we accept that logic it fails on the "critical commentary" part"
Interesting, this situation is spiraling out of control. Seriously out of control. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you claim that each of the images lacks a fair use rational yet as you can see, this page [[37]]is full of hundreds of images, screenshots like the images I uploaded, the majority of them only have the screenshot tag very few of them go further then that in providing fair use rationale. I've asked you before in my talk page how it's possible that those images (many of which were uploaded months ago on heavily-visited pages) qualify as fair use, yet the ones that I uploaded do not. Yet you don't give me an answer and then you complain when I re-insert the image. You seem to think you're better then us 'devoted Kelly Clarkson fans', so much so that you can't even give me a reason for the changes you make. I guess I'm just supposed to accept the changes you make as gospel. You yourself say you are "not aware of all of the guidelines regarding images and screenshots", yet you could have fooled me with the way you police the page and constantly revert everyone else's changes as if we were foolish children that needed to be carefully watched over. I would love an admin to finally look at those pictures and give us an answer. HeyNow10029 03:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
HeyNow10029, I'm going to attempt to remain civil, but I am tired of you shoving words into my mouth. I didn't say that I was better than you, and I don't think that you are a foolish child. I would certainly appreciate an admin to step in because this edit warring has continued for far too long. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Now you're the one putting words in my mouth. I never wrote you said you were better then anyone else, just that it was my opinion you thought you were better then everyone else from your patronizing attitude and hawkish control of the pages. And I stand by that, 100%. HeyNow10029 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It may have been an opinion, however, you stated it: You seem to think you're better then us. Therefore, I accept it in terms that you believed so and did not solely hold it as an opinion. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There has recently been a growing feeling among admins that a project-wide effort to cut back on fair use images is necessary. Mostly this has been done in fits and starts so far, and as you point out, there are hundreds of images still being used without any kind of fair use rationale. However, I don't see this as a defense for any particular image--sooner or later we're going to get around to those hundreds, but yours happens to have come to our attention a little sooner. See Wikipedia:Fair use review for more information. Chick Bowen 03:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a cut-back because there are many situations (including this one) that need to be sorted out. I'm positive that it would benefit Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
64.12.116.6 states: "rmvd sice u been gone image it is not rock-influenced it is rock music". Does this qualify as an appropriate ground to remove an image including fair use rationale? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Heja Helweda, Diyako, Aucaman[edit]

These users pass fake information as fact. Without verification at times. Diyako also invites other vandals such as user:Inanna, who has a track record of negativity and problems with the information to join in discussions knowing that they would distrupt order and the established wikipedia system. They are very underhanded and see themselves as the suprme authoritizes. They say something but act in another way. Many people have constantly argued with them and tried to fix articles, but they simply wait them out and then do what they want. Also user:Aucman has harassed and threatened me. 69.196.139.250 05:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

possible unauthorized bot?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Pschemp

I can't tell if this is a bot; if you don't think it is, let me know, and I'll try to resolve this with pschemp. Seems a lot of the recent edits have been moving pages from "<foo> U.S. <bar>" to "<foo> United States <bar>". I haven't investigated thoroughly, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the pages beforehand. Further, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) seems to suggest that "U.S." is preferable, or at least acceptable. (This was recently discussed on Talk:United States Virgin Islands and a standard of "<foo>, U.S. Virgin Islands" was implemented for all of those articles.) --Gruepig 09:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, she isn't a bot. At all. NSLE (T+C) at 09:55 UTC (2006-03-06)
U.S. Virgin Islands is a pretty standard term for that possession. What was debated there doesn't necessarily apply to other usages of "U.S." --kingboyk 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Block Request[edit]

user 194.154.22.55 has been repeatedly vandalizing the Friday the 13th page. I noticed that he has been blocked before, a few times. I request that you permanently block that address, because it seems that these partial blocks are not doing the trick to curve his/her attempts at vandalism.Bignole 12:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • According to this page the IP is allocated to a network, meaning an indefinite blocking would also ban several innocent people along with the vandal. Blocking IP addresses is specifically against policy unless the are proven to be open proxies. I'll investigate and do a smaller block if appropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked for 72 hours (24 added to the length of the last block) for ignoring all previous warnings. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:205.213.5.250[edit]

205.213.5.250 (talk · contribs) is vandalizing again. Can an admin keep an eye on him/her? -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Next time, you might want to list at WP:AIV. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I learn something new every day. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New Zephram Stark sockpuppet[edit]

Me-Calabi (talk · contribs). first edit responding to the IfD for an image uploaded by a previous sockpuppet (note personal attack against me in the edit summary). Also, this edit using an image that another one of his sockpuppets uploaded. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism IP's I have encountered so far today[edit]

By no means complete:

Thanks for the vandalism reports. In the future, these should go to WP:AIV or WP:VIP though. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, use WP:AIV for simple clear cut vandalism, and use WP:VIP for vandalism that is complex, and requires much investigation. If you are unsure, just go with WP:AIV :D --lightdarkness (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Photosynthesis Man[edit]

I have a suspicious feeling that Photosynthesis Man (talk) is a reincarnation of User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires (talk). Their contributions are similar, and both added tags to the Kelly Clarkson article when unnecessary. Also, both accounts edited Girls Aloud.

Tags added without explanation: At Kelly Clarkson as Photosynthesis, At Kelly Clarkson as Harry Potter and the Gold Fries

Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. All edits were vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 65.3.250.153 / User:1liberator legal threats[edit]

From Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army: "Wikipedia is also a Florida not-for-profit corporation, so venue is proper in Florida courts. I never had a blog; I won many Judgments, however. The issue, is, therefore simple: do you agree to co-operate, do you agree not to delete my factual contributions, or do we need to take the dispute to a formal (Wikipedia) level immediatelly?" This seems a pretty obvious legal threat. The user in question is (yet another) POV-pushing nationalist whom I've been, probably rather optimistically, trying to educate in the ways of NPOV. He seems to have escalated to legal threats remarkably quickly. As I could be interpreted as being "in dispute" with this user, I'd be grateful if someone else could take the necessary action. -- ChrisO 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:1liberator and 65.3.250.153 are the same user - he seems to have forgotten to sign in for his latest contributions. -- ChrisO 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I have warned the editor against future comments that could be construed as threatening legal action and opted not to block at this time. If additional or more explicit threats are forthcoming, bring it back up and I'll issue a {{threatban}}. Essjay TalkContact 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 212.92.0.135[edit]

This user's edit summaries consist solely of "SQUIDWARD!" and deleting the entire article and replacing it with a single image. EASports 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:-Ril-[edit]

-Ril- (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked again as a sock of CheeseDreams (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) by Michael_Snow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). This happened before and I believe ArbCom rejected the allegation: [38]. I am not going to get into a wheel war with another admin, especially since I think -Ril- has hardly made a great impression lately, but I have had an email from -Ril- protesting innocence and I am inclined to take it at face value. Just zis Guy you know? 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, I didn't reject it. I was merely bowing to the superior experience of my colleagues to CheeseDreams. I am still personally of the opinion that -Ril- may well be a sockpuppet of CD. All the evidence is circumstantial, but it all adds up to a fairly convincing picture. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are several points to add here. One is that the Arbitration Committee rejected the case, not the allegation itself. Another is that there really wasn't any evidence to exonerate -Ril-, and the arguments that the two might be different people are extremely vague. If some people were unconvinced, I'd say they either haven't carefully studied the behavior of both accounts, or they are perhaps mistaking changes in tone for changes in character. There's also the additional evidence pointed out in the section above.

Finally, I've already discussed this issue with -Ril- personally. I think it's quite telling that through all this, and even in the face of direct questions, -Ril- still has not given anything more than a non-denial. --Michael Snow 23:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

CheeseDreams made a big impression on me. I doubt very much that -Ril- is connected with him. Fred Bauder 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
A number of us are quite convinced, based on the extent to which -Ril- and CheeseDreams share editing interests, opinions, tactics, and stylistic quirks. If there is reason for doubt, we'd like very much to know what those reasons are. --Michael Snow 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose any block of -Ril- or any other user based on suspicion alone. Unless a user is engaged in repeated, blatant vandalism, an indefinite block should require more than just one admin's feelings. If Michael has strong evidence, he should take it to Arbcom. Wasn't that already done, and rejected before, though? In my opinion, -Ril- should be unblocked until and unless a much more convincing case is presented. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, the only thing the Arbitration Committee rejected was the case, not the evidence. And generally they've responded to requests about reincarnations of banned users by indicating it's not up to them to re-ban them every time it comes up. --Michael Snow 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, what is supposed to happen to Ril's current arbitration case? This block seems like it's usurping Arbcom's jurisdiction. He should at least have an opportunity to speak in his own defense in the Arbcom case. Users guilty of much worse disruption have been granted that much. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This isn't usurping the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction, it's implementing their ruling in the CheeseDreams case. Dealing with the newly opened case is easy enough, it can be closed with no further action taken. --Michael Snow 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked but I'm not going to wheel war. Secretlondon 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nor I, I'll simply have to submit the evidence as part of the newly opened case, so that the Arbitration Committee can actually decide the issue instead of avoiding it. --Michael Snow 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committe rejected the argument itself. Read the Epopt's statement for yourself - here is the entire Arbitration Request. When I emailed him to request being unblocked, Fred Bauder emailed back yesterday confirming that he believes the idea of me being CheeseDreams implausible. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the facts

See below for proof

-Ril- (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is
81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log) who is
CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log)

If you have any Questions please contact me. Dwho 04:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Whatever the truth of the matter is, The Epopt and Fred Bauder, despite their many strengths, do not equal the Arbitration Committee. I am certainly keeping an open mind on the matter. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


This has been going on for too long! When will it end? ~~~~ or User:-Ril- and their suspected Sock Puppets have:


  • Engaged in personal attacks through stalking and revenge reverts and edits against other users
  • Engaged in RfC certification fraud
  • Engaged in article vandalism by deleting (multiple times) an editor's statements
  • Engaged in disruption of Wiki
  • Used misleading and deceptive edit summaries
  • Attacked other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions
  • Attacked users who questioned his claims
  • Vandalism
  • Sockpuppetry

A large number of his edits are for the purpose of harassing/attacking other users or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia.

-Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)[edit]


Misuse of Speedy Tags[edit]

I've been clearing up the speedy deletion backlog, and ran into this: first request, denied, same content, but he has another go, but I didn't fall for it. Whether something should be done with that page is a question for a more experienced admin, but even I (admin < 1 week) can tell he's trying to play the system. --kingboyk 22:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Alibabs and the userboxes[edit]

I'm not sure if this was brought up anywhere else but It's really getting harder and harder to assume good faith with this editor. He has no clear intention on creating an encyclopedia. All of his edits are basically POV pushing on the userbox war which is now taken to a whole new level of WP:POINT violation.

Since February 14th all this user has been doing is creating more frustration and problems on Wikipedia. All his edits are now consistant tagging userboxes and voting for thier deletion on thier respective TFD which he makes. All his TFD nominations explanations were listed as "Divisive userbox". Most, if not all, of his nominations were not granted. He also previously tagged userboxes under T1 violations, but all were removed or overturned, and if any of the userboxes were deleted it's probably put up on WP:DRV/U now.

Today, earlier, is what really did it for me. Alibabs created both {{User_Nazi}} and {{User AntiPalestine}} and then listed, one of them, on WP:TFD as once again listing them as a "Divisive userbox". If anything this user should be blocked for blatently violating WP:POINT among other things. Moe ε 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In this post to TFD he apologizes for offending anyone and admits to be making a point. I;m not sure we should block him now he stopped, but I do think we should put him on some informal probation to stop this from happening again. - Mgm|(talk) 12:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this editor hade gotten away with to much to not even recieve a warning. Thanks Mgm. Moe ε 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
He had what can pass as a warning from me [43] when I bulk reverted his very first session. -Splashtalk 01:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this fellow probably deserves to be investigated with a view to blocking as a role account used for trolling. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As has been stated by Mgm|(talk), I did apologise for any offence taken when I made a WP:POINT. Apart from the breach of WP:POINT, I do not acknowledge that I have been guilty of any other transgressions. I find it strange behaviour that some are looking for me to be banned for nominating POV userboxes for deletion under the guise of me POV pushing. Does this behaviour amount to a WP:ATTACK? This is probably not the place to discuss the userbox war. Alibabs 10:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This was not a discussiona about the userbox wars, but about your conduct on Wikipedia. Moe ε 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Reading your initial complaint it is obvious that you are complaining about me tagging userboxes with tfd, but you mask the complaint with another complaint about my violation of WP:POINT. I consider your actions to be an WP:ATTACK. Alibabs 12:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest reading WP:ATTACK again. I have not made an attack against you but have stated what you have done, which are facts, not attacks. Also, I have not "masked" the original complaint. The complaint, as a whole, was your conduct and actions regarding the userboxes, including both your actions of tagging and your violation of WP:POINT. Moe ε 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I AM (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can anything be done about this person? His account seems to exist purely as a vehicle to abuse other editors and disrupt Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention pagemove vandalism. I blocked him for 1 week--let us know if he doesn't improve after that. Chick Bowen 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
See also Queeran (talk · contribs). The User name itself is problematic, the person's User page is racist, and the User's edits are racist. I will be warning him/her about their edits, but an indefinite block would not be out of line. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is the potential for some editors to be offended by the combination of the name "I am" and the capitalization, as it could be taken to reference the English "translation" of the tetragrammatron, YHWH. If it were God or G-d, we would block; if it were I am or I Am, we would probably let it slide. I'm unsure of whether or not this crosses the line. Essjay TalkContact 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Any permanent block imposed right now would be controversial in my mind...how about this? We leave a little message on the userpage saying that the username is potentially controversial, and we'd really appreciate it if the user would consider choosing another one instead. We say that it is to the benefit of the editor that they pick a more neutral name, one which does not have these potentially offending connotations. How about that? We have no other clear guidelines to follow, other than to express our feelings and reservations in this case. Of course, being overly diplomatic may not be too helpful - personally, I'm not too concerned with the username. There are plenty more out there which are active and are more controversial than that. --HappyCamper 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This one is going to be fun; he posted the {{unblock}} template with a rant about racist admins. I've extended him to two weeks for being clueless in the face of a block for incivility, but the pagemove vandalism really should get him indefblocked just like any other pagemove vandal. Essjay TalkContact 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You've now threatened me and continued harassing people, so I'm sure you won't behave in good faith. It's just as well I come here irregularly these days. Queeran

Queeran (talk · contribs · count)[edit]

I've blocked Queeran for vandalism (reverting a revert and using "rvv"), NPOV violation, and as a possible sockpuppet of Enviroknot. This is not confirmed, but on IRC it was brought up that there was a strong possibility it's the same user. I've indef blocked, pending review by other admins, and a possible RFCU. NSLE (T+C) at 01:37 UTC (2006-03-07)

I've blocked I AM (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indef as a confirmed sockpuppet used for abusive editing, and added a note to User talk:Queeran that unblocking should not be granted (he has a history of abusing the {{unblock}} template). I've also protected both pages, as they were being used for further attacks. Essjay TalkContact 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I AM has a different IP, but Enviroknot is known for his open proxy fondness. Queeran acted exactly the same on IRC too. Note also that using a name like "Queeran" on Islam-related pages IMO warrants a {{username block}} - David Gerard 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? What's wrong with that name? Not disagreeing, just wondering. Babajobu 11:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Queer and Koran. His user page makes reference to Islam too. I AM is apparently a negative reference to Judaism. Secretlondon 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Still not seeing it, why is Queer and Koran bad? Might it offend Muslims who hate gays? If so why should we care? Neither Queer nor Koran are offensive in themselves and combined they aren't offensive. If his name was TheFaggotAllah, I could understand but I see no problem with this. - FrancisTyers 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble assuming good faith with it - it seems to have been created to troll Islam articles. Secretlondon 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Today both Queeran and I AM discovered the wonders of Tor, and both came in to #wikipedia on IRC from Tor proxies separately to complain about abusive Wikipedia admins. silsor 21:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 129.7.35.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for block evasion; has admitted to being User:I AM. Chick Bowen 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering that this is the second IP block on him in the last half hour, (the other being 129.7.35.95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)), this may not be over yet, :( - TexasAndroid 21:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

===Not even close to the truth=== + - ...not that it matters, since it's matter of course just to delete legitimate responses to lies.

extreme anti-Arab hate messages?[edit]

Someone posted to my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Khwarizmi&diff=42502059&oldid=42453735 This user(Iranian Patriot) has been sending out extreme anti-Arab hate messages like these, completely un-sourced, fabricated propaganda, and have nothing to do with the subject matter. He just put it to bait in users for a flame war...can something be done about this?...

I'm not really sure what consitutes hate messages, though it looks pretty unpleasant to me. Guidance? William M. Connolley 20:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not very pleasant, but not vandalism, hate speech or even incivility in my opinion. I say keep an eye on him/her but do nothing now. Just stating, arguable, facts and making an argument. Just my OP.Gator (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the usual racist crap. I'm going to try to asking this chap to stop it. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See here. I hope he'll respond positively. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He or someone using the same IP has been engaging in petty vandalism today, and has been blocked for 48 hours. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Severe vandalism on todays featured article[edit]

I've had to sprotect Barbara McClintock twice tonight due to severe vandalism from multiple sockpuppets. Please keep an eye.--File Éireann 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we have strong policy not to sprotect articles linked from the main page. Secretlondon 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I rvv'ed a couple of times before. I will add to my watchlist and keep an eye. I will rm the sprotect ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This is right. Please do not protect the front page featured article, ever. See User:Raul654/protection for an explanation. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There have been occasions where the day's featured article has been hit by multiple dubious edits. I think a brief period of a few minutes' semiprotection while it is sorted out is probably the least worst option in practice. David | Talk 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 65.96.160.248[edit]

"Wikistalking" by anonymous IP -- removes my edits on several unrelated articles. [44]

Justforasecond 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. --kingboyk 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There is clear incivility in the edit summaries and evidence of wiki-stalking. Seems to be an IP who has found their way round Wikipedia remarkably easy. As I am a new admin I have blocked for 1 hour and ask that a more experienced admin review my decision and consider extending (or removing) the block if need be. --kingboyk 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
He had stopped editing an hour before your block, so presumably the situation is over. If he returns, he can be slapped with 24-48hrs. -Splashtalk 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
1 hour is usually fine (if someone goes batshit at a 1 hr block, they're probably too unstable to edit Wikipedia at all), and noting here if you're unsure is a very sensible idea in general. If I'm unsure of a block, I hang around to make sure I can get collateral damage email - David Gerard 11:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations / re-uploads / sockpuppeting[edit]

User:Nestore has repeatedly been uploading numerous copyvio images of the Yugo car, as I noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76#User:Nestore. On investigating this, I found that some of the images in question have been through IFD and speedy deletion up to five times previously, over a period of four months, but have repeatedly been re-uploaded by Nestore despite repeated warnings not to do so. In view of this, I've blocked him indefinitely per WP:COPY#If you find a copyright infringement ("In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project.")

He has since used two sockpuppet accounts, User:NestorYugo and User:Yugo65efi, to evade the block and re-upload the copyvios yet again, along with fresh copyvios. I've indefinitely blocked both of the sockpuppet accounts as well as speedily deleting the images.

Unfortunately he's been up to the same tricks on the Serbian Wikipedia, which includes all of the copyvios in a gallery at the end of the Yugo article there - see sr:Југо (аутомобил). Does anyone have admin permissions on the Serbian Wikipedia to get rid of the images from there as well? -- ChrisO 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Does sr.wiki even have admins (many of the smaller ones don't)? You could ask a steward to help out if not--that's all I can think of. Chick Bowen 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Serbian wikipedia isn't that small - it has over 10,000 articles. Secretlondon 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It has 37 admins[45].Geni 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Zurab Urushadze deletion[edit]

Just in case anyone notices and questions my deletion of this article, it was done upon special request of the originator of the article, who, after reviewing several users' additions to the article, got curious about some of them, and did some more searching...whereupon he found this. It's a google cache dump, contents:

Dear administrators of "Wikipedia", I inform you, that Professor Zurab Urushadze is a famous Georgian scientist, one of the founders of Quantum Biophysics and Bioelectrochemistry in Georgia. The article about Prof. Urushadze must be undeleted! With kind regards, Dr. Izolda Chkhetiani, Executive Secretary of the Georgian National Section of EUROSCIENCE. Mar 27, 2005
Comment CV at http://www.webhostcorp.com/members/zurab/ Dpbsmith 14:19, 28 Mar 2005
Comment VfD discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zurab_Urushadze.
Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process on 0:54, 27 Feb 2005. Two clear "keeps," six clear "deletes," plus nominator's implicit delete vote giving reason as "vanity" . Since then, article has been re-created once by an anon and twice by User:Levzur and properly speedy-deleted each time as re-creation of material voted for deletion. Further attempts to re-create the article in the English Wikipedia should be considered vandalism. The contributors might want to consider submitting this article to the Russian Wikipedia, ru.wikipedia.org. Dpbsmith 14:30, 28 Mar 2005
Keep deleted. Just an average professor. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 29 Mar 2005
Does anyone here have sufficient expertise in Quantum Biophysics and Bioelectrochemistry to know whether or not this scientist is important in his field? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 29 Mar 2005
Keep deleted. Valid VfD vote. Levzur's back? Oy. RickK 08:15, Mar 30, 2005
Keep deleted. Valid VfD. The repeated recreation of this article smells like vanity. Gamaliel 08:20, 30 Mar 2005
Undelete. No harm is being done including it, Wikipedia is not paper. The Prof has published papers; a writer of a book or some short stories would be included in Wikipedia, why not a scientific article. I missed the VfD, but if my vote were included, it would be 4 vs 6, not a consensus to delete. gracefool |☺ 10:26, 30 Mar 2005
If you had voted in the VfD it would have been three keeps and seven deletes. And if you and I had both voted in the VfD it would have been three keeps and eight deletes. And if you call a dog's tail a leg then a dog has five legs. But we didn't vote in the VfD and a dog's tail isn't called a leg, so what's your point? Are sysops acting on VfD's expected to take into account the opinions of people who didn't vote? Dpbsmith 13:31, 30 Mar 2005
You don't seem to grasp the purpose of VfU. It is not to revote on things that were properly deleted because of VfD votes. It is to get things restored that were improperly deleted. This article was not improperly deleted, therefore the votes to undelete are not valid. RickK 20:37, Mar 30, 2005
Keep deleted. First, this was properly deleted by vfd. Second, the person is not notable (a total of two references on Web of Science, as the first person on vfd discussion noted). Third, the page is being created by his relative , Levon Urushadze . Wikipedia is not for promoting relatives. Andris 00:21, Apr 2, 2005

If anyone feels it appropriate to do so, perhaps the article name should be protected. Tomertalk 03:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Central banned from Jehovah's Witness pages[edit]

Because of persistent assumptions of poor faith that Central (talk · contribs) makes regarding the edits and actions of individuals involved in Jehovah's Witness-related articles, along with characterisation of edits this user disagrees with as "vandalism", insertions of misleading external links to critical sites within article body text and accusations of bias levelled at me after I tried to discuss the matter amicably with him I'm banning him from all JW articles. This is as per the arbcom probation ruling on his behaviour. I'd be most grateful if people would please watch his contribs and, if need be, implement blocks to enforce this ban, although I'll probably be able to handle any enforcement necessary. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull, You threatened and harassed Tommstein in your ever so pseudo-polite supercilious and condescending manner, then maliciously banned him for a minor petty reason last December (for the crime of daring to disagree with you) and now you are after my blood merely because I also dared to disagreed with you. Is no one here allowed to disagree with your unfounded opinions or they get banned (or shot as you may prefer?) as in a totalitarian dictatorship. Plus of course, not to forget (as you clearly never do) I objected as did other administrators to your unjust petty ban on Tommstein, banned just because he dared to disagreed with you on one of your unjust POV label accusations on a minor edit, and that was clearly an unforgivable sin in your eyes, as you are openly demonstrating now with me. Your POV accusations are false, but you refuse to discuss them, but obviously prefer the abuse tactic of just banning anyone who dares to not bow before your opinion. We had this abuse from a 15 year old child admin and now it from you a 17 year old child, are there no adults on this website to deal with adult matters in a mature and experienced way? How will you fend off many people's perceptions when they see how you are behaving, and they believe you are demonstrating what appears to many to be, not only false charges based on your own biases, prejudices and refusal to debate any issue, but a more worrying trend in rather malicious and vindictive desire for revenge against anyone who dares to disagrees with your subjective opinions? I will take this up with you in person if you don't remove your grossly unjust ban and open abuse of admin powers. Central 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Central for 24 hours for the above post as another violation of his personal attack parole. He will be pleased to know that I am a bona fide adult, and that I brought all my maturity and experience to bear on this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, Central has disagreed with my block on his User talk:Central:talk page. If another admin would like to review my block to determine whether or not I was just going after some 'cheap thrills' by participating in this 'persecution fest', feel free. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Central: I am tempted to simply not reply to the above, based on its scurrilous and unacceptably poor faith character, but since you accuse me of "...refusal to debate any issue..." I shall reply to your points above. Incidentally, this charge begs the question: what am I refusing to debate? There is nothing to debate, as far as I can see, and debating would generally require at least a modicum of rationality and reasonably polite behaviour from you, which I feel the above does not demonstrate. You have not raised debate other than simply responding with your views that I am being biased. I attempted to raise the issue of NPOV with you politely on your talk page, to which you replied with animosity and assumptions of poor faith. You have persistently shown an anti-Jehovah's Witness POV editing stance, which is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia. As far as I can see, the matter is perfectly clear cut - POV editing is not tolerated on Wikipedia at all, and I see no reason why my action in banning you from Jehovah's Witness pages was not in defence of the neutral point of view on Wikipedia. You accuse me of bias, as Tommstein did, but on what basis? You say my view that you are pursuing a POV stance of editing are false, but yet you do not back up this conviction of yours by any evidence and indeed respond with animosity rather than politely indicating why this is not so. Does this strike you as reasonable behaviour for a Wikipedia editor on your part?

I feel that your judgement on my ability as a Wikipedia administrator on the basis of my age and beliefs is frankly also not within the bounds of decent behaviour, which reaffirms the purpose of banning you from the trouble areas that you have been involved in. If you make these kind of judgements towards everyone who disagrees with you, then I don't much want you editing at all, and I am not ashamed of stating so. Considering that I hold a job of some responsibility in my profession, and yet I would not consider myself above everyone who disagrees with me in the course of my work, I think you have a serious case of egocentricity with your assuming fault on the part of those who hold differing views. I held no personal fault with you to begin with, and indeed attempted to discuss with you amicably and in good faith. As for your threat to "take this up with you in person" - words escape me, they really do; I think you perhaps need to re-evaluate the perspective of what you are actually doing here. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ril changes RFC process and no one noticed[edit]

Was there any discussion of this that I missed somewhere? I reverted this terrible terrible idea. [46] Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I sent the template to MfD. --cesarb 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

check license for deleted image on French wikipedia[edit]

Could someone check the license for the deleted image fr:Image:Muscade.jpg (bypassing the Commons redirect somehow--I don't know how). I copied this image to En some time ago and I thought I'd have used the same license (GFDL) on the English page that the French one used. The image is now at Commons but I see that version is currently tagged as public domain. So, either: 1) I slipped up when copying the image from fr to en (it was PD and I made it GFDL (not a copyvio but slightly antisocial)); 2) someone else slipped up when moving the image from fr to commons (it was GFDL and they made it PD, a copyvio); or 3) the image was originally GFDL and the photographer later released it to PD (OK but should add a note). I just noticed this when marking the local English copy en:Image:Muscade.jpg for deletion as a duplicate. Thanks. Phr 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to talk to a fr admin, as its going to be in the deleted history... Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time today that someone has needed an admin at another wiki. I just found the master list; I don't know if others knew about this, but I didn't. What would also be useful would be a cross-reference for people who are admins at one but active on another. Chick Bowen 05:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd guessed that admins were admins everywhere. I'll ask on fr. Phr 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer again[edit]

USer:Lightbringer, banned by ArbCom from any article dealing with Freemasonry, apparently returned as User:Userdata. It's pretty obvious it's him, as he is the only one I know who insists that several works of fiction blaming the Jack the Ripper killings on Freemasons are actually nonfiction... in fact he even created Jack the Ripper non-fiction specifically to list a film featuring Sherlock Holmes versus Freemasons and a comic book as nonfiction, and no other works at all. He also removed a reference to author Stephen Knight having a brain tumor (he died of it, so verifiable, but the whacky anti-Masons like to believe he was killed to silence him) and other parts of that article to try to put an obvious slant on it. DreamGuy 09:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I'm still theoretically off ill, though I've been theoretically watching the sockpuppet theatre on Freemasonry, so others will need to keep an eye on it for now. Request checkusers on WP:RFCU as appropriate, referring to my talk page for the messy tale. Lightbringer is the main sock, but there are others playing up and editors of good will on all sides are getting a bit jumpy - David Gerard 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, hadn't figured the Basil Rathbone connection before. --pgk(talk) 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Soggy biscuit[edit]

An anonymous user (presumably the blocked User:MutterErde) inserts a copy of a deleted article from dewiki. Since s/he uses permalinks it may be advisable to delete the affected versions.--gwaihir 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the revisions as you suggested. We should keep an eye on this, as it's been reinserted more than once. The article in question is de:Kekswichsen, which has been protected against recreation there. Getting around that by posting the same content here should not be permitted. By the way, what makes you think this is MutterErde (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)? Chick Bowen 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Typical behaviour, AOL-proxy IP address, several places on dewiki, e.g. de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Cascari/Januar#Kekswichsen.--gwaihir 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:132.33.132.19 is Travis Air Force Base[edit]

User:132.33.132.19 is a massively shared proxy for Travis Air Force Base - as I just discovered when wikien-l-owner got an email asking about the block :-) I've unblocked it as collateral damage and explained that short blocks may still be needed, but it shouldn't be blocked long-term. If someone from the base keeps being dickish, don't put a long block on, but do consider contacting the sysadmins with dates and times, because an air force base sysadmin will have a much bigger LART for his users than we ever could - David Gerard 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ampherot (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Not sure what to do here, but account seems dedicated to attacking an individual (named) and just seems interested in vandalism. I suggest the account be deleted and/or blocked idefinately.Gator (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be using the user page to make up for a deleted page he wanted to include that was deleted for being a personal attack. This one's got issues.Gator (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the user page as an attack on a named individual, also tweaked the section heading here to link properly. FreplySpang (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Block Request[edit]

User 207.30.17.114 has been repeatedly asked to stop vandalizing pages, but they wish not to comply. Bignole 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Has now been blocked. Please make reports of vandalism to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism and not here as you will get a speedier response there. David | Talk 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On-going vandlaism by 72.1.206.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

It would appear that this individual's sole contributions have been vandalism, and, despite repeated warnings, s/he has refused to play nice. Kindly block this IP. Cheers! --Sadhaka 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true. There are some good edits too. Reverse DNS shows it to be a school. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Central blocked indefinitely[edit]

He was put on 24 hour personal attack parole in the Tommstein case and he's continued to be as viciously abusive as he can. In addition, his actual article contribs have been the same level of rubbish over Jehovah's Witness articles. I was wondering whether to hit him with another 24 hours (even though he manifestly doesn't learn and doesn't want to) or just give up and block indefinitely as a hopeless source of disruption, trolling and vicious personal abuse. Then I saw that TenOfAllTrades had given him the 24 hours, and Alkivar the indefinite a few hours earlier. So I undid both blocks so as to hit him with the indefinite again. If anyone wants to review this block please do, but honestly, look through that recent contrib list, and his talk page, and you tell me if he's worth the trouble - David Gerard 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note, by the way, that what really swung it for me was the viciousness of the abuse - he was targeting to be as actively nasty as possible. This wasn't just your typical brittle editor with poor impulse control - David Gerard 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Damn I hate when I forget to purge previous blocks to prevent that damn blocking time bug.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Alkivar (or someone else who knows what Alkivar is talking about), could you either explain what you mean by "purge previous blocks" or point me to a discussion of this elsewhere? It sounds like something I should know about. Chick Bowen 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
At the moment (hopefully this will be changed eventually), if you blocked someone for say 8 hours and I came along 5 minutes later and blocked them for 48 hours only the shorter of the blocks will remain in place. So in the above, Central would have come off his block in 24 hours even with the indefinite block unless someone unblocks and then reblocks with the longer time. --Syrthiss 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If there are multiple blocks in place then the block only lasts until the expiry of the shortest block. In this case Alkivar's indef block was undone when TenOfAllTrades' 24 hour block was completed. Alkivar meant he should have lifted the previous block before applying a longer one. That's my understanding, anyway. Leithp 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, well I knew about the software preferring the shorter block, but it sounded like Alkivar was saying there was something he could have done to prevent TOAT's later block from undermining his. But I guess he just meant it in a general sense. Thanks, guys. Chick Bowen 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If my understanding of the timeline above is correct, the 24 hour block was in place before the indef block was applied by Alkivar...so what Alkivar is commenting on is he didn't check the block log for standing blocks, or did and forgot to unblock/reblock. --Syrthiss 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Checking the logs, it seems that Alkivar blocked Central indefinitely about four hours before I placed my 24-hour block. When my 24-hour block expired (whether I placed it before or after Alkivar blocked) it would have lifted both blocks.
I should have checked the block log to see if Central had already been blocked...but Alkivar should have put a notice somewhere–in one of the threads here about Central, or on Central's talk page–letting the rest of us know about the block. Oh well. No cookie for either of us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New vandalbot in testing[edit]

See [47]. I've also alerted the CVU, time to stoke the bots! - David Gerard 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh great, more bot attacks </sarcasm> 155.43.145.84 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Alex 101[edit]

I blocked User:Alex 101 a few days ago for repeat edit warring. I got an email from him saying that he would stop, so I unblocked him, but he keeps getting caught up in collateral damage blocks. Any ideas? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably just isolated collateral incidents (esp. in huge ISPs like AOL. Did you ask which ISP is he on? - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hall Monitor[edit]

blocking is one thing but User:Hall Monitor blocks people for months and then reverts anything they've done without even checking to see if it needs changing.

BTW some people can't use discussion if you block them. 132.241.245.23 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It was long overdue in my opinion, Grazon. Many of your edits and edit summaries are intended only to provoke people. For some background, see Grazon (talk · contribs) and 132.241.245.49 (talk · contribs). Rhobite 01:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NSW/Ozemail proxies[edit]

There's been a recent surge of vandalism coming from the range 203.166.99.224/27 (203.166.99.224 - 203.166.99.255), which contains several web proxies apparently used by New South Wales schools. I had to put a 1 hour range block on it before, and I just instituted another 1 hour range block. Here are the individual IPs: