Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive98

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

There were a lot of hate around here[edit]

Like written, it seems no one have the right to write anything about Kurds, If you write anything about Kurds even with references it´s propaganda or bullshit by somepeople, this is not the Wikipedia I want it become a member of. If some people get as they wished I can say here and now that everything relaeted to Kurds is gonna be deleted.

OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm far from considered anti-Kurdish, but I looked at one of your edits and I found it problematic. El_C 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
User is a suspected sockpuppet and probably should be blocked indefinately. [1] --Cat out 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, can anyone attend to this case during my absence? [note that I only managed to rather superficially touch on some of the issues in Ebdulrehman Qasimlo]. Thanks in advance. El_C 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
A break? [Threateningly] I hope you mean the honeymoon! Bishonen | talk 00:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC).
I'm a bit too bruised from my fall for that (I'll see if I can get around to taking some pics of my injuries) and will need to rest my soar body, not to mention my fragile and now drugged-out mind. But the Dr says that in a week I should be as good as new! El_C 01:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ouch! :-( Bishonen | talk 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC).

en.wikipedia mentioned on FOX NEWS[edit]

described us as a 'joke' and 'left wing propaganda tool' that 'anyone with a modem' can use to 'rewrite history'! yay, expect more hit and run vandalism in the near future, how nice of them--152.163.100.65 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned, especially considering Fox News's demographic. Before you know it, we're illegal! D': —THIS IS MESSEDR with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Fox News knows a thing or two about rewriting history. Remember - Media-matters did a poll and found Fox viewers were less informed about current events than people who don't watch/read the news at all. Raul654 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Everyone knows that The Daily Show viewers are the most informed! On topic though, during which show/who said it? Kotepho 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That's hysterical... do you have a link for that? Snoutwood (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong about the survey source - it was U. Maryland's PIPA, not media-matters. Here are the links: [2][3][4] Raul654 01:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


If someone would upload a clip of this to Youtube or Google, it would prolly be interesting. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Was it really necessary for them to give us such negative publicity?Ready to RRR 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Fox doesn't know about NPOV. They seem to think something is either good or evil, not much gray area. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a new idea that is non-standard and as far as they are concerned that is a bad thing. JoshuaZ 01:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
And of course, there's a grain of truth in their criticism. We do have a slight leftist systemic bias, in my opinion. And anyone with a modem can use us to rewrite history, and people do, leftwingers and rightwingers, though thankfully in most cases it doesn't stay around. I don't think it's reasonable to expect never to receive any bad press, and to ask FOX to refrain from giving it to us amounts to censorship. Let's just get used to and admit to our limitations. Then the bad press will be water off a ducks back, and we can get back to doing the best we can to overcome those limitations and writing our encyclopedia. -lethe talk + 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh please... Fox News criticizing us for being biased (or for that matter, for Fox News to critize *anyone* for being biased) is hypocritical in the extreme. This is the same network FAIR labeled "The Most Biased Name in News" [5] Raul654 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ad hominem, tu quoque? --149.142.243.29 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Does someone else want to start chanting, "THE NO SPIN ZONE", or should I? --InShaneee 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
slight systemic bias? In any case, was this in a news program or one of the talking head opinion shows like O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes? If the latter, then stop hyperventilating and go about your business. No one expects Lou Dobbs or Nancy Grace or Chris Matthews to be NPOV so why do people act all shocked when a Fox host expresses an opinion on his or her opinion show? Thatcher131 03:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone over at Fox News happen to notice that Jimbo's own political views happen to coincide with their own? He's often described himself in the past as a libertarian (& has been very explicit that it is spelled with a small "L") -- which only makes their own bias all the more comical. Or maybe some of our left-of-center members dragged him off to a re-education camp when the rest of us weren't looking & made him see the errors of his ways. ;-) -- llywrch 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought objectivists hated libertarians? --Rory096 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is competition to the media outlets. When a breaking story hits, some people that used to go to a media website or TV for details may now go to us for details. I suspect media outlets on all points of the political spectrum see us as competion, and therefore as a good target to be attacked. I doubt their political POV has much to do with their basic attitude about Wikipedia. NoSeptember talk

Wikipedia has a left wing bias? I wish some of those left-wingers would pay attention to the Adolf Hitler article!. Fox News certainly has no cause to complain about that article! They would probably say it is accurate, fair and balanced! Drogo Underburrow 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Dont be hard on fox news. They have every right to complain about us. We make their job much much harder with our content. How can you push bias when you have a rival with reliable source of information? Unlike Fox news we dont claim to be neutral. We however seek neutrality again unlike fox news. --Cat out 08:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"And reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Steven Colbert, Seabhcán 09:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Alienus[edit]

The above user posted an unblock notice over 36 hours ago - could someone please review his talk page and comment on the block. Thanks Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 09:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a one week block might be a bit harsh, but I do agree that his comment was uncivil, and immediatly coming off his last block. --InShaneee 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Alienus is not on any sort of civility probation. He has apologised and it has been accepted. At the moment the block seems to be being enforced because he won't admit he intended to offend. He claims it was a badly worded edit summary that did not clearly make the point that Jakew does not agree with his view on Circumcision. At the moment he is being punished for not saying what others want to hear regardless of the truth. "Harsh" does not even begin to cover the problems this raises. SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to get right down to it, the fact is that Alienus is well aware of these policies, yet he keeps violating them. While I question the length of the block, there is no doubt in my mind that a block was the proper course of action. --InShaneee 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sophia, he tried to insert POV in an article, ignored my Talk:Mutilation explanation of why this was unacceptable (which was stated in general terms, and did not refer to my anatomy) and reverted, with the edit summary "rv whitewashing; the foreskin is functional, except in the case of Jakew's". In doing so, he a) assumed bad faith ('whitewashing'), in spite of a perfectly reasonable explanation of the policy problems with his edit, b) took a general issue and misrepresented it as a discussion about my body, and c) even if was not intended as a personal attack, it is wholly inappropriate to comment on another editor's genitals in an edit summary. He has apologised but admits no wrongdoing.
The problem is not of what others want to hear, but the fact that the atmosphere is poisoned by such behaviour, and if he can't understand that, then one can only ask whether a week is enough. Jakew 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you discussed this with Jayjg? I didn't see anything about it on his talk page. Snoutwood (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I asked Jayjg to log the block himself as he has been in conflict with Alienus on related pages and therefore is not an uninvolved admin. He did not think it was necessary and has not done sp but in cases such as this PI needs to be respected. SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That's why I'm asking if you discussed it with him. He's the blocking admin, so he should be your first point of contact. Snoutwood (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've asked on his talk page [6] and he replied on mine [7]. I logged it here as I do think it needs to be discussed elsewhere so that other uninvolved admins can review the block. Am I the only person here who thinks a personally involved admin should ask for external input when placing a contested block? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There's been a lengthy discussion of this on Alienus's talk page, of which you are fully aware, since you have participated in it. As well, I am not a "personally involved admin", since I neither edited the article in question, nor was the personal attack directed at me, and I have indeed followed process. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Alienus does make a lot of personal attacks, and made his recent one on the very day he returned from a one-week block. He has already been blocked eight times by seven different admins for editing warring and violations of NPA. At some point, the lesson has to start sinking in. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the community feels a user who is trying to reform and made what he contests is a genuine mistake deserves a one week block then there is nothing more to add. To me the test of integrity of a system is how it deals with the least liked people which is why I have been following this one through. I will state that I think this decision is based on personality rather than facts and will ask how we are to encourage editors to behave civilly if the punishment for an offence is the same as for a mistake? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Which begs the question: if this happens so many times, is it still a mistake? Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Alienus has been blocked once previously for incivility which he did not deny - does this exclude him from AGF? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The record does not support Jayjg's claim that he is not a "personally involved admin". Alienus reverted Jayjg's edits to the Circumcision advocacy article at 05:54 on 6 May 2006 [8] Then Jakew reverted the article to Jayjg's version three times. Jayjg blocked Alienus at 07:21 on 7 May 2006. [9] There have been other differences on opinion between Alienus and Jayjg in the past regarding the content of circumcision related articles. -- DanBlackham 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for checking that but I don't think anyone but us actually cares. Sad huh? SophiaGilraen of Dorthonion 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, someone else got into an edit conflict with Alienus on a different article, about a different issue, and somehow that makes me "personally involved"? Please return to reality. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Alienus earned his block with his behavior. Jayjg's involvement, if any, does not change that fact. To clarify the matter I've unblocked Alienus and reblocked him myself. -Will Beback 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not looked at the history of all the circumcision-related articles that Jayjg and Alienus may or may not have edited together, but have looked briefly at the history of the one that DanBlackham cited. I can't say that I consider the fact that Alienus reverted Jayjg's 2 May contributions on 6 May makes Jayjg an "involved admin". In fact, Jayjg did not revert back to his own version; he did not contribute to an edit war. Being on the opposite side on some issues is not the same as being involved in a personal dispute. I see here that Jayjg voted the same way as Alienus on article content, and the opposite way from me. Actually, I can't recall ever being on the same side as Jayjg on article content, but don't feel that there's any reason why I couldn't block him (or he me) for personal attacks in the (extremely) unlikely event that it proved to be necessary.
So are they involved in a personal dispute, independently of Alienus's 6 May revert? If I look at Alienus's contributions, I see a lot of attacks against various administrators, Jayjg being only one of his targets (and certainly not the main one). I see no evidence of Jayjg responding in kind, or indeed of taking any notice. We have had problems in the past with aggressive users insulting so many admins that they were able to claim that no admin who wanted to block them was neutral. In fact, I recall one user (now banned) who requested arbitration against an admin who had blocked him for really vile personal attacks against another admin, and who announced that two of the arbitrators would have to recuse themselves because he had had run-ins with them. One of the arbitrators accepted the case with the words: "Accept (Picking a fight with an arbitrator doesn't result in recusal)". Back to Alienus, if we take these three diffs, do we now say that Jareth may never block Alienus in the future? I personally would not feel comfortable blocking Alienus: I think he has been in dispute with me far more than with Jayjg. But I do feel that once an editor has been rude to more than five administrators, the X-isn't-allowed-to-block-me-because-he-has-a-grudge-against-me argument becomes less and less convincing. AnnH 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The blocking policy is clear that: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Jayjg did not gain an advantage in a content dispute, and there's no question that Alienus made a personal attack on the very day that he returned from a week's block for personal attacks, so there's no reason to question this block that I can see. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

metric first or Imperial first[edit]

ThurnerRupert (talk · contribs) has begun making what appears to be unilateral changes to {{standard gauge}}, which is one of the templates used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains to present the information in a standard format. His complaint is that the metric units should always be listed first regardless of the source document or subject matter. I have commented on his talk page and tried to engage him in conversation on the project talk page to come to a consensus. I have reverted {{standard gauge}} once on May 7 and once today, and I am requesting a review for page protection of the template until a consensus can be reached in the project. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Uniformity and consistency on a volunteer project the size of Wikipedia is a pointless and, in the end, self-destructive aspiration. Find something more important to argue about. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony in reality, but I must say that, if the world were perfect, everything would be in Metric. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I put metric first, sometimes only metric, in the earliest articles I created, but somebody else started changing them to English first, so I've been using English units since. -- Kjkolb 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Imperial should be first for article relating to places where imperial is or was used. If Metric was to be first, then a 4ft 8inch template (similar to the other feet wide rail lines) ought to be created to cater for both parties. Captain scarlet 09:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This issue was also recently discussed at Category talk:Conversion templates. There are some valid arguments for not always being consistent with this. If an approximate measurement of '5,000 miles' is given it doesn't really make sense to show that as; 8046.72 km or with the metric first followed by the imperial... the non-round number and decimals give the impression of an exact measurement instead of an approximant. If a measurement was originally taken in 'cubits' it would be misleading to pick one of the common estimates of that length and display the measurement in metric/imperial. Basically, the measurement given in a source should probably be shown first or even alone in some cases. That said, if it is a straightforward constant that can accurately be displayed in different units then I think metric first followed by imperial strikes the best balance between international and local standards. The category above has templates for performing these conversions now (I used {{subst:conv-dist|5000|mi|km|3}} to produce the kilometer conversion above) so it should be fairly easy to include both types of units where appropriate and put them in whatever order makes sense. With the train gauge... I believe the original standard was set in imperial units and thus I'd think that would be the proper measurement to show first, but it probably doesn't matter much so long as both are given. --CBDunkerson 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the original measurement or definition should be first and any conversions second. In this case, since standard gauge was originally defined in the Imperial system, that measurement should go first. Conversions often lose accuracy and it's often good to know the original measurement system used in any case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Luka Jačov keeps deleting very important reference[edit]

Hi,

Luka Jačov keeps deleting very important reference on page Serbs of Croatia. I proved that they speak Serbian, not Serbo-croatian, and he keeps deleting the reference that proves this and reverting related changes I made in the article.

Please, stop him!!! --Ante Perkovic

Brent Corrigan[edit]

Can some admins please put this page on their watchlists? It has a rather determined vandal. SchmuckyTheCat 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

More information: User:Melbedewy appears to be including copyvio information to this article from several different IPs at will. Indeed, the user claims "I am now going to post the complete article EVERY SINGLE DAY in the text. Don't bother with your whining, I will not respond to you any further. If they ban me I will set up new hotmail accounts in 1 minute flat. I do not have a static IP number so you will not win.". Obviously, blocking won't do any good, and this page already already was protected, then undone after two weeks. I have re-protected pending further review. RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call to me. Best way to prevent mass vandalism is to head it off at the pass. --InShaneee 03:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The user has requested that the article be unlocked "and that the censored information about the public federal court case Cobra video vs. Brent Corrigan be permanently locked in to end future vandalism." Here is my response. (The link to that story already is in the article—twice.) RadioKirk talk to me 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue with Anomy User George Tames Article[edit]

Hello, I'm having a issue with an Anomy User 195.93.60.66 [[10]] who keeps changing the categories in article George Tames. I have requested that he/she discuss here any changes or concerns regarding this article but he/she keeps ignoring all my Talk Requests. Any help here would be much appreciated, since I am trying to avoid an edit war with this individual. Thank you in advance. ~ Mallaccaos, 10 May, 2006

The first thing to do is to assume good faith, and talk to the other user, they might have valid concerns and/or disagree with you. I think your inital comments to them were on the harsh side, it is not vandalism to have a dispute about content, and the edits didn't look complete nonsense to me. They might be incorrect, but even well meaning editors make mistakes. (Be careful not to fall into the trap of feeling you "own" an article that you create, as on that path lies chaos.) MartinRe 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the responds. My comments were not meant to be harsh sounding, I was just frustrated that he/she keeps making the changes without discussion them first when it was requested of him/her both at the George Tames discussion page and at the anomys user's discussion board. It seems this individual is specifically taking out the Greek-American category for some reason without saying why, even when there is a link provided which shows George Tames claiming he comes from a Greek and Albanian family. I have requested to the individual to discuss his/her edits several times and never got a response back. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006
If discussion with the other editor is not improving the situation, look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other things to try, like getting a third opinion, and so on. These admin boards aren't the place to come for content dispute, as outlined at the top of this page. Regards, MartinRe 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
That's my whole issue, I can't get the editor to discuss the situation, which is why I came here. I just didn't want an edit war to get out of hand with this situation. Thank you for pointing me to the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other things to try. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006
There is no requirement to discuss before making changes, Be Bold! is our motto! I still suggest asking the user politely about their edits, accusing someone of vandalism in your first message to them isn't exactly going to make them want to reply! Ask them calmly about their edits, point out where you differ in opinion, and see what happens, it's way too early for dispute resolution when you haven't tried talking calmly to the other editor yet. Please remember to assume good faith and always be civil. Regards, MartinRe 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that there is no requirement to discuss before making changes. I want to discuss with the individual why he/she is making the same exact changes which he/she is doing but the individual has so far ignored all request for a discussion. I have taken in consideration the assume good faith and have apologized to this individual if he/she took my first comments as too harsh and have requested for a civil discussion here. Hopefully this can be resovled without any more issues. ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006
That's great, thanks. Hope it works out, and remember if there are further content disputes, please refer to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes as that's the best way to proceed. (posting here for content disputes will simply refer you to there anyway :) Regards, MartinRe 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin (Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs)) (Snowspinner) first participated in an AfD then deleted the AfD outright[edit]

Hi folks. If this is no big deal, please excuse the interruption. However, it's my understanding that one general rule-of-thumb is that admins should not delete or otherwise 'administer' pages on which they have contributed substantively as editors. Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) has just done so, on an AfD brought by a user. Phil voted 'speedy keep', another admin marked it as a 'speedy keep', and then Phil deleted the AfD. I'd like to get the response of some admins (from a policy perspective, not a 'Phil under attack' perspective) to whether such activity in essence amounts to unfair or excessive use of an admin's powers during the course of their routine editing of Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I cannot provide a link to the now-deleted AfD page (it was here), but here's a link to the talk page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the article that was nominated for deletion, 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities, and it looks like a whole bunch of people all marked it "speedy keep"; the person who listed it was User:Ham_and_jelly_butter, who has been indefinitely blocked. He also listed George W. Bush for deletion. I'll back up Phil on this one: I would have done the same thing he did. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This nomination was a violation of WP:POINT and was rightfully speedy kept. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's two admins who back Phil so far. Thanks for your opinions, admin folks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keeping the article is one thing. But what about deleting the AfD? Isn't it important to have a record that the article was AfD'ed and speedily kept? -- noosphere 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The only thing it is a record of is the rejection of a bad faith nom by an indefinitely blocked vandal. Not valuable in the least imo. Arkon 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is valuable as a record of the community's will that the page not be deleted. -- noosphere 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good speedy keep. I agree with Phil's practice of deleting the bad faith nomination, though the obvious benefits of doing so in a case like this somehow hadn't occurred to me before. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad we can't nominate notices for 'Bad Faith' deletes. --Tbeatty 02:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Or comments, for that matter. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If it was just the nomination that was deleted I'd have had no problem with it. But a number of editors had already voiced thier opposition to the AfD, and the AfD was closed as a speedy keep. It's the record of the rejection of the AfD that I value and object to being deleted. However, I will say this is not a huge deal for me. I just wish it hadn't been deleted and allowed to be kept to serve as a record of the rejection of the third AfD against this article. -- noosphere 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I would agree completely had this been a real VFD. It was speedy kept because of who nominated it and how, in a very short time, by a very few people. I still see no value. Arkon 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the Afd (created by a blocked user) would be valid under WP:CSD G5, and as the afd was "closed" as speedy keep/bad faith nom, it would seem reasonable (if not recommended) to delete the afd as well once the banning was discovered. (otherwise we could have a DOS attack by Afd noms :) MartinRe 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright. If deleting the AfD was valid I have no more objections. Thanks for looking in to this. -- noosphere 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, folks, I agree, too, but it's nice to have some consideration of the AfD voters who aren't monitoring the block logs. It would be a little bit more than courteous to put a note on the AfD page, or the AfD Log page letting folks know that the nomination had been done by a blocked user. It would have prevented some confusion and potential offense. Geogre 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history a little more carefully, it looks to me like he wasn't blocked until a few minutes after the voting ended (but a few minutes before the thing was deleted) ([11]). Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So he wasn't a blocked user when he started the AfD ? Does that mean that the AfD itself was not deletable per WP:CSD G5 after all? -- noosphere 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is customary to clean up the vandalism of a user you block for vandalism. I did so. My apologies for not leaving a better paper trail - my loathing for them continues to know few bounds. Phil Sandifer 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It may not technically have been a G5, but the nomination was clearly in bad faith. To prevent trolling, these things should be deleted--otherwise, a vandal could nominate any article for deletion and say "But your policy says you have to keep records, so you can't delete it!" This has happened before, and so I think Phil was totally in the right deleting the page per WP:IAR. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But you didn't just clean up his vandalism, Phil. You also deleted the responses to the AfD, and the record of the community consensus on the matter. Again, if you'd just deleted his nomination when he'd made it, I'd have had absolutely no problem with it. But a number of editors voiced their opinions in that AfD. So all I'm saying is that it would have been nice to have had a record of that... even if the AfD itself was originally initiated in bad faith. After all, I do believe most AfDs that result in a speedy keep are usually kept for posterity on Wikipedia, are they not? -- noosphere 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that insofar is would not have done much damage to keep the AfD (though I fear such actions would futher encourage trolls rather than deter them). Nonetheless, I don't think Phil's actions were in any way wrong, and it's not a deletion that I would contest. And I would also argue that even an AfD that resulted in speedy keep could reflect poorly upon an article, in that someone felt the need to nominate it in the first place. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I just want to again point out, that this is hardly 'the record of the community consesus' on the matter. Even disregarding who nominated it and why, it was still ended extremely early, on the very basis of it being a bad faith nomination. Arkon 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
A speedy keep is rarely (ever?) the result of a long and drawn-out process in which a great number of editors participate. But a result of a speedy keep does demonstrate that there was enough consensus for the AfD to be rejected virtually immediately. I believe a record of such an event is valuable. But I won't belabor the point further. It's done. And the consensus here seems to be that Phil did nothing wrong by deleting the AfD, even though it may not have been done strictly according to the rules. I'll accept that and move on. As I said before, this is not a huge deal for me. -- noosphere 04:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The speedy keep was correct; deleting the debate was suboptimal but not wrong. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on Incest talk page?[edit]

There are several articles which seem to have been inserted in full (or if not then large blocks) on the talk page.--Anchoress 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Just delete the offending sections. Pages only need to be deleted as a copyvio if the first thing in the history is a copyvio.--Peta 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I just don't like to step over other editors without knowing what I'm doing. I *think* I know text copyright law as it pertains to the internet, but I didn't want to just blank all the text without checking with a more experienced editor first. I'll know better next time, thanks.--Anchoress 06:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Include in your edit summary the source of the copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User 140.239.109.3[edit]

User 140.239.109.3 works hard to vandalize seemingly random articles. I suggest an immediate block in order to protect the content of Wikipedia. Maybe a permanent ban, since it seems like this IP is used for vandalism only. /Magore 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat by Doug Copp / User:Amerrescue[edit]

Sadly, user Amerrescue (claiming to be Doug Copp) has threatended with legal action in the article [12]. I believe that he is serious in his intentions. I do not know the process when something like this happens. In addition, I will be away for a week and will not be able to do anything. Can someone help? --rxnd ( t | | c ) 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for legal threats. Tom Harrison Talk 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
He is at it again. Now using a sock puppet User:24.224.197.109. --rxnd ( t | | c ) 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for three months. Feel free to revert such threats as you see them (in addition to reporting them) in the future. --InShaneee 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Constanz[edit]

I have blocked this user for 1 hour for disruption. (S)he created Template:User no Marxism, a recreation of Template:User No Marxism, which was deleted under t1 and endorsed yesterday by DRV. This was disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and I have fired a short warning shot. --Doc ask? 16:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

205.158.140.77 request to block self[edit]

205.158.140.77 has requested to be blocked from editing. Claims the IP address represents a school, and given the number of vandalisms from this IP, I think this is probably true. Rexmorgan 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty infrequent. Maybe a month off would do? RadioKirk talk to me 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. I'm not really the one asking for this, I am merely relaying 205.158.140.77's request for blockage. I agree with the request, but as far as duration, that is up to the admins of course. Rexmorgan 18:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll be WP:BOLD. Others can review with my thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What someone behind that IP were to become a positive contributor? There was almost no vandalism, so there isn't much of a problem. Plus, "requested blocks" are not in the blocking policy. I don't think the IP should be blocked. Prodego talk 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hence this notice—still, I'll happily defer to anyone who overrules. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I would also be wary of allowing one student choose to get everyone else blocked. Plus, we have no indication whether or not it's a static IP, or whether the school is covered by more than one IP (there are contributions from adjacent IP addresses). Until an offical request comes in, I'd suggest dealing with as normal and leave unblocked. Regards, MartinRe 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This could just be a troll trying to keep his friends from editing as some sort of pranks. --InShaneee 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Naturally, that occurred to me; the IP's history belies that, however—it's virtually all vandalism. These were the reasons why I went with a one-month block (as opposed to something stronger) and the note on the talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the French military history article[edit]

Please don't revert this edit. Nobody in the military refers to service rifles as "assault rifles". Thanks. --129.2.176.2 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitso Bel[edit]

User:Mitso Bel is trying to add his personal views into the anti-Arabism article. Such views include Arabs destroyed Iran and mass-murdered Iranians [13], Arabs are jealous of Persians and are hostile towards them, and that "Traditional Egyptian hostility toward Persians has been very well documented" [14]. I have reverted his edits twice and asked him not to push his POV into the article, but I don't think he is going to stop. Also, would his edits be considered vandalism? --Inahet 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, content dispute. Does he have sources for these assertions? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, it is borderline. Either way, without sources to which these assertions are attributed, its OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal arts colleges vandalism and sockpuppetry[edit]

Latinlovinglatino (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) engaged in a particular pattern of vandalism in the last month and a half, replacing mottoes on Haverford College, Swarthmore College, and Macalester College with a latin phrase that translates as "Our students are very dumb". (Diffs: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) He was warned, including a final warning [23], after which he turned his attention to questionably appropriate images, not actually against any policy (except WP:DICK) (see his user page for an example.) Today, I_majored_in_classics (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) vandalized Bryn Mawr College in the same manner as described above (Diff: [24]). It seems clear from contribution and username evidence that User:I majored in classics is a sockpuppet of User:Latinlovinglatino, used in an attempt to evade a threatened block, and as such, User:I majored in classics should be permablocked and User:Latinlovinglatino should be temporarily blocked for vandalism. --CComMack 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dc9 (talk · contribs), Dc10 (talk · contribs)[edit]

The only edits of the above two users have been to add {{sockpuppet}} tags to the talk page of GO WHARTON (talk · contribs). The tags have changed several times, as if the tagger can't decide what exactly GO WHARTON's alignment is, which makes them somewhat suspicious. The names (Dc9 and Dc10) are obvious indicators of some sort of socking. Isopropyl 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:KymeSnake[edit]

WP:RCU confirms that this is Iasson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). KymeSnake is quiescent, but not blocked. Septentrionalis 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Henceforth, it is quite inconsequentialPatrick J. 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I for one would like to contribute an idea to not tolerate this sort of behavior. "Block 'em with a smile"!(tm)Woody'sAlwaysSmilin'! 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What is going on here, two first comments from new user accounts? --Cyde Weys 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Our old friend the AN:I troll again. Both indef blocked. --InShaneee 00:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it make sense to sprotect this page, then? --Cyde Weys 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If by this page you mean WP:ANi, then no I can't edit things that are sprotected--152.163.100.65 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
See the edit summary? I wouldn't want to try to delete this page. Prodego talk 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User: Anwar saadat[edit]

Hello, I am User: Benzee. I think I have been wrongly requested for sockpuppetry usage. I am not sure but he has been vandalising my page with Image copyright messages Like This after deleting the copyrights himself Proof. He has also vandalized pages such as Vijay's article. Since his only plan is to do vandalism, I suggest you block him for atleat 1 week or 1 month so he can let other wikipedians get on in their wiki careers as well as persoanl. He is targeting me for no apparent reason and no, I am not a sockpuppet of User: Naan Kadavul, my contributions are worthy and I am personally concentrating on reaching a separate wikipedia landmark. Keep up your good work adminstrators! Thanking You Benzee 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) May the force be with you!

There does seem to be problematic edits of a recent nature. Also, somehow I originally mistook this to be about the article Anwar Sadat. El_C 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
El C, please have a look at Talk:Ajith and Ajith. He is running a one-man blockade against User:Zora, User:Ganeshk, User:David crawshaw, and User:Blnguyen (myself) for removing blatant POV such as the constant use of "!", "mega-star" and "mega-hit" the usage of a magazine review term "Numero Uno" as a fact rather than endorsement, a whole list of random vague assertions, and threatened to report us for vandalism and trolling (it's a POV dispute). User:Pa7, User:Plumcouch, User:Srikeit and User:Nobleeagle have all agreed on the page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema that Anwar is trying to run a hagiography. He then reverted Pakistan (User:Dwaipayanc) and Hindutva (Nobleeagle) citing "vandalism" in the edit summary, when it is about the POV of the content. In one edit summary at Ajith, he wrote an edit summary in Tamil, meaning "shut up" - see translation at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I left the user a note about civility and hagiographical concerns. El_C 08:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've had problems with that Anwar saadat user as well. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, can anyone attend to this case during my absence? Thanks in advance. El_C 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Prin/Benzee/Naan_Kadavul confirmed as a sock on WP:RFCU. Note that all of the accounts have been chronic copyvioers. --Rory096 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from talk page[edit]

Could someone look into User:Jachin and talk page history? He appears to be selectively removing personal attack warnings and the like from his talk page (see [25]). I've been steadily ignored so far, and I'd like another admin to look into it. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Zzzzz. I noticed him using popups to revert good faith edits, and asked him politely a couple of times [26] [27] to stop (as did User:Titoxd [28]). Zzzzz archived his talk page without the warnings on it [29]. I then told him to stop [30], and was reverted [31], upon which I gave him a warning [32], and was reverted again [33], along with a comment from User:Worldtraveller [34]. I know that Zzzzz is a good contributor, and I'm not sure what to do at this point. TheJabberwʘck 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Zzzzz has removed messages placed by User:141.133.153.2 and User:InShaneee [35]. TheJabberwʘck 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be archiving them now, immediately moving them over to his archives, which while slightly annoying does not seem serious enough an issue for admin intervention. JoshuaZ 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
In my note to him I suggested he archive, at least it's better then having him delete them. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he's selectively archiving to edit out any warning messages or message about disputes he's been involved in even after many polite messages (which he's also removing)[36][37] . Archiving is just fine, even if it is immediate but selectively removing warnings and discussion? Not quite kosher either. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, user:Pcbcbc used to do that. It eventually got to be a very serious problem. It isn't illicit, but it's sure misleading. Geogre 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now placed a message on his talk page stating "NOTICE: Messages placed on this page are deleted at my discretion." I definatly agree now that this is the start of something problematic. He should know that warnings should not be deleted so off-the-cuff, as it makes it very hard to judge whether the user's been warned previously. --InShaneee 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Hey, now that gives me an idea! (bad faith gaming of the NA policy in the first place.) Prometheuspan 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment - if we want to continue making an issue of 'removal of warnings' then it should be written into the policies. Currently this view is founded on WP:VAND, which says only that removing vandalism warnings is considered vandalism, and WP:TALK which says that removing messages without responding may be considered "hostile" or 'uncivil'... but that restoring such removed messages is "not proper" and edit warring. That's pretty weak grounds on which to base a claim that 'all warnings must be retained'... it actually makes the repeated restoration of such (as has been done) a blockable offense.
That said - I'm not a big fan of this approach. Nobody likes 'being scolded' and then being told that you have to keep the 'scarlet letter' on your talk page in perpetuity? It looks like, and sometimes is, harrassment. They've been warned. They saw the message. Mission accomplished. Forcing them to keep warnings on their talk page for every visitor on completely unrelated issues to see is unneccessarily punitive. The only 'plus' from such is to allow admins to see that the person has received prior warnings, but I don't think that's worth antagonizing people further. We can always check the history... use edit summaries like 'Warning: <whatever>' and they'll be easy to pick out. --CBDunkerson 11:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If someone is pressed for specific links to policy on the matter, here are three: Help:Talk_page#Etiquette, Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "removing warnings". Stifle (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And also, this is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that someone has been out at the barn wall with a can of paint again. Setting aside that it's usually a good idea to make the proposal before changing policy pages... this is still just a proposal. Which I (amongst others) strongly disagree with. The minor benefit of 'making it easier to see that the user has been warned before' is far outweighed by the negative effects of the antagonism inherent in the proposed procedure. Warnings ought to be friendly reminders or notifications of 'the rules' rather than scarlet letters used to humiliate people. There is no epidemic of people getting away with repeated policy violations because no one notices that they have done it before... and thus no need for this policy change. We have plenty of tools for keeping track of 'troublemakers' currently without needing to add one which causes more problems than it solves. --CBDunkerson 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there is a big difference between having to retain scarlet letters and immediately transferring selectively to archives. The question is whether we're talking about normal talk page behavior and an overt intent to mislead. It's a judgment call. Until the issue that generates the "warnings" gets up to RFC or mediation level, the transferring to archives is just a symptom. Once there is an RFC or RFar or Mediation attempt, I would say that those assessing behavior should see the transferring to archives and assess whether or not it is a piece of evidence. For me, it would be a heavily weighted piece of evidence of an intent to operate outside of consensus and against policy, whether the archiving were itself an offense or not. Geogre 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jachin's reply is here. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Mccready for Wikistalking[edit]

User:Mccready has been Wikistalking and generally harassing User:SlimVirgin. He originally got into some dispute with SlimVirgin over the Animal rights article, adding that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family! [38] When challenged over that, he decided to rewrite the consensus intro instead, and when SlimVirgin reverted, he threatened to open an RfC on her, and proceeded to revert every day while issuing a second warning and third warning, accompanied by more threats on the talk page. He then complained about her on WP:AN/I, [39] because inter alia she had "introduced her views on Israel into the animal-rights page" by referring to the State of Israel, and had violated 3RR by reverting four times in 60 hours. [40] [41] She requested protection for Animal rights, which left him with nothing to fight about, so over the course of the next few days he stalked her to Lauren Slater [42] (which she was working on and he had never edited); New anti-Semitism [43] (which she was working on and he had never edited); and Rat Park [44] (which she'd created and he had never edited). He then noticed she'd reported Gene Nygaard for a 3RR violation, so he stalked her to the WP:AN/3RR page and reported her for a violation which she had already rectified. [45] At this point I warned him that he needed to desist from Wikistalking her: [46] He stopped wikistalking her, but continued to make frivolous complaints about her on this page (e.g. [47] [48]) As she refused to rise to his bait, after several days he decided to again wikistalk her to a new article, Hamas, which she was editing extensively (including a couple of hours earlier) and which he had never edited before: [49] At this point I blocked him for 24 hours for Wikistalking, which is forbidden by policy. He has objected to this block, as has one other editor. Wikipedia has over 1 million articles; Mccready has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just recently edited. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Like we didn't see this coming... Wikistalking has been an ongoing problem with Mccready. He's had many warnings and none seem to have made an impression, so a block makes sense here. FeloniousMonk 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd rather see him blocked for something he actually did wrong. There were earlier complaints that look well justified, and he's been blocked before. But I cannot agree with a block simply for editing the same articles as someone else. The link presented as stalking evidence is a good, although minor, edit. If blocking is warranted, surely there will be a better example of blockworthy behavior forthcoming. Friday (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Whether you want to call this wikistalking or disruption, I support a short cooling off for him. He's been acting out in similar ways for long enough that I've certainly noticed it. The issue isn't that he's making bad edits (necessarily, though some of them might be), it's that he's deliberately, purposefully inserting himself practically everywhere SlimVirgin edits, presumably as some form of payback for whatever his beef is with her. It's just not acceptable behavior. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it a horribly bad precedent to set that sensible edits can be considered wikistalking due to our speculation about bad motives behind it. I see reasonable behavior in his latest edits. If he was leaving edit summaries like "revert idiotic edit by >whoever<" or something, I would consider that strong evidence of stalking, but I don't see anything like that. If he was starting to get the hint, we're not helping by throwing another block at him. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, he cannot be an editor- he should be community banned instead. If a community ban is what's really going on here, let's be up front about it. All I see so far is people continuing to take him to task for which articles he's edited, and I find that unhelpful- it's only going to reinforce his belief that he's being unjustifiably picked on. Friday (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be considered speculation if they randomly turned up at the same articles. That's not what's happening here. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Friday (Mccready emailed me too, BTW). There is no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to. In my opinion, the reason why someone is editing a particular article is not important at all. If they're harassing someone and/or attacking them constantly, then I think they should be blocked (and banned and get their backsides kicked), but if 'wikistalking' means editing the same articles as someone else (as long as the 'stalker' is being civil), then I can't see a problem with it. - ulayiti (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
To paraphrase User:JoshuaZ, it must be just a coincidence that Mccready is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely right- there's no justification whatsoever for blocking him for the edit on Hamas that Friday linked to, but there is for wikistalking. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
By Jayjg's own explanation here, the wikistalking was a few days ago. Then he stopped. The only evidence provided that he's been stalking again is that Hamas diff- which clearly shows a harmless edit, yet Jayjg still used it as justfication for a block. Are we punishing him for what he did a few days ago, or is there an ongoing problem here? I have yet to see any diff which shows evidence of an ongoing problem right now. Friday (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying "harmless edit" as if that makes a difference. The harm was in the stalking, not the edit. The ongoing problem right now is that he wikistalked SlimVirgin to yet another article. This needs to stop. Wikipedia has over a million articles; Mccready does not need to "just happen to edit" the ones that SlimVirgin has just been editing. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
How does it harm anyone if they just happen to edit the same article as someone else? Is someone going to block me for wikistalking, say, JIP (talk · contribs), for editing some of the same articles as him just because we have some similar interests (eg Finland-related articles)? Maybe I could block Obli (talk · contribs) because he's edited both IB Diploma Programme and Extended Essay, both articles that I've created? Most articles are edited primarily by people who are interested in the subject, and people share similar interests. That is not 'wikistalking' And Hamas is also not exactly a particularly obscure article that nobody edits. (I might have edited that too, does that make me a wikistalker?)
In my opinion, wikistalking can't be just editing the same articles. There has to be something else into it as well, like personal attacks, edit wars, systematic reversions or something like that. A minor grammatical change doesn't count as any of those. - ulayiti (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Mccready says he's not doing it on purpose. What happened to assuming good faith? - ulayiti (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
In this case, AGF loses to Occam's razor. Thatcher131 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Mccready emailed me about this. I half expected to find some kind of rouge admin abuse, and it was no surprise to find just that. He needs to stop it. I don't know the best way to achieve that, but this is a way. Just zis Guy you know? 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much involvement in articles that SlimVirgin edits, but even I have noticed that Mcready was stalking her. I can understand Friday's point about setting a precedent by blocking someone for sensible edits that just happen to be on the same article that another editor has edited. But I think it could be even more dangerous not to be allowed to block for that. I've seen a lot of wiki-stalking since I arrived here, and on many occasions the stalker denied it — explaining that he had found the article by clicking "recent changes", or by following a link from another article, etc. Since this is something that we can never prove, a block seems quite appropriate when it's "beyond reasonable doubt". If someone stalks another editor ninety-nine times, and then makes an innocent edit on the hundredeth time, without realizing that his opponent has just edited it, well, he doesn't really have grounds to complain if he gets blocked, does he? I'm sure that finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. We need to have the ability to put a stop to it, and if the block is an unfair one (which I don't think to be the case here), by all means let's review it at this noticeboard. AnnH 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • "finding that someone you've had a dispute with has just followed you to yet another article must be quite creepy and must sap a lot of the joy out of editing Wikipedia. " This is my sentiment exactly; even if the edits are harmless, do you want someone hovering over your shoulder all the time? I support a short block, this is obviously not a coincidence. Thatcher131 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and there's always an "explanation"; as I said above, as Mccready claims it must be just a coincidence that he is interested in animal rights, antisemitism, obscure psychology experiments, American authors, and now the Middle East, just like User:SlimVirgin, and in an even bigger coincidence he just happens to edit specific articles in those topic areas minutes after SlimVirgin does. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The crime of wikistalking is not editing the same articles as another editor, it is harassing them. Based on this editor's history, it is clear that user:Mccready has targetted user:SlimVirgin. That these edits, often minor, came after numerous complaints about SV shows an intent to harass or intimidate her. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all combat zone. Users more interested in fighting than editing should be blocked. -Will Beback 20:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is more to the story. User:Mccready followed User:SlimVirgin to my RFA FloNight's RfA (she nom me). He made negative comments about admins in general and me in particular. He also sent emails directing users to my RFA. User talk:Mccready#Emails? I believe my response to his actions was respectful and restrained. Going forward, I planned to ignore the incident until I received an email from him today. I found it troubling and needing a response from him. I left a message on his talk page giving him an opportunity to correct the problem. User talk:Mccready#Your email request is troubling I will discuss this further if needed. FloNight talk 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of behavior that's apparently continued until today. Jayjg warned Mccready that if he stalked SlimVirgin to one more article he'd be blocked. He did it again, therefore was blocked. Friday argues that Jayjg has essentially produced one edit and that can't be used to justify "stalking," and in another instance I'd probably agree. But this one edit was the one step over the line it took for a block (for which he was warned). It was bound to happen if he continued this behavior; good faith isn't limitless. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
For fuck's sake, making an edit 3 hours after SlimVirgin is considered stalking? He removed 1 word. One word. Does he have to check every single article he copyedits to make sure SlimVirgin has never edited it? In case you folks are a bit behind on wikipolicy, let me quote it: "a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons." Looking at the diff, Mccready removed the word "out". Wow. What a disruptive edit. I bet it made SlimVirgin extremely distressed that Mccready removed this essential word.
Maybe this is what happened: Mccready saw something about Hamas on the news, and decided to read the article. He thought the word "out" was out of place, so he went to edit it. I have done this exact same thing many times. Whenever I see something interesting in the news, I immediately go to Firefox and type in "wp [whatever]" to see if that news is in the article, and often I read it and I see something strange, I copyedit it. I don't go into the history to make sure that certain editors haven't edited it. That is simply unreasonable. Is that what you expected him to do there? Whether or not he meant it in bad faith, I don't know, but this isn't "zero tolerance", this is "negative tolerance". You folks were just looking for the perfect excuse to jump on him. Jayjg says that his edit occurred "within minutes" of SlimVirgin's edit; SlimVirgin's previous edit was a full 3 hours earlier than Mccready's. That's certainly not "within minutes", unless you are referring to the alternate definition of "minutes" - and I doubt you were making an issue out of Mccready's relative geographical location. – ugen64 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It was the third last article on her Recent Contributions list, and she'd edited the Talk: page 130 or so minutes earlier. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out Ugen64, unless you're trying to wilfully deny reality for some reason. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I urge you to opt for a less heated, more composed preamble, Ugen. I find this sort of tone to be clearly unproductive and that it does not contribute positively to the discussion. At any rate, it appears that this user largely focused on articles SlimVirgin edits in order to cause her grief, and that this has been going on for quite some time now. Thus, his edit history, and its specific pattern vis.a.vis SV's needs to be examined in its totality. With the final straw not being viewed in isolation but in the context of prior edits. El_C 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them:
  • he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [50];
  • threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [51] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [52]);
  • issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [53];
  • issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [54];
  • issues a "second warning" to me [55];
  • issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [56];
  • issues a "3rd warning" to me [57];
  • threatens to "report" Justen [58];
  • threatens to report Seth as a vandal [59];
  • Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [60] [61] [62]
On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited. Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing, and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I got an email from McCready (who I'd never heard of before, apparently because I'm well respected- huh?!) to ask me to help him mediate against SV. Well, A quick look around the place suggests that I'd better not take up the request. Did anybody also get a mail from McCready to back him up at animal rights? For the record, the argument at Animal rights seems rather trivial in terms of content?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He emailed me as well. But the wording is more terse. Kimchi.sg 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
He even e-mailed me to ask me to unblock him, which was bizarre given it was me he was following around. He did this over FloNight's adminship too: e-mailed a lot of people he didn't know in the hope of pulling in a few opposes. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been many "yes but" reasons given here. It's clear that there's no evidence that the diff Jayjg labelled as stalking is a disruptive edit. And many have said, "yes, but look at all the other bad things this user has done." What you're arguing for with these reasons is a community ban, people. It may even be time for such a measure, but it should be discussed honestly, not disguised as something else. This editor has been a nuisance, certainly- nobody is disputing that. What we're disputing (and I continue to strongly feel is a terrible precedent) is the idea that editing the same article as someone you don't like is wikistalking. This would be a ridiculous, unworkable standard. If he's going to be blocked for harmless edits, let's be honest and call it community ban- that's what it effectively is. Maybe I have unusually strong feelings on this, having been repeatedly accused of stalking myself (and the evidence presented was, "Look, you edited an article that I edited!"). Anyway, this whole argument could easily have been avoided by doing one simple thing:do not block people for made-up reasons if there are good reasons available. If there are no good reasons, don't block. I suspect there would have been far less disagreement if this had been presented as a general disruption block. The moral of the story is simple: When you block a user, leave a note on the talk page explaining why. The reasons given should be sufficiently explained that an uninvolved, impartial observer will agree that the block is justified. I would have expected that this standard would have been obvious to anyone who's been given the block button. Friday (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Who said anything about a community ban? This is a 24 hour block. Thatcher131 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And if 24 hour blocks for harmless edits are what he's going to continue to get, this is effectively a community ban. I'm just suggesting we be realistic and recognize it for what it is. If he's not going to be blocked again for harmless edits, that's another story of course. Friday (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No wikistalking edits are "harmless", because they damage the victim of the wikistalking, and all wikistalking edits must be discussed in the context of "all the other bad things this user has done", because wikistalking is a pattern of behavior. As for the claim of a "community ban", that's just nonsense; this was a 24 hour block for wikistalking, and, as has been pointed out many times before, there are over a million articles Mccready can edit, he has no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just edited. Finally, the block was indeed explained, and all sorts of uninvolved, impartial observers have agreeed that the block was entirely justified. The real moral here is that some people will deny reality regardless of the evidence. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we just have to agree to disagree. You're continuing to assert that [this edit was harmful to SlimVirgin. To me, this is such a bizarrely incomprehensible belief that I can only assume that your own prior involvement is impairing your ability to look at this situation neutrally. The reason I keep bringing up the community ban issue is just common sense: we have no article ownership here. If he's going to continue to be blocked for edits like that, he cannot be an editor. It's that simple. If we're deciding that he cannot be an editor, let's actually be honest about what we're deciding. Friday (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What explains the fact that most of the other people who have commented here also share this "bizzarely incomprehensible belief"? Do they also have a "prior involvement" which is "impairing [their] ability to look at this situation neutrally"? As for your other claim, it's equally nonsensical; I'll just repeat - there are over a million articles out there. All he needs to do is stop wikistalking SlimVirgin to the paltry few she has just edited. It is absurd to claim that this means he "cannot be an editor" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You put articles you edit on your watchlist, right? So how would you feel if every time you edited an article, it jumped to the top of your watchlist with the same name attached? The name of an editor who has argued with you, filed arguably false complaints and made threats against you. At the very least you say, "oh no, not again" and you have to check the diff because many (but not all) of his edits are disruptive. How would like to log on in the morning to see the five or six or ten articles at the top of your watchlist all with the same name on them. If that's not stalking, then tell me, how many more would it take? If you think this is going to turn into a series of blocks amounting to a community ban, you are conceding more about Mccready than you think you are. Thatcher131 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Just had a couple comments and then hopefully I'll shut up. I'm not a fan of admins inventing new rules for users and enforcing them with blocks, but if it must be done, let's at least be reasonable about it. I know, "no wikistalking" isn't a new rule, but "no editing pages that user X has touched" is a new rule and should be treated as such. If it's actually true that Mccready can edit as long as he follows Jayjg's orders, what are those orders, exactly? Is he never to touch any article that Slim has ever touched? Or is there a certain timeframe involved? These are fairly extraordinary requirements; they should at least be spelled out, or he has no hope of being able to abide by the rules. I dislike such specific rules myself- I'd rather just base decisions on the actual edits, but there appear to be people who want rules along these lines. If orders are going to be invented and enforced, explaining this situation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mccready and on his talk page is probably a good idea. I have to admit I'm far more comfortable with editor-specific restrictions being imposed by the Arbcom than by just one admin. I apologize for posting so much here- it's possible I've been doing nothing but feeding the troll with my objections here, but I do feel it's important to nail down what is or is not wikistalking. Friday (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That may need to be done, but this isn't the proper place for it -- the wikistalking page is, or some other place such as that. Many, many people have commented here and agreed that what Mccready has been doing is harassing and disruptive, and his continuing lack of recognition of the reason why his behavior is being censured is just as disturbing. So in this instance I think the block was well justified. The straightforward direction Mccready can follow is simple: stop doing what you've been doing. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Friday, I know for a fact that you mean well, because you always do, and I respect what you say, but you've unfortunately hit the nail on the head with your "feeding the troll" observation. I hope you realize that he e-mailed a large number of people and told many of them, and perhaps all, that he was writing because he respected them so much, even though he doesn't know them. It's important to take a long, hard look at who's acting in good faith here. You're welcome to e-mail me if you'd like to discuss it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Undermining wikipedia foundations - new definition of wikistalking[edit]

This block undermines wikipedia foundations. Read on and you’ll see the claim is not overblown.

Jayjg’s accusation lacks substance and makes incorrect assumptions, particularly in regard to Gene Naagard. That a senior admin can jump to conclusions, accuse me of “baiting” and making “frivolous complaints” (they still haven’t been dealt with), and believe I should not edit articles which Slim has edited staggers me. Once again, there is no demonstration of harassment here despite requests to provide it. And this is where the foundations are being undermined. Jayjg and others want to stop me editing pages another person has edited. There is no examination of the quality of my edits, no examination of whether I have harassed. No. Only “you shall not edit pages which Slim regularly edits – if you do, we define that as wikistalking”. This is a serious attack on the principles of wikipedia.

SlimVirgin’s version of history (above) needs commentary. My comments are interspersed:

::::I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them: + ::::*he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [63];

Xtra said to me “You may see Joyce as an extremist, however, from the way you are talking, he appears far more to the centre than you….Or is free speech only reserved for left wing people? I am sick of this hypocracy (sic)…. I am sick of defending articles about normal people against morons ” Tell me Slim,is that a personal attack or is that a personal attack? Should Xtra apologise?

+ ::::*threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [64] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [65]);

Steth (not Seth) had begun an unsuccessful and, I discovered, secret RfC against me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I joined wikipedia there was a box at the top of WP:LEAD which said it was policy. That box no longer appears in the history because the history doesn’t store deleted templates. Like I say, I could be wrong. [66]. Also Slim’s link to me being told “numerous” times is one link on 9 May. Are there others Slim?

+ ::::*issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [67];

David Nortman had reverted in bulk numerous times. Other editors had also asked him not to.

+ ::::*issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [68]; + ::::*issues a "second warning" to me [69]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [70]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to me [71];

Ombudsman , like Slim, had reverted more than once and not used the talkpage despite repeated requests to do so

+ ::::*threatens to "report" Justen [72];

What I said was “Justen you have reverted in bulk and will be reported if you do so again without properly considering all opinions calmly on the talk page”

+ ::::*threatens to report Seth as a vandal [73];

What I said was “"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy.” Steth had waged a campaign to delete scientific findings from the article.

+ ::::*Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [74] [75] [76]

Guilty as charged

+ ::::On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited.

Do you seriously argue that I should not edit articles you edit?

Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing,

disappointing? What I said was (and it took a while to track down the correct link, Slim), “I think there are too many admins and I would like to see a code of conduct in place and enforced before new ones are created. Some admins are rude, revert legitimate comments by other editors, block pages they have edited and violate WP policies. My specific reasons for opposing include
  • She deleted comments and when asked on her talk page why, did not respond. [22]
  • She deleted legitimate comments from her talkpage without explanation[23]
  • Deleted more comments from her talkpage.[24]Mccready 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)”

Flo responded and some of her response satisfied me, though not all

+ :::and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I’ll let this one through to the keeper
  • Thank you Slim for finally removing from your list of my faults the gram-positive error I made and acknowledged as soon as it was discovered. I am still not happy that my legitimate criticisms of Slim have been removed from my user page and user talk, but hey ...
  • Blnguyen, you misquote me. You don’t mediate against someone. Tell me which of my six points on Animal Rights doesn’t belong. Yes it may appear trivial which is why I couldn’t understand SlimVirgin’s constant reverts and refusal to discuss. Your sarcasm does you no credit.
  • Yes I emailed admins; the blocking template suggests I do. Now I’m attacked for doing so. Come on people. Yes I emailed people who appear to bear a grudge, appealing them to look objectively at the facts. I am attacked again for doing that. It takes all types.
  • Thanks to those admins who supported me and stood up against groupthink, including those who did so via email. To the others may I ask you to consider that the definition of wikistalking MUST involve harassment; it is simply absurd to ban someone from editing a page when they have had disputes with a person who also edits that page – no matter how you ASSUME they arrived at the page (check SlimVirgin’s actions on chiropractic[77] – perhaps she didn’t know I was a regular editor there, and it was much more than a “tweak” – it sided against me in an ongoing controversy AND without her discussion on the talkpage). Jayjg’s comments on this would be particularly welcome. And to those who find my broad range of interests sarcastically “interesting”, yes the world still has polymaths, or as my father used to say “Jack of all trades, master of none,” and some of them, usually, enjoy editing free encyclopedias.
  • Given the good job done by AnnH ♫ 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC) on Timothy Usher’s block by Sean Black, I’m a bit disappointed she didn’t spend the same time on my case, though I understand how complex and boring it may be.
  • Thanks Friday for your comments. I am no troll. I had come to the same conclusion as you long before your post, as a look at my posts will show.
  • Finally, if I may be allowed a small rhetorical flourish, and in the light of those who continue to rely on assumption, this will go down in the annals of wikipedia: the day a user was blocked for removing, correctly, one redundant word from an article which had been edited three hours before (not minutes before as first hastily alleged) by the blocker’s friend who had refused discussion with that user.
  • AND May I or may I not make sensible edits, as I do, to pages Slim edits?

Mccready 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You already have your stable of articles that you've wikistalked SlimVirgin to (Lauren Slater, Rat Park, etc.) Don't follow SlimVirgin to any new articles she's recently edited, and stop spamming this page. Jayjg (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And your reasoning? Are you saying you are banning me from making sensible edits in wikipedia if Slim has edited there previously? If so, by what authority? Please stop abusing me. My post was not spam. Mccready 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I really believe the best thing to do here is for both sides to just drop the issue and get on with life. Mccready, you feel you've been mistreated. I'm sorry for that. Some folks agree with you, some do not, and many feel your past bad behavior is a mitigating factor. This is how it goes here- editors get in disagreements. Part of being a functional editor is to move on and not dwell on the past. If you'll agree to edit like a functional editor, I hope the rest of us can agree to not punish you for making decent edits. For the record, this edit you made is perfectly fine, regardless of who has or has not edited that page before. Talking about article content is perfect- talking about other editors is less helpful. Friday (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Most folks here agree that the block was justified; a tiny minority of the dozens of people Mcready e-mailed do not. Mccready has not been "punished" for making "decent edits", he's been blocked for persistently wikistalking another editor, even after being warned to stop. There are over a million articles on Wikipedia, and Mccready does not need to make even "decent edits" to articles SlimVirgin has just edited, and which Mcready has never edited before. This will be my final statement on the subject; I will not respond to Mccready's lengthy misrepresentations and wikilawyering, nor will I respond to his or your strawman arguments; however, if he wikistalks SlimVirgin to some other article she has recently edited, I will certainly block him again (if someone else hasn't blocked him already). Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. FeloniousMonk 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Friday. I hate to harp on, but the fundamental question which goes to the ethos of wikipedia remains open here. Does Jayjg have the right to ban me from making sensible good faith edits to articles Slim edits? If I do, will he block me again? Mccready

I know I will, if Jayjg don't get to it first. You crossed the Rubicon for disruptive activity at the project long before this thread and your rant. FeloniousMonk 15:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I sound like a broken record, but what you guys are talking about is a community ban. If that's what you want, do it. But please don't keep picking on this guy. If he's trying to be a functional editor, he doesn't need people following him around saying "You did bad things last week!". If he's not trying to be a functional editor, this will become clear soon enough. Friday (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said I wouldn't respond, but that was a bit too much. He is not being banned! There are a million articles on Wikipedia, he can edit all of them; he just needs to stay away from the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has recently edited. And no-one is "following him around" saying anything about him. Rather, he is following someone else around, and people are telling him to stop. These are two more fundamentally dishonest arguments, along the lines of the previous strawman argument you made that people were proposing that editors should blocked for making just one edit in isolation (rather, people correctly pointed out that that edit was the culmination of a long campaign of wikistalking and harassment), and the equally dishonest "it was a decent edit" red herring, since the issue was never the quality of the edit itself, but rather the circumstances surrounding it. Please do not use any of these fundamentally dishonest arguments again. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, specific edits of Mccready's are red herring here. He was blocked for wikistalking, not editing. There are 1,129,346 articles at Wikipedia. All Mccready has to do is not show up at the 10 or so that SV is editing at at any given time and he's free to edit the other 1,129,336. It doesn't get any more simple than that. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom defines wikistalking as INCLUDING harrassment. Three cases are listed. In one Jimbo said "Going around pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list" was unacceptable. Have I done that? No. In the second case the harasser placed unacceptable edit summaries "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor". Have I done that? No. In the third case a group of editors "hounded" another editor, dogging his every step. Have I done that. No. I have edited articles I am interested in which Slim is also interested in. I have given reasons on my talkpage during my block and was met with sarcasm, not good faith, for my efforts.

So do we have a new definition of wikistalking, devoid of harassment, invented by Jayjg? Sad for the project if true. I say again, this is fundamental to the wikepedia ethos. That Jayjg should fail to address the arguments is disappointing. Am I cast, horribly, in the mold of a Randian hero by Felonious’s insult that I rant? Have you examined my responses to Slim above, Felonious; if so which parts do you find unacceptable? Slim and I both edit many more articles than the few we intersect on. Does “tweak” to the lead, in the context on ongoing discussion on the talkpage, fit the new definition of wikistalking[78]? I find it sad if you really want to redefine wikistalking in this way and thereby redefine the ethos of the project. The argument that I can edit millions of other articles is unacceptable for the reasons already given. Mccready 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What constitutes harassment is in the eye of the victim not the accused. Certainly SV felt harassed. Give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project and you have nothing to worry about. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issues F. Do as I say or else? Whatever happened to logic, good faith, and the wikipedia ethos. Are we to have a new definition of harassment too? I feel harassed therefore I am? Mccready 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, give it a rest, stay off pages SV is editing, and stop disrupting the project. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Phone number of Admin[edit]

User:Jumphoop has posted the home telephone number of an admin that I have reverted. Can an admin please delete it from the history? - Ganeshk (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
How exactly do people get admins phone numbers, it's really bizarre... Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Admins who aren't as close to the vest with their personal info as they should be, and Wikistalkers with too much time on their hands, probably... RadioKirk talk to me 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of us have been online long enough that we've left an indelible digital trail. Before the Eternal September, my .plan had my name, phone, even my address, and it could be accessed by anyone who knew my email. I gave up any chance of anonymity a long time ago. It's just not an option for some of us. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And the people who have been online that long have a greatee tendacy to become admins.Geni 03:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

He keeps adding factually incorrect info to Algonquin College and refuses to cite sources. Ardenn 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now removing tags and blanking sections of pages such as this. Ardenn 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 48h for repeated violation of WP:RS while refusing to discuss with other editors. This should probably go to WP:AIV, by the way. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

True jesus (talk · contribs)[edit]

I first came across this user a couple of weeks ago when he was moving True Jesus Church to multiple absurd locations and creating POV forks of the article, to satirize and criticize the church, which he continued despite several polite warnings from User:Jose77 and myself. He then went on a rampage repeatedly blanking his talk page of the warnings despite the requests of many that he stop. Now he has begun trolling my talk page, Jose77's talk page, User:Hoary's talk page, and, given his history of attacking everyone who contacts him about his behavior, I'm sure he'll soon begin attacking User:Prodego. Beyond that, his username is also potentially inflammatory and quite inappropriate. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I might also add that he has been vandlizing several userpages, including my own. So far, I've seen only vandalism from this account. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a disruptive account. I didn't see anything going on that looked like trying to write an encyclopedia, but I place this notice here in case some other admin wishes to review the block. Syrthiss 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever disputed an indefinite blocking, and I am sure as hell not going to start with this one! --Cyde Weys 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
IANAA, and I don't think the username issue to be altogether significant, but I do think it's clear that the user's principal purpose is disruption, and so I think an indef block is likely appropriate. Since the user is a relatively new user, I accept that he/she was acting in good faith in moving the True Jesus Church article (although one worries that the user registered expressly in order to make such move, in view of the user name selected), thinking Wikipedia to be endorsing the church (when, in actuality, we simply use the name the church ascribes to itself), but his/her subsequent actions show, at best, an inability to work constructively with others and to learn Wikipedia's policies, especially with respect to consensus. Perhaps an uninvolved admin should post a note to the user page to the effect that if the user agrees to comport his/her behavior with Wikipedia's policies, the user may be unblocked, with the caveat that any further vandalism/trolling/page blanking will result in an indef block. Joe 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Syrthiss. I'm usually adamently opposed to indefinite blocks, but I think it's quite clear that his account existed from day one to troll the True Jesus Church article (given the username), and he's made quite clear that he does not want to contribute positively. I was thinking more along the lines of a 48hr block just to make it known that we're serious, but I'm certainly not going to object to this decision! AmiDaniel (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Before he created that disruptive account, this user was already persistently vandalising TJC articles (especially the True Jesus Church in India article & talk page) under the IP addresses:
128.113.18.225, 128.113.18.228, 128.113.18.207, 128.113.64.65, 128.113.64.29, 128.113.64.63.

-- Joseph, 05:28 Friday 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks legit to me. I'll go tag the sockpuppets, and we might consider blocking those accounts too, though I'm still not sure we want to consider this block as an indefinite "ban." He still might some day give up his past and decide to contribute effectively, and blocking the IPs may cause unnecessary collateral damage. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice[edit]

Sorry to troubel with a "trivial" issue, but I'm trying to avoid being blocked. I have been criticised on several occasions for breaking process: my understanding is that editing one's own talk page to remove "negative" comments constitutes breach of process. My problem is that my talk page has been edited by someone else, not at my behest, and in doing so has removed "critical" commentary. On the other hand, I do not wish to revert this without some authority, in case this is treated as improperly reverting a senior user's edit. Advice, please. I have ceased any editing on Wiki for the time being, just in case. -- Simon Cursitor 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? Also note: there are no "senior users". We're all equal here. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 07:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted his edit, as he was removing the section because the DRV was over, I guess (though it seems odd that it was an account that wasn't even in the conversation, and considering socks were mentioned...), but anyway, talk page messages are generally kept (and [[WP:ARCHIVE|archived when the page gets full), rather than removing sections that aren't necessary anymore. As it was your talk, people shouldn't be removing comments anyway, especially if it's not their own. --07:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PS3 edit war[edit]

PlayStation 3 has been the subject of an edit war over whether to use a free image Image:Sony PlayStation 3.jpg or a fair use one Image:Ps3stock.jpg. I protected the article recently to stop the war, but soon after unprotection somebody uploaded Image:PS3 Large Final.jpg, which is a slightly smaller version of the original fair use image, only it's been tagged as being CC-BY instead. I find this claim highly dubious, and have deleted both the fair use image and the almost-certainly-a-lie image (WP:AGF only goes so far). As far as I'm concerned, the issue was quite clear: a "fair use" claim can't override a quite sufficient image simply because the FU image is purdy, and re-uploading a FU image with a CC-BY tag is inappropriate. However, I await the community's brickbats, should that be the result. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And now Dodgyc (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images "© Sony, all rights reserved" with CC-BY ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with what you've done. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Me neither. Kill copyright violations with fire. Warn repeat offenders, then block. Nandesuka 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous bot?[edit]

68.34.13.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) -GTBacchus(talk) 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I found the bot owner--152.163.100.65 15:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I was right behind you finding that, and edit conflicted with you trying to delete my post here. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Is Cyde claiming ownership of the bot? The bot is replacing {{fact}} with {{citation needed}}. Has the community decided that this is a template requiring replacement? - there's nothing at Template talk:Citation needed. I'm not asking for a reinstatement of the block, but what's going on? --RobertGtalk 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Well, it's a template redirect, so what it's doing is basically good, but I don't know why he's running it incognito. I've asked at User talk:Cyde. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm thinking that was a goof, based on this, looks like 68.34.13.103 (talk · contribs) is supposed to be Cydebot (talk · contribs)--152.163.100.65 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again...[edit]

Seems like Peter Ruckman is once again, editing his own barely notable biography--152.163.100.65 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The return of the permanently banned User:Irate[edit]

Admin User:Samuel Blanning has asked that I place a note here, as he has banned blocked the IP User:84.9.210.236 (amongst others) as a sock of User:Irate, but is not familiar with the case history.

User:Irate who was hardbanned by Jimbo Wales, and has had multiple sockpuppets such as User:IanDavies and User:Son of Paddy's Ego has come back using the IP's User:84.9.210.236, User:87.75.131.249 and User:84.9.193.224 to edit articles on British counties, on which he has a fairly extreme view, after User:Lancsalot made a few changes (which admittedly didn't follow the naming conventions, but could have been quickly rectified). When challenged he produced several personal attacks and created a vandal category into which he placed three users, including myself.

The main evidence I can offer for identification purposes is from User:David_Gerard's block log here; if you look at the bottom he blocked a lot of IP's in the same 84.9.x.x range for being his sockpuppets. The spelling mistakes, frequent attacks and style of editing are absolutely identical when compared them to the contributions of User:IanDavies, for example here and here and the anon contributions [79], [80] and [81]. Most admins who have dealt with this user previously (eg User:David Gerard, User:Morwen, User:Matt Crypto, User:JzG) would confirm his identity.

More background on this editor, look at his posts on wikien-l which led up to his ban.

The charge sheet just for today reads as WP:3RR, WP:NPA and editing as a banned user; it would be useful for other admins to verify this block and keep an eye out for further activity. Aquilina 14:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This user keeps coming back with new IPs and socks. So far he's used: