Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive123

User:CltFn/Winn doom

I would appreciate some admin eyes on a disputed CSD case. It pertains to this page: User:CltFn/Winn doom, which is a recreation of an article deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom. I placed {{db-repost}}, but that has been disputed. Does G4 apply? Regards. ITAQALLAH 12:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I agree with User:Matt57 here, G4 is not applicable to content that has been userfied, as long as it is the user's intent to improve the article. You might want to ask User:CltFn if he still intends to work on it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is probably not, he has just been indef-blocked following a discussion on AN/I. ITAQALLAH 12:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ow... gonna delete then :D (don't hesitate to undelete if the user is unblocked) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardeep sockpuppets?

Resolved

Not sure if this is right place to report this but I am suspecting that User:Bardeep3 may be a sockpuppet of User:Bardeep an indef-blocked user, based on the name. Currently User:Bardeep3 has vandalized various administrator's user pages in addition he seems to be being disruptive on his talk page (see [1] (warning 800K). Thanks VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, user already blocked. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 172.137.237.65 to add information of a fake move Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear, thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Change name

Resolved

 – pointed out proper venue --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to change name to Rickcar witch is the same name I use at my Swedish account. V*M*D 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They can take care of you over at WP:RENAME. This requires a bureaucrat, so no admin attention is needed. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The Cyndicate legal threat

I have declined User:The Cyndicate's unblock request per this comment in which he says "This is just horrible and I guess its time it is stopped. I guess you need to hunker down and get ready for legal fight." I have informed him that he can be unblocked if he rescinds the threat of legal action, and will support any admin's unblocking of him upon such condition. - Revolving Bugbear 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I used to love/hate people like this when I was a moderator/admin of a sports message board. Assuming he does follow through with it, I really wish I could see his reaction when a laywer tells him that no, his civil rights have not been violated. Resolute 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you're right about that. - Revolving Bugbear 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the case has been needlessly escalated. A friendly notification that a) legal threats are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and b) such a lawsuit would have had no merit (just like you can't sue a newspaper for refusing to publish an [unsuitable] article you have written), only followed by a block should the user continue with that behaviour, would have been better. (See User talk:Wojowc for how I handle such matters.) Now I am afraid the block must stay, at least for now; the user has not just not withdrawn the legal action, but also threatened to use a bot to revert changes to his text, and proxies to avoid his block. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot threat was also made pre-block, I believe. - Revolving Bugbear 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that. (I probably still wouldn't have immediately blocked him for that, but it makes the block more warranted.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the block was a borderline case, as I don't believe the user knew the NLT policy before he made the statement. On the other hand -- and I realize blocking is stressful and frustrating -- his reaction to the notion that he may be unblocked if he redacts the threat is not particularly comforting, and possible evidence post hoc. - Revolving Bugbear 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that reporting someone to the authorities is considered a legal threat in WP even though in real life it's not a legal threat. - I've known for a while that this is the case, but it doesn't fit with the stated reason for the NLT policy. Anyone know how this got in there? I've got a disconcerting feeling that this comes from people thinking that WP:NLT is intended as a vindictive "punish people for threatening us" policy, and changing it to conform to that. Moreover, it is not in the written policy itself, and does not interact well with "Withdrawal of legal threat". —Random832 14:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What it actually should say, and I don't know when the language got changed, is that threatening to report someone to the authorities is a legal threat on Wikipedia. That, in my opinion, is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Talking about it on-wiki has to be prohibited to keep it from being used as coercion, but Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance against legitimate police complaints that have nothing to do with WP. - Revolving Bugbear 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page now as it appears all he wants to do is make more threats. Nakon 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall a case a couple months ago where someone was indef-blocked for carrying out such a "threat" (IIRC it was a report to an animal welfare organization, not law enforcement); there doesn't seem to be any valid basis in the principles behind WP:NLT to justify leaving someone blocked after the "threatened" action is out of their hands (and thus can no longer be withdrawn even if they wanted to) unless we decide that we want to be vindictive and punitive about these things. —Random832 18:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, sorry, I'm bleary eyed as I need to go to bed, but... am I getting this right? No Legal Threats means "don't threaten to go to law, but if you actually do sue then that's all right"? Coz that's very bad reasoning. It isn't punitive nor vindictive to block or leave someone blocked if they do in fact take legal (or similar) action against another user. It's common sense to leave them blocked/block them whilst a legal action is taking place or whilst a report to "a higher authority" is underway. And beyond, whatever the conclusion. NLT is not just designed to prevent legal threats, it's designed to say that we, as a community, don't allow for threats or actions to influence us. If you make a threat and carry it out then you remain blocked, forever, for the good of the community because We Don't Do That. What if it was a murder that was threatened? Do we say, oh, since the other person is dead, you can come back, as you're not threatening it any more? Please tell me that's not what you're saying? ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that it is a common practice when an editor indicates that they are contemplating suicide or real-life harm to other people for Wikipedians to notify the relevant authorities; there are frequent discussions about this on AN and AN/I, particularly trying to locate a trusted editor in the relevant geographic region. The concept of notifying authorities when there is a perceived real-world threat is important and valid; failure to do so could be quite harmful to the project and the community as a whole. This concept does not apply in the case of the threats posed by The Cyndicate; however, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Risker (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, I think its just a common business practice to not discourage people from seeking legal action. Then they'd argue they were coerced into not exercising their legal rights/letting the other party abuse their rights. So yea, the wording, don't threaten to sue us cause we'll block you, but if you do sue, we won't is awkward, but at least from a US view, seems normal.

I'm still trying to figure out how anything this user did was related to a disability. I don't see anything in the articles he edited to relate to disabilities or medical conditions. Also, do IPs even have monobooks in which to run scripts or would he have to re-register (and therefore be easy to ID) to run the reverting script he mentions? And where is there any debate on wikipedia of it being public or private, thats a new one to me! MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I wanted to ask him how or why he thinks the Americans with Disabilities Act would even apply, since it is very obvious that he could not be discriminated against bast on disability, since we could not possibly know. Ahh, well. Whichever of you admins who has a financial stake in this place are sure gonna regret it come April Fools Day...  ;) Resolute 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Makara Jyothi

Resolved

I’ve had a general cleanup in the article Makara Jyothi and asked for third opinion about removing all three tags placed. I listed it in RFCreli list also. Before doing it, asked another admin’s opinion also. I would have removed all tags as no consensus formed yet after a massive cleanups made. However, since it is a disputed article, administrator’s intervention is imperative in this case. Until now, no action taken yet. Please verify the current article and remove (if ok) all tags placed. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wider attention for significant AfD: Adult-child sex

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate place to post this, but I thought editors here might want to know about this AfD, because it is an important issue for Wikipedia and would benefit from the clearest possible result, considering the controversial history of the topic and the other articles related to this one.

This is a neutral request for comments at the Afd for Adult-child sex

My intention is not canvassing. I'm not the nominator of the AfD and I'm not posting this to find others to agree with my position in the debate. More editors will be better for the results, whichever way it goes.

The AfD will be closing very soon I think -- it's page is here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

It seems like the best thing for Wikipedia would be for more editors to enter comments at the AfD, so that whatever is decided, it is done with wide participation, so it can be better seen as a community consensus.

Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On how many boards have you posted a notice about this? I seem to recall seeing about a half dozen a few days ago... Pairadox (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....seems a little contradictory, if you ask me:

This is a neutral request for comments at the Afd for Adult-child sex

My intention is not canvassing. I'm not the nominator of the AfD and I'm not posting this to find others to agree with my position in the debate. More editors will be better for the results, whichever way it goes.

I'm tempted to clain DUCK on this one!  :)

That friendly alien from the Vorlon Home World, previously known as Kosh —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CltFn/Winn doom

I would appreciate some admin eyes on a disputed CSD case. It pertains to this page: User:CltFn/Winn doom, which is a recreation of an article deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom. I placed {{db-repost}}, but that has been disputed. Does G4 apply? Regards. ITAQALLAH 12:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I agree with User:Matt57 here, G4 is not applicable to content that has been userfied, as long as it is the user's intent to improve the article. You might want to ask User:CltFn if he still intends to work on it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is probably not, he has just been indef-blocked following a discussion on AN/I. ITAQALLAH 12:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ow... gonna delete then :D (don't hesitate to undelete if the user is unblocked) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardeep sockpuppets?

Resolved

Not sure if this is right place to report this but I am suspecting that User:Bardeep3 may be a sockpuppet of User:Bardeep an indef-blocked user, based on the name. Currently User:Bardeep3 has vandalized various administrator's user pages in addition he seems to be being disruptive on his talk page (see [2] (warning 800K). Thanks VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, user already blocked. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 172.137.237.65 to add information of a fake move Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear, thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Change name

Resolved

 – pointed out proper venue --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to change name to Rickcar witch is the same name I use at my Swedish account. V*M*D 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They can take care of you over at WP:RENAME. This requires a bureaucrat, so no admin attention is needed. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing some Rfds 2 weeks old

Can someone close some more debates in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 8? They started two weeks ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I got a few of them. The problem with most is the exact same issue: everyone says delete, but one editor says that the page documents a page move. нмŵוτнτ 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. As Rossami said: "as long as the target page is kept, the redirect should be kept to document the pagemove" - I agree. So why did you close as delete? Would have been better to nominate the target article (Earl Merkel) at AfD. All the redirects would then have been hoovered up by that redirect cleanup bot. Carcharoth (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where else to bring this up...

Resolved

At Adolf Hitler, we seem to be having a problem, first noticed by an anon this morning here. When logged in, the article appears normally as this, however, when not logged in, it appears as the previous, vandalized version. What can be done to fix this problem, and where is the best place to seek assistance? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really weird. Jackaranga (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried a WP:PURGE, tell me if it's fixed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried reverting to an earlier revision, and now even when I'm logged out it is OK, even though my edit didn't show up in the history ! Very strange. Jackaranga (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh it must have been the above, that fixed it ^^. Jackaranga (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Everything seems to be working fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True Witness (talk · contribs)

Something strange going on here. I suspect a sockpuppet. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for harassment (see hidden comment posted on a talk page by the user), and as a suspected sockpuppet account (perhaps of Its Pytch.. Hon based on user page layout). If my reasoning is not sufficient, a checkuser request can be made. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing pagemove!

Resolved

Someone just moved {{US-army-bio-stub}} to Aubrey S. Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which leaves a number of articles transcluding the above article. Could someone with pagemove privileges sort this out?--69.118.143.107 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... Woody (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Future requests can go to Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen if not urgent. Thanks. Woody (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD

Resolved

There seems to be a large snowdrift building up at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 21#Polish counties templates of WP:CSD#G6 candidates, which could be uncontroversially resolved by any idle admin. Happy‑melon 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider me an idle admin. (Actually, I should be working, but I'm not really motivated this afternoon.) I closed the discussion and deleted the templates. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars

Nominations are open for the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Need some AfD opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)

I wish to gather some third opinions on how this AfD's should be closed. The deletion policy did not state anything about deletion of articles for content disputes nor NPOV issues as far as I am concerned, so I'm tempted to close this AfD as invalid or no consensus. However, there is a clear consensus towards the deletion of the article, despite the fact that it goes against the policy. Personally I think that this AfD should be closed as "no consensus" because the deletion policy did not state anything about deletions of articles from POV issues, and it states clearly that If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. I would appreciate if any third-party would like to comment on the AfD itself. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Those wishing to delete the article seem to be arguing that it's a POV fork of Franco-Mongol alliance. POV forking or other content forking to get around consensus seems like a valid reason to delete an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should avoid closing this because you have come here for advice, and this creates an appearance that you lack confidence in the decision, and that you are subject to outside influence, when you really should stick to what's in the discussion. Let another administrator take care of this. Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Axandramile

Resolved

Could somebody remove the {{helpme}} template from this page, it's protected and the help-me keeps popping up on IRC. The unblock template is already in place there, helpme is not needed. Thanks! --omtay38 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done already, nvmd. :-P --omtay38 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We've lost a good one

Resolved

 – User left wikipedia, usertalk resoted

Just a post to say that Rudget deleted his own userpage and usertalkpage today. We've lost a really good , no, extremely talented, editor and new admin and I'm very sorry to see him go. No need to go into the why's and why not's, I not trying to open this up again because it's already been discussed. Just a sad day for Wikipedia that's all. Keeper | 76 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A sad day. Just curious- I know we have a right to vanish, but are admins allowed to delete their own user and talk pages? Bstone (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we losing so many admins? Whenever I get tired of dealing with stuff, I just take a step away, but always come back... hrm. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At the rate admins are added, we're going to have drop-off as well. It's a natural product of the expansion. Many admins who vanish, reappear later as themselves, or under a new name.Wjhonson (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

People should not generally delete user talk pages, no. But it's not the worst thing that could happen, either. As long as it gets restored whenever he comes back, no real harm done. Friday (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just del, but also prot, no history. The google cache is still present however.Wjhonson (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages are deleted when people invoke the right to vanish. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And if the user does that him/her self, doesn't that mean we assume they want to vanish, as Rudget has clearly stated prior to deleting his own pages? Sorry Rudget, I honestly didn't mean to draw this much attention to you. I really hope you come back. Keeper | 76 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it normal to protect the pages as well? Wjhonson (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was protected prior to the deletion--Hu12 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it decided when RickK deleted his Talk page, that it's okay to delete User pages, but not Talk pages? Corvus cornix_talk 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins's talk page usually contain discussion relevant to other editors, and to articles. They should not ordinarily be deleted. Blanked, maybe, but not deleted. DGG (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but at the same time i feel we should respect Rudgets privacy, and request to vanish. Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to undelete and blank. Corvus cornix_talk 05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rudget was a great editor (and person), so I trust in his reasoning for leaving. Not sure about the blanking though. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget seems to be back and making very few edits [3], as such i think that his usertalk page needs to be restored. Tiptoety ^talk 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would call that "tying up loose ends". - Revolving Bugbear 19:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just the same, i think it would be best to resotre and blank. Tiptoety ^talk 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like Rudget restored it, blanked it and redirected it to his userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored it, it says retired on it now. I agree that even though he is making very few edits, he is making edits. His talk page should be there with a "Retired" message to avert people's eyes and type-fingers instead of the mysterious looking redlink. Keeper | 76 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>And now this edit from Rudget. Cheers to you my friend, best of luck and all that. Still hope you come back (as Rudget or not - there's a good person behind that pseudonym...) Keeper | 76 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Farwell my friend. *And with that the curtian drops* and i mark this thread with {{resolved}}. Tiptoety ^talk 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Libel alert -- change to Main Page (In the News) needed immediately

Resolved

The Jerome Kervial entry on "In the News" is written in a way that could expose Wikipedia to libel danger.

I have brought this up at Talk:Main Page, but I believe the matter is urgent enough to require immediate administrator intervention.

I have posted an short explanation of the issue and suggested replacement wording on Talk:Main Page under "Errors in In the News." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been reworded by Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Arbcom with fairly broad implications

Hi folks, this case has issues within it on editor behaviour which go past the original brief and may affect other areas of wikipedia. I have thrown up a suggestion here in the workshop which would have broader implications and I encourage people to read (if you can't get the context have a browse through the rest of it if you have time). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, take a look. The basic question is "How much fancruft should Wikipedia have?" The big problem used to be band articles, but standards seem to have been established there. The issue with bands was "are they notable?" The issue with TV is "how much detail is too much?", which is a tough concept to define, although WP:FICT tries. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNO closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher

It would be a WP:COI if I performed the WP:SNOW at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher, but it is getting might blustery.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the discussion should go for a little while longer. It might actually spur some discussion about the notability of athletes' biographies. If the nominator changes his mind later, or if there's a slew of "keep" votes after another day and no "delete" votes, then the snowball clause would be appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rogue Penguin

The Rogue Penguin is refusing to allow an addition to the article Shinigami (Death Note) . The addition deals with the thought that the mysterious Shinigami that appears in the Death Note director's cut special could be Light Yagami. The modification I have been attempting to make is one stating that there is speculation that the Shinigami may be Light Yagami. This does not imply that the Shinigami IS Light, it merely states that there are those who think it that he is, or may, be Light.

The statement that there are those who think the Shinigami to be Light is a FACT. There are many arguments over whether or not he may be, but the arguments ARE existent and should not be ignored. This can be seen in the past modifications of the article and in a few outside sources as well:

[4]

[5]

[6]

The Rogue Penguin has decided to ignore this fact stating: "it would be unsourced speculation"

Speculation is a theory that is not (or very lightly) supported by evidence. Siting speculation with a 'credible source' would be almost impossible as the entire idea of speculation is that it is not credible.

The fact is, many people THINK that the Shinigami is (or may) be Light. The fact that it is a thought that is shared by a generally wide community would be reason enough to include it in the article while making sure to state that it is only speculation so as to let the reader know that there are people who believe it to be true, and it adds another way of looking at the ending scene which generates healthy discussion (as can be seen in the outside links above).

To ignore an idea out of arrogance is foolish.

Bokugakira (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he is following policy, WP:V in particular. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd specify to undue weight. I don't find it relevant what three or thirty bloggers, posters, or videographers think unless they happen to be "people you should listen to", for example experts in that area. Random opinions don't add to the content imho.Wjhonson (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a mention of the quote (using the source [7] ) be acceptable if it carried no opinion? Then it would just be additional information, no speculation involved.

Bokugakira (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear plausible that TV.com is a reliable source for a synopsis of an episode. I am not myself familiar with that site. The main question to ask is, are these synopsis writen by the staff at tv.com, or are they submitted by any member of the general public. The fact that a page happens to allow additional forum comments isn't relevant, imho, to what other content the page may contain. Many reliable source bloggers allow comments and yet they are experts in their fields and may be cited as such. If you and the other editors have further comments, it would be judicious to take them to either the Talk page at verifiability or the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks, and have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TV.com show info is almost entirely user-submitted. It's not a reliable source. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism of 99.237.253.131 (aka HinduMuslim)

I think the article of Islam in India should be block because Contributions/99.237.253.131 (or aka HinduMuslim and Vikash83) has always attacked my in my Talk Page because I've only added sources of Indian Gov., CIA, U.S. Department of States, etc...all were showed the common estimates of Muslim population in India as 148 million or 13.4% (please look at its history [8] and here is his attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Islam_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#India_holding_2nd_Largest_Muslim_population_in_World

And he is staring to vandalize some Chinese or Buddhist related article such as Religion in China, List of religious populations,History of Islam in China, Islam in China.

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as noted at User talk:99.237.253.131, but will not block the other users immediately, without more evidence. Anyone? Bearian (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult request for unblock

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim_Burton#Appeal

This user requests unblock. It would be difficult for one admin to handle this request without carrying a heavy burden. If unblocked, there will be debate. If block is kept, why is one admin's opinion sufficient as the request would be removed from the unblock request board and possibly not seen by anyone except those who watchlist this user (which may represent a biased statistical sample)? Therefore, I am seeking AN advice.

A possible outcome would be that there will be record of what the community thinks. This could act as an advisory to ArbCom. It could simplify things for ArbCom. As always, be kind and not bitey. Note that I have not researched the editor's edits. I don't favor pedophile advocacy as I understand it and certainly not pedophilia. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This needs to go through ArbCom, from what I recall, this was specifically stated to the user when they got blocked. I'm going to decline this per long standing precedent. 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs)

It strikes me from the unblock reason that Jim hasn't changed at all. Surely advocating the right of pedophiles to self-identify in such a vehement manner on a publicly watched page like Jimbo's, basically saying he wouldn't take no for an answer, as well as editing the main space in a very POV SPA way, explains the block. If he were to come back admitting it isn't okay to defend endlessly in wikipedia the right of pedophiles to self-identify (see WP:NOT) and that he wanted to edit non-pedophile articles I would strongly support lifting the ban (which is against disruptive editing, not t e editor himself) but Jim appears to want to be unblocked to pursue exactly the same path as before. There is an extremely heated debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Adult-child sex right now and unblocking Jim and then having him rushing off to participate in said debate would be extremely unhelpful to the heat in that debate, indeed I wonder if it is that debate that has inspired Jim to ask to be unblocked at this particular time. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, given the nature of the block, the user in question should appeal through ArbCom as directed. Personally, I am not getting in the middle of this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This thread can be closed or blanked now, the unblock request has been declined by Ryan Postlethwaite. Addhoc (talk) 17:03, 25 January 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.

• Thread closed as matter is resolved. Unblock denied. The rest of this debate can happen elsewhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with rangeblock

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

Resolved

 – mangojuice got it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. So I am a bit of a newish admin, and some of the more techincal aspects of autoblocks and rangeblocks still confuse me. This user: [9] appears to have been caught as collateral damage in a range block. I am inclined to believe they had nothing at all to do with the problems that caused the range block. Can a more experienced admin look into this and try to fix it? Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The block is on 91.108.192.0/18, and it's a {{checkuserblock}} which means no mortal admin should be undoing it without consulting the checkuser. The user is currently being advised to request an account, so there's little more to be done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate all of the feedback between you and Mangojuice (who has contacted the user and is arranging a username)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:48, 25 January 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.

Escalating blocks versus swift indefinite blocks

One of the things that I find troubling about the current culture of admins and blocking, is the propensity to indefinite block too swiftly. There are some cases where indefinite blocking is definitely required, but there are other cases involving contentious articles and groups of articles, or an editor who is disrupting content but can contribute something, rather than just behaving badly, where I think a different approach would work better. Have a look at this from one of the arbitration pages:

"Editors who are disruptive, including but not limited to edit warring, making uncivil remarks and personal attacks, and filing vexatious complaints, may be banned from the affected pages and/or placed on one revert-per-week limitation, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Editors who violate page bans or revert limitations may be blocked for up to one week per violation, with the maximum block increasing to one year after the fifth violation."

This may look like excessive bureaucracy, but I think it is a better system than trying to have community discussions on contentious bans. It would be simple to ask the uninvolved admins to record this in the logs, but my main point is that this is a far better way to handle things than the current "indefinite ban if enough admins don't have the patience to give you another chance". It doesn't have to be exactly like that proposal above, but is there any chance that those admins wanting to have indefinite blocking as the second or third option in their armoury would consider using escalating blocks instead? Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we probably jump to indef too quickly in many cases, but I don't think slowly escalating blocks are the answer. If someone gets warned and/or blocked for something, we assume good faith that they weren't familiar with our rules. They do it a second time and get blocked, we might still assume good faith, they do it again and I think most people would stop assuming good faith. On a collaborative project, users who constantly piss off other people are a major impediment to a decent work environment. If someone doesn't learn after a couple incidents that things like POV-pushing and incivility are wrong, I see no reason to delay the almost-inevitable and let good users suffer as a result. A topic ban might help some cases, but not always. A topic ban for an SPA is pretty much the same as a regular ban, except it needs people policing the user as we have no technical method to enforce a topic ban. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As bears repeating, indefinite does not mean infinite. If the User wants to come back, all they need to do is to explain on their Talk page or in an email to an admin, that they realize that their previous behavior is wrong, and vow to change their modus operandi. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that indefinite blocks invariably drive people away rather than promoting reform. People grow up, mature and change, and there is no reason why someone 2-3 years later should be forced to start a new account, or grovel to get their old account unblocked, because of previous indiscretions. Maybe the terminology needs to change? People (especially new users) do interpret indefinite as permanent (and a months-long block is not set in stone either - people can appeal for that to be shortened). Nice as the ideal is, simply saying "fill in this form saying what you did wrong and say you will be nice and we will unblock" is not a good way to get genuine reform happening, and it sets admins up as judges of past behaviour. The alternative of "I've unblocked you, be nice or you will be reblocked" is in some ways better, and shouldn't be denied because some people prefer the other method. Requiring people, on their first or second offence, to write a lengthy essay explaining how they are now a model Wikipedian, is unrealistic. Improvement and reform can only come with experience, and no-one gets that while they are blocked. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Slowly escalating blocks implies that the block is being used as a punishment. "This is the third time you broke the rules, your punishment is now a 1 month block". Blocks are NOT PUNISHMENT. While arbcom rulings or community sanctions carry the weight of punishments, and can be enforced by blocks, blocks in and of themselves should not be handled this way, IMHO. If the blocking admin believes that the user needs to be stopped immediately, but can be "talked down" from problematic edits and can be counseled, then anything more than a day or two is just vindictive punishment. If the blocking admin believes that the user shows no signs of ever becoming a productive user, and expects disruption to continue as soon as the block is lifted, then why not make it indefinite; we shouldn't lift a block when we truly believe doing so will cause a disruption. Short blocks get attention and stop ongoing disruption. Indefinite blocks prevent problematic users from continuing to edit. The middle range stuff makes no sense, unless it is something agreed upon as an ArbCom sanction or otherwise, it just makes no sense given the blocking policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So why do arbcom limit themselves to one year blocks and propose escalating blocks? The point is that there are cases where the user is (or appears to be) reformed and has productive edits in the past. There are banned users who do appear to have changed and matured, and the system is heavily weighted against them ever getting another chance. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because ArbCom does hand down punishments, and it is within their jurisdiction to decide the appropriate length of their punishment. Admins don't punish. We use the blocking tool to prevent vandalism and disruption. Either the user being blocked is expected to change or they are not; the mid-range blocks (like 2 weeks) take neither of those positions into account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure ArbCom are punishing and not preventing? No blocks should be punishing anyone. By your logic, someone banned for a year should be banned permanently or not at all. I think the real reason for ArbCom not applying indefinite blocks is because they recognise the potential for miscarriages of justice, and recognise that people can change (but now I'm just speculating). The point here is that excessive indefinite blocking will eventually disrupt the encyclopedia by causing the number of new contributors to dwindle - it is a question of getting the balance right. By the way, how does what you said apply to community bans and the "if no admin will unblock, a user is de facto considered community banned" (even in the absence of discussion) bit? Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I was issuing short blocks to "vandalism accounts" at first (you know, AGF), but all (or almost all) the accounts that came back after the block continued to vandalize. An other issue is that these accounts are then autoconfirmed and can start having fun with page move. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about vandalism accounts here, but do be aware of the need to distinguish experimentation and vandalism. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nvm I was away for a few days and I didn't understand the background story behind this thread until now. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins clearly know the difference between a new user fooling around with test edits and someone repeatedly adding "This guy is teh gay" to a biographical article. I fully trust my brother and sister admins to use blocks appropriately in each case, and to know the difference. Wikipedia does not suffer fools long, but we do have a lot of patience for newbies. If you have a specific concern about how a specific block was handled, perhaps it would be a good idea to include difs. Before the most recent post, it was hard to tell, as it seemed Carcharoth was asking for general opinions on blocks, and such opinions were being sought apropros of nothing. However, I reiterate that I inherently trust admins to make good judgements about user behavior, unless clearly they show themselves to be untrustworthy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You would be surprised how many people experiment by putting "This guy is teh gay" in an article. That's the problem, you see, some people assume that anyone making an edit like that is doing it to get a kick out of it, rather than chosing an inappropriate place and method of experimentation. You used the word "repeated" and that is a key qualifier. What we call vandalism can sometimes just be someone going "hey, is it really possible that anyone can edit this thing? Wow! Yes, I can. Oops, I just got blocked." Now most people recover from a start like that and can go on to be a good, productive editor, which is why we have warnings. A similar learning process is seen for more "advanced" concepts, such as civility and NPOV and so on. Ideally, all editors would be perfect Wikipedians from the start, but that's not the case. People learn as they edit, and the first block on an issue should be seen as a learning experience. You have to have a clear pattern of failing to learn the same lesson, not just "lots of blocks, no more patience needed, indefinite block". Does that begin to make more sense? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but once someone has been told "Please stop doing that" and then "We really mean it... stop doing that" and then "Really, you will be blocked if you do it again" and then they are really blocked for 24 hours, and then they come back from the block and make the same edit again, and are blocked for 24 hours again, and then come back and say "Fuck all admins I will do what I want." I inherently trust ALL admins to treat that case differently than someone who makes a joke or test edit a few times, and then says "sorry guys, I was just screwing around. I will be good in the future". And, when an admin says "lots of blocks, no more patience, indefinite block", why do we assume the admin is lazy and has not investigated further. I trust my fellow admins to make good judgement on these issues. Admins don't just look at the number of blocks, they look at the reasons for the blocks, the contribs history, and lots of other factors before asigning an indefinite block. If you have a specific case that needs review, that would help. Otherwise, I will reiterate: Admins know how and when to block indefinitly, and are doing so by and large in a reasonable manner. (edit conflict) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a month-long block in the hopeless cases (usually those who would have lost interest anyway if they had been reverted and ignored) will usually result in a dead account that the user doesn't return to. Same effect as an indefinite block. The users that really want to contribute tend to come back after the month is up, and some of those change and improve. Carcharoth (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, an indef blocked user can use the unblock template to explain their case. A good mea culpa gets unblocked most of the time. A determined vandal can wait out the month and be a pain in the ass again when it expires. As I said before, if the blocking admin feels in their heart that the user is not going to be a vandal anymore, anything more than a day or two is eggregious. If the admin believes the vandal has no interest in reforming, what is the point in letting them vandalise every two weeks or every month. If you really believe that they will vandalize as soon as the block expires, why let it expire? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Though there are cases where an admin does feel in their heart that someone could contribute, but other admins are just as adamant that the user should remain blocked indefinitely. Those are the difficult cases. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) As for examples, it would help if it was possible to list indefinite blocks separately from other blocks. That way we really could see if the proportion of indefinite blocks, as compared to other blocks, has increased or decreased over time. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. If we are to learn to be better admins, some data may be informative... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone will rustle up some stats? Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional point

I just noticed this point from Redvers:

"And admins are guilty here too, blocking on an AIV report without researching deeply - as I find often as I come back from checking edits, find "good faith but misjudged" all over them and an indef block applied. I used to complain (off-wiki, for the sake of non-drama), until I got a reply containing the words "Mind your own business". So now I don't bother at all. But I don't see how the 'pedia is being improved through all this, I really don't." [10] - User:Redvers (my emphasis)

I'm going to ask him to comment further here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi y'all! Yes, this was said in relation to the use of automated editing tools. Frequently - as in at least once every time I clear out AIV (two or three times a week?) - I find this pattern:

1. User:Newbie edits foo, adding "can I reeely edit here?"
2. User:TwinkleAlice reverts, and warns User:Newbie. No welcome message, and uw-vand, not uw-test used.
3. User:Newbie edits bar, changing something minor ("Mr" to "mister", say) but making the article a bit worse.
4. User:TwinkleBob reverts, and warns uw-vand2.
5. User:Newbie edits foobar, reordering a sentence and making some good, some bad changes.
6. User:TwinkleCharles reverts, and, perhaps seeing the two warnings, warns with BV
7. User:TwinkleCharles places a report on AIV
8. User:Admin blocks User:Newbie indef.

User:Newbie's total career on Wikipedia: under 10 minutes.

There are variants on this, including shortcircuiting at point 4, with TwinkleBob BV-ing, reporting to AIV and User:Admin indeffing all within seconds.

Some of this problem is due to newer admins having come up through the Wikipedia-as-a-roleplaying-game route and still playing the game. Some of this is because admins AGF of the person reporting the "vandal" - especially when AIV is backlogged, it's easier to assume that the reporter is right, double check the last edit and that there's a BV warning, not check the time and block indef.

Now, I don't argue with blocking indef - it should exist, it should be used, it is much more often used correctly than it is used incorrectly. My beef is with it being used for non-blatant vandalism - what we used to call "testing", and the incorrect identification of tests by editors using automated tools. That we as admins are facilitating these bad warnings by blocking on little or no evidence is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in itself. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Here are a couple reports I just checked out at WP:AIV:

68.2.156.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - apparently, this user's offenses include replacing "horn" with "French horn". Is that vandalism? No, that's just someone who's perhaps unfamiliar with Wikipedia terminology or the discussions that have been done regarding the accepted terminology of a horn (instrument). Content disputes are not vandalism.

Canccono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created an article named "If u know me good for ur face u butt head and BTW KILL (someone's name omitted)", vandalized Thyroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and other edits seem to indicate a vandal-only account. I was considering a block for being a vandal-only account, but he hadn't been properly warned, so AndonicO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) gave the correct warning.

I think Redvers is correct in that people often give quick warnings with Twinkle and make quick reports to WP:AIV without fully investigating the situation. Maybe some of these people are users who really want to become admins, so they hope to increase their chances by calling themselves "vandal fighters". I don't know what it would take to change this culture, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite disturbed by this as well; I've left notes on dozens of users' talk pages that they should check the times on the last warning, and the last vandalism before reporting, but only a few really follow the advice. Perhaps we need "MOAR", as Gurch puts it. · AndonicO ^Hail! 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

all of this is a reason why usually a informal statement saying "enough of this. stop now, or I can and will block you" seems to work well for many types of people playing with WP. I have never had a school-type guy continue after something like that, & I often actually get an apology. DGG (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting (related) point, from editors recently talking on AIV's talk page:

It's been a while since I reported a vandal, and was amazed to see the new info box which apparently indicates a new "soft" stance against vandalism. I now have to spell out exactly what the vandal did to get it taken care of? Things that were once considered vandalism no longer are? My God, COME ON! We editors fight this crap ongoingly, and the best defense we had was swift and decisive action by admins against vandalism. If this is no longer the case, I will have to think very carefully about if I want to continue helping to keep Wikipedia clean and accurate. IP editors who are basically untouchable continually vandalize these articles without any requirement to register. If I had my way, you would have to register to edit to begin with. If my take on this is true, you are going to begin losing a lot of diligent editors as time passes. Many of us already feel like we are at the breaking point.

A small chorus of agreement from other "vandalfighters" follows - "I totally agree with all of the above..." "Yes can common sense please prevail". Now this is Not A Good Thing - editors arguing they shouldn't have to "spell out exactly what the vandal did to get it taken care of". One goes as far to say "I myself am fighting to keep pages free of vandalism but i simply cant do it forever! And as soon as i leave [...] these pages are going to become full of vandalism/false information again".

So "vandal fighters" are threatening to leave unless we (admins) get the same hair-trigger as them. This suggest there are people here who only fight vandals and they're burning out. Would I be incivil if I suggested that these people try something else instead? I don't know what. Perhaps writing an encyclopedia? Is that too crazy? ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. I just added my name and noticed there is a backlog of requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for AWB, dating back to January 13. Thanks -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a backlog. Porcupine is the only user who was listed before yoyu got there, and The Placebo Effect is looking into it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Imahge speedy backlog

Can some admin please deal with the speedy images? There are over 40. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit speed

Resolved

 – no problems --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin look this over and see if this user is currently editing at a speed that may indicate the use of an unauthorized bot? It seems a little suspect to me, but I may be paranoid. I'd like an outside opinion from an experienced admin.

• Lord Uniscorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given that its a new user, and an apparent SPA; only interested in tagging comic book articles as unreferenced, this caught my attention, and given the speed, it looks suspicious. Or maybe I am crazy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No I believe you are correct, this account's rate is six edits per minute, that is a edit every ten seconds, its quite hard for a user to do so by hand, (search+adding template+repetitive summary=more than ten seconds) even if he is pasting the edit summaries he must be writting the templates by hand and unless he is working out of a category or list the search pattern is just too quick. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, there is one stretch (7:35 UTC) where he does 13 edits in one minute. That's less than 5 seconds per edit. So, what should be done? I am not sure how to handle this, a more experienced admin may want to cover this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a interesting aspect of his pattern and that is that those edits that appear to be made by hand are at a very slower rate, to a maximum of two per minute. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The way bot policy is implemented/enforced now, edit speed is a fairly minor consideration. A script with manual approval of each edit can reasonably get up to 12 edits per minute, and manual scripts, especially for small jobs, can run without approval. Only automatic bots strictly speaking *require* approval, but there is no way to differentiate an automatic bot from a manual script by contributions except if the operator doesn't stop or respond to queries, or the edit rate is far too high for any manual approval. The fundamental question is whether there are any technical or policy problems with the edits. Bot edits, even manual, must have consensus. Adding a small number of cleanup templates, while perhaps annoying, is probably not against policy. Doing this on a large scale could be disruption. Gimmetrow 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Define "Large scale". There are two streches that concern me, from 7:34-7:38 there are 24 edits, and earlier from 7:24-7:25 there are 16 edits. Also, the issue of the single-mindedness of these edits is sort of WP:POINTy as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 16 edits per minute is a too much even for a manual script, there must be a semi-automated script somewhere in there. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If a script pauses for a Yes or No for each edit, whether you call the script "manual" or "assisted" or "semi-automatic", it's not an automatic script. Are there any actual concerns with the edits? Gimmetrow 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One edit every ten seconds for a group of 41 articles? I can edit that fast with nothing more than a tabbed web browser, and have done on occasion, editing and repeatedly previewing all articles in their individual tabs, and then hitting save across all of them in quick succession once I'm finally done. It's not the rapid process that the speed of the saves at the very end leads one to think it to be. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's what I was doing. sorry to cause alarm. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I do this as well. Once way to avoid people questioning the speed of the edits is to add to the edit summaries a link to a user subpage explaining this. But that shouldn't be required. Simply asking the user should get an explanation. Having said that, controversial edits should be spread out. No need to overwhelm the system with those. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's why I asked for additional comment. Looks like there was nothing to be worried about. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 3RR warning by User:Appletrees

Appletrees (talk · contribs) has removed my {{3RR}} warning from User talk:75.7.8.176, accusing me of "deliberate factual errors" [11].

For the record, the warned user 75.7.8.176 (talk · contribs) reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours in Sea of Japan, and 3 times in the last 48 hours (+ 2 min.), as follows...

• 15:56, 21 January 2008 (75.7.8.176) — added "or East Sea"
• 03:23, 23 January 2008 (75.7.8.176) — added "(East Sea)"
• 15:58, 23 January 2008 (75.7.8.176) — added "(East Sea)", etc.

Appletrees is an involved party in the revert wars, as his following edit seems to show...

• 19:17, 18 January 2008 (Appletrees) — added "and is often refered to as East Sea", etc.

Please verify if my warning to the anon. user was warranted, and restore the warning if appropriate. I appoligize in advance if I was in error. Thank you very much.--Endroit (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Appletress has no right to remove warnings from other people's pages. If the IP address in question contests the warning you have given, let them do it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Appletrees informed of this topic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew it you would do this kind of thing without notifying me per your contribution history. Well, the warning is not warranted because you, Endroit falsely accused the anon who reverted 3 times within 48hours is not in danger of the 3rr violation. The policy clearly is effective in 24 hours not 48 hours. That is not a good-faith edit and your warning is regarded as an offensive insult for the anon. You're the main involved party on edit warring with the other party. You can't accuse anyone by your "own" standard.

Besides, you label some user, with sockpuppetry before making an official file. You're not an authority so please stop the disruptive behaviors. --Appletrees (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that he mentioned it, Appletrees also removed a {{sockpuppet}} tag [12] from Water Bear 87 (talk · contribs). I'd appreciate if the admins review that case as well. After that incident, I requested RFCU here.--Endroit (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the report below on your disruptive accusation before making an official file. You cann't accuse anyone without any report or evidence. You're the one playing the false rule. --Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, being the good Wikilawyer that he is, should also note that WP:3RR states clearly "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Also, it should be noted for Appletrees that Endroit did not initiate any block of the IP inquestion, he left a warning, which needs to be left so that the IP user in question has the opportunity to read it. Finally, the major problem is that it is not Appletree's right to remove comments made by one user to third user. If the user in question has a problem, they can raise their own objections. Appletrees should not be removing or altering discussions between two other people that do not concern him/her. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the 3RR waring is issued mainly for precaution in danger of violating impending 3RR. You, administrator of course, know well about the wiki rules than me. However, I've seen his parade of accusing somebody without proof but with his strong belief, so the warning sign doesn't seem to be appropriate and be from good faith. As far as I've known, Endroit is not a good wikilaywer because he take an important role in the center of nationalistic edit warrings between Japan and Korea. If he really wanted to warn him for possible edit conflicts, he could've talked to him in a civil way not with the warning. It is so funny, he accused me of sending "bogus sign" as removed the warning sign and my comment.

Rv bogus warning by an involved party in the revert wars[13]

If he is right on sending the 3RR warning to the editor, he might have not deleted my comment and warnings. Or he is also a main involved party, so his warning is not warranted or because he is the most notable edit warrior on the article. --Appletrees (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No one appears to have violated the 3RR rule here, and everyone appears to know about it, so you can cease arguing about whether or not a warning was useful or not. Since this article includes the word "Japan" in the title, I reckon this is some more asinine Korean/Japanese/Chinese nationalistic edit warring. Since there's clearly a dispute, I've protected the article until you all can decide whether or not it should be called the "Sea of Japan", "East Sea", "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sea", "Chinese Sea Near Korea", "International Sea with No Nationalistic Affiliation (Especially not Japanese)", or whatever you end up deciding. --Haemo (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing and false accusation by User:Endroit

I should've reported his disruptive POV earlier but I didn't. Because I believe that before making a report, trying to converse with editors on the other party is way better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sea of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Endroit's revert warring with the other party.

• 14:05, 4 January 2008 by Endroit
• 1st revert 11:38, 10 January 2008 by Endroit
• 2nd revert 12:02, 10 January 2008 by Endroit
• 3rd revert14:24, 10 January 2008 by Endroit

• 12:34, 16 January 2008 by Endroit
• 12:59, 17 January 2008 by Endroit

• 14:07, 18 January 2008 by Endroit
• 17:00, 19 January 2008 by Endroit

• 11:25, 23 January 2008 by Endroit

How many revert warring have you ever made since 2008? 5 cases!!! And you totally reverted 10 times as you have pushed your POV to the other party. I reverted one time in partial of your edit which is a compromised version. Besides, I suggested twice that we can make a new poll for the matter due to this Wikipedia:tendentious editing.

Endroit, you are the one to get the 3RR warning per this evidence. Besides, as I said before on your talk page, you're violating WP:OWN. You can't own the article and force to follow your "own" rule if there occurs a conflict of interest. You didn't even notify me to this wrong report.

User:DrinkNaval (edit | [[Talk:User:DrinkNaval|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Water Bear 87 (edit | [[Talk:User:Water Bear 87|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 13:21, 17 January 2008
• 13:22, 17 January 2008

Per your false accusation without any proof or official report to SSP and RFCU on two editors who disagree with your opinion is just disruptive. As I've watched your behaviors, this accusation is out of line. After my suggestion[14], you made a RFCU file.[15] But you even included me in your report without making differs but just from your belief. You should look yourself before making another mistake --Appletrees (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All my reverts this year in Sea of Japan were against SPA's and anon's, except the one against Appletrees. And ALL those reverts were against undiscussed edits. There were no rules broken.--Endroit (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is just what you or your party are thinking. You haven't suggested to the other party to engage in the discussion before I reverted your edit in partial one time. The naming convention was set two and half years ago, and is not set on stone. That's why many editors have reverted what they want. Along with them, you also continuously just reverted!!!. You can't own the article at all and accused somebody unless they violated distinctive disruptions or vandalism. Your accusation of sockepuppetry on the two editors is just disruptive. --Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently started a discussion at Talk:Sea of Japan#"often refered to as East Sea". All parties are welcome to comment there. Appletrees' party has repeatedly tried to insert the phrase "often refered to as East Sea", and that was the reason I initiated the discussion.--Endroit (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That was after my suggestion for a new poll at the edit summary, so I can say I'm the one who suggested the discussion. Didn't I answer you about your unilateral 'fixing' on your talk page and the article page? Your party is not showing either except you. --Appletrees (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. These tit-for-tat "reports" to WP:ANI are totally unproductive. There appears to be no need for admin intervention here, beyond the protection. --Haemo (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the this tit-for-tat reports but I feel annoyed at his describe as him as a victim. "We" will of course discuss the matter at the talk page.--Appletrees (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Appletrees was User:Appleby reincarnated. The pattern of editing and the articles edited are uncannily similar. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised at your rude defamation because you're the main one of the party. You have to apology to me due to your public defamation after User:Endroit]'s accusation on my possible sockpuppetry RFCU comes out. --Appletrees (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "the main one of the party" mean? Your comment makes no sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Anyone noticed that protecting a page has two expiries?? Is this an error??

I noticed it when I used the latest version, 1.44.0-wmf.5 (d64f667), as used here.

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the protection page and can only see one. You may want to check out WP:VPT. Nakon 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, on the SVN downloaded version, it showed two! --Solumeiras (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • What Nakon meant to say was that issues of a technical nature are not really the specialty of admins; since this seems to be a software-related issue, the appropriate place to ask this question would be at the Technical page at the Village Pump. Someone there will be able to understand what is going on, and may be able to answer your question, and possibly fix the problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Or you don't want to confuse Wikipedia with the software it uses. I suggest you head over to The mediawiki website and ask question about the software there. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

bogus nom

I think young Agentperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is playing games here - and see his edit history. He's had a few warnings about other vandalisms - might be time for something stronger. And while we're at it, isn't "USERNAME" a problematic username? Tvoz |talk 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was, he played the game in SEPTEMBER 2006!!! Look at the dates. The recent heath ledger vandalism is bothersome, but the test RFA page is so old it's collecting dust. I will delete it presently. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I didn't look at the dates. Sorry.... but at least it's one less page. Tvoz |talk 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another bad RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Burner0718. Tiptoety ^talk 22:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that is a joke, I think it is a new user who is does not understand the ways of Wikipedia. Rgoodermote  00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, i never said it was a joke, but i don't think it is doing any good sitting as a archive. Tiptoety ^talk 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wonder. See this one by the same Pookeo9 who started Burner0718, now starting one for himself. At the least, some counseling might be in order. Tvoz |talk 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Maybe all he needs is a little directing and guidance. Tiptoety ^talk 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, anyways I will leave a note on the user's talk page. As I am not an administrator I can not do anything about those noms...but I would suggest keeping them as an example of What Not To Do. Rgoodermote  00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Database glitch, vandalism, or am I going mad?

Pardon me if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I'm seeing the weirdest thing on Robert Jarvik: at the end of the article, the complete text from another article on Terrell Croft is somehow being appended. But I can't find anything in the code that's making it happen -- it's as if it came out of thin air. Even weirder, if I look at the current revision [16] directly, via the history page, it's fine.

I also tried making a minor edit to the Terrell Croft page to see if the link between the two was dynamic; it isn't -- the content appended to the Robert Jarvik article stayed the same.

Is this a database glitch, some sort of really weird vandalism, or am I just being dumb about something? Goldenband (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there was a problem with {{US-engineer-stub}} that appears to have been fixed. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It needed a WP:PURGE. Gimmetrow 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info and help! Goldenband (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing or removing another editor's comments from a talk page

I asked for a third opinion regarding an incident at Talk:Politicization of science where my attempts at civil discussion were classified as WP:SOAP by User:Hrafn and removed [17][18][19][20][21] from the talk page. A third opinion was rendered by User:Vassyana who suggested that the matter of the deleted text be brought before a sysop and that the disagreement about the article's title and content be brought before WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFC. I have lost any desire to edit this article based on the treatment I received from User:Hrafn and User:Athene cunicularia, but I would still like to see an admin weigh in on the issue of the deleted text. Please note that User:Hrafn added the {{notaforum}} after I objected to the removal of the comments. MoodyGroove (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Even if one's comments may be most appropriate for a forum, it's (in my opinion) absolutely improper and incorrect to remove another's comments from an article's talk page. If you believe one is using an article's talk page as a forum then kindly bring it up on the user's talk page. Removing the comments from the article's talk page is wrong. Bstone (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is real incivility or libelous material, or over the top stuff, user comments on talk page should be left, IMHO. A REAL quick scan of the edits don't look that bad/harmful ect so I would leave, but I didn't dig too deep. This is also after I have had to remove a bunch of stuff from some talk pages so I guess..."It depends" Anyways, --Tom 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, unless restricted by an arb ruling, may participate in the article talk page. Removing comments of others, or changing them is disruption. I gave a final warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I direct Rlevse's attention to WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." I also direct Rlevse's attention to template:notaforum: "This is not a forum for general discussion of [article topic]. Any such messages will be deleted." I would suggest that Rlevse's "final warning" is in error. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What Hrafn says is correct. Our talk pages are not forums for off-topic jabber. Talk pages for Politicization of science and other articles like it (which tend to attract much disinformation, and about which people may hold strange, unreal ideas) tend to attract lots of off-topic discussion. It's not the job of the people keeping up these articles to debunk every crackpot that comes along; if they want to delete what's not related to the article at hand, they are most certainly allowed to do so. Raul654 (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I commented there. See that talk page. Raul, the danger therein re what you're saying is who defines what is off topic and is it really off topic. Unless the issue is getting out of hand, I feel it's better to just leave it there, otherwise you'd likely start another unneeded dispute. The template Hrafn points to is for "large amounts of" discusion. Here, we're talking about one short edit. As for W:TALK, very few edits will qualify for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the same problem we have with everything on this project, and the answer is WP:CONSENSUS. It's usually clear when a lone crackpot is relentlessly on a soapbox, and we should feel free to remove such comments. If other users think the topic is legitimately important to the article, they should certainly feel free to restore the material. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find it useful to put such comments under a {{hat}} with the caption "Off-topic discussion about [whatever issue]." Contentious editors are more likely to accept archiving than outright removal, and it spurs the talk page away from feeding the trolls. Cool Hand Luke 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to do that in threads involving several editors going off-topic. When the thread involves only one editor I prefer to 'userfy' the thread to the user in question's talkpage, which is fairly standard practice on such pages, and is what I did on this occasion. I only delete outright obvious nonsense and blatant trolling. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for some sysops to review the deleted material and User:Hrafn's demeanor on the talk page to determine if this was a simple case of a well-meaning editor removing the outright nonsense of a troll? MoodyGroove (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Read more carefully: I "'userf[ied]' the thread to the user in question's talkpage", I did not "delete outright". Therefore I was not inferring that your comments were "the outright nonsense of a troll" (merely that it was an impermissible "general conversation" on the topic of 'the politicisation of science'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like an essay directed more toward society than the article. We're not a forum for such things. Try to make comments that directly relate to problems you perceive in the article. Talk pages are solely for the improvement of articles, not society. My own preference would have been to place it under a hat, but userfication is also valid here, I think. Cool Hand Luke 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts

Other administrators may be interested in the discussion on my talk page at User talk:Bduke#Regarding deleting of American Journal Experts. It appears that User:Blue1, an employee or manager of American Journal Experts, wants to track down whether the user who wrote the article, now deleted, is an ex-employee of theirs. I have no intention of having any further correspondence with him. --Bduke (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've suggested they contact the Foundation. Individual admins should never consider disclosing information like this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Journal Experts. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated tagging of Shared IP Addresses

Betacommand has requested that I post for community discussion about a bot that I just proposed, called IPTaggerBot. If you are interested in commenting on the subject, please review the bot approval request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/IPTaggerBot as well as the bot's userpage at User:IPTaggerBot. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely this should also be somewhere like the village pump if you want broader community input? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so; I will post it there as well. Thank you for the input. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know there was at some point a bot which would tag IP talk pages it recognized as being attached to schools; seemed quite helpful, and worked off WHOIS information in such a way that I don't recall ever seeing a false positive. Not sure who ran it or much about how, unfortunately. Would this be checking each time an IP edits, each time an IP gets a talk page message, each time a new IP talk page is created, each time an IP is blocked, run in batches, or some such? Major concern is probably accuracy, but provided that can be resolved pretty well, this seems like a generally good idea to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Page histories after a split

I was wondering if there was any way to restore the page histories to The AFL Footy Show and The NRL Footy Show after they were - probably rightly - split from The Footy Show. It may not be obvious to new users to look to the disambiguation page history to find the development of the (now) two articles. Guest9999 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible (but sometimes very difficult) to split a page history; there's no easy way to duplicate history, however. It's probably significantly easier to post a link on each article's talk page, linking back to the original page history -- this should be required for GFDL compliance, in any case. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I've linked both talk pages to the history. Guest9999 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Petition and emails

A user created a petition here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Hi.21_dear_Wikipedia_Management.21.21.21.21 with many emails listed. Ignoring the petition issue, are there any privacy/spam concerns to so many emails being listed on a high-traffic site? MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've mangled the emails slightly (to hopefully reduce spam concerns) and slipped them into a navframe (to hopefully avoid cluttering the visible page). Feel free to tinker beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the whole post, it's unverifiable anyway so means nothing, plus with privacy concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request User blocking form using Twinkle

Please see here; [[22]]. My comment, here; [23]

The Wikipedia needs to ask itself whether this is rally the sort of behaviour it wishes to condone and whether it is conducive to encouraging collaboration. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of this user misusing TWINKLE in order that we may investigate. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Old MFD

We have an item relating to Current Events subportals on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that was started on January 13, almost two weeks ago. Anyone want to close it? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bishonen's two accounts.

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

Because of the situation above, I took a look at User:Gurch's contrib history and I found another similar case:

• Special:Contributions/Bishonen: Main account.
• Special:Contributions/Bishzilla: Cave-woman account, also used as a rollbacker.

It was proposed last December that the alternate account be deleted, when Bishonen apparently reacted similarly the way that Gurch just did. However, she was allowed to keep her extra account because of favoritism. (See here) As an outsider to the situation, I have to say that doesn't seem appropriate and I'd like you to review this decision, since she doesn't appear to be using it for any valid reason other than "dinospeak." This seems like trolling, since it often involves making rude remarks, like this. [24] Then, after attacking someone for being unable to count, she goes back to editing under her normal account. This is allowed, why...?

I don't know what others said or did to her in the past, and it seems totally irrelevant to the actual policy. If users are sometimes allowed exceptions to Wikipedia:User account policy#Using multiple accounts, then it should be noted on that page. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, aren't there better things we could be getting on with? I'm not sure Bishonen ever went on a pointy rampage like Gurch did before leaving. The Bishzilla account has been around for ages without bothering anybody. Moreover, Bishonen was one of our most productive editors and we should be trying to coax her back not nailing up the door to make sure she never returns. --Folantin (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Zenwhat. IMHO, Bishzilla and Gurchzilla don't violate any policy, are completely transparent, aren't hurting anything, are rare examples of people not taking things too seriously, are accounts of well established editors that have done a lot for Wikipedia in the past, and the consensus seems to be that these completely harmless alt accounts are not worth wasting time and bandwidth worrying about. I think they probably met the letter, and definitely meet the spirit, of the policy you linked. Nobody is hiding anything, nobody is gaming anything, what benefit would there be to try to force them to drop the zilla's? Plus, if they ever got really mad and teamed up, they could destroy Tokyo, and no one wants that. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, this request says much more about you than it does about Bishonen. Thatcher 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's not a good thing. El_C 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point I should note that this discussion has stemmed from this ongoing discussion started by an IP at WP:VPP. D.M.N. (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as Bishonen is kept as the serious account and Bishzilla the silly account, I'm fine with it. As long as only one of the accounts is used in a dispute, there's nothing wrong with it. Will ^(talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing going on here but stirring of the proverbial pot. east.718 at 20:59, January 27, 2008

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.

User:Silly rabbit

User:Silly rabbit is presently behaving as a disruptive editor at Human rights and the United States. After lengthy dialogue, Silly rabbit has decided that my pov is not "normal" and that we may be approaching a permenent lack of consensus. What is meant is that Silly rabbit is no longer willing to discuss the article or work for consensus. Silly rabbit agreed to mediation, but has since been unwilling to participate. I percieve the reluctance to be pov-based. Silly rabbit (on my discussion page) today suggested that I outline my concerns here

Today Silly rabbit reverted a Capital Punishment block of text that had been challenged as violating WP:OR WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. The central contentious issue is if there are reliable sources that support allegations of human rights denial within the US. Editors insist that human rights are universal (which is true philosophically if not legally) and for this reason no sources are necessary. There likely is consensus as claimed (except for me) that reliable sources are not required because human rights are universal. They incorrectly state that I insist on limiting sources to US court decisions. While these would be excellent sources that I have encouraged, I would accept any reliable source. One that stated that universal human rights apply to the US would work. Anyway, enough about the content issues.

I have tried to make diffs, but cannot find any "radio buttons". The revert page history and the talk on Capital Punishment, and Silly rabbit's discussion page (including material deleted today) are relevant.

I claim that Silly rabbit has repeatedly violated policy, is engaged in disruptive behavior, and should be banned from that article for one day. Silly rabbit is an excellent editor that apparently does not believe that material challenged as OR can only be restored if a reliable source is provided. Hopefully some minimal administrative signal will persuade Silly rabbit to resume productive editing for this article. Raggz (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is at least the third time this month that Raggz has made a spurious complaint here. He falsely claimed that Luke0101 was editing without communicating,[25] then he told a bunch of outright lies about me.[26]

Raggz is a shameless liar and I'm astounded that he's still allowed to edit here. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR is that-a-way. Please lleave the rethoric behind when you leave. Viridae^Talk 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, User:Silly rabbit is not disruptive and User:Sideshow Bob Roberts is correct in labeling Raggz's complaints as spurious. —Viriditas | Talk 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit and I have engaged in a productive dialogue (on my discussion page) that leads me to believe that we will soon commit to the WP:DR dispute process. I have a lot of respect for Silly rabbit and would not have been here if we were engaged in the WP:DR. Although Silly rabbit has yet to agree to use this process, I now believe that any further time and energy on the part of Administrators might be best conserved for other issues. There is a lot of frustration involved, I am likely responsible for some of this. We seem to be past the point where these frustrations are impeding progress for dispute resolution. Thank you for what has already been invested for reviewing our issues. Raggz (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is for deletion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)

I've explained our dispute resolution processes at length to Trialsanderrors (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) three times, now, once in the discussion closure, and twice on my talk page. They were also outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25, by an editor that grasped them correctly and that not only wasn't even an administrator but that wasn't even an editor with an account. Full marks go to 81.104.39.63 (talk · contribs). Somone else please explain Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the differences between protection and deletion, The Wrong Version, and taking editing disputes to article talk pages, and how protection is involved in that, to Trialsanderrors, and re-close the wholly inappropriate AFD discussion once more. I'm obviously not getting through on my own. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you provide more background. I'd like to help out, but the AFD noted above, while his editorializing on said page seems a bit annoying, I don't see anything further. Could you provide additional difs, since this seems like a problem with some history. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See the discussion at User talk:Uncle G#Bulbasaur closure. I'd appreciate the input of other administrators. I'm now up to five explanations of what our editing dispute resolution processes are. Ironically, I'm actually exemplifying the dispute resolution step of requesting outside editors to review and give input to a talk page discussion, the very processes for which I'm trying to point out, right here. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like there was wheel warring on multiple sides on this. IMO, Trialsanderrors should not have edited any closure for a discussion which they started. It would have been better to contact the closing admin. The problem stems from a DRV closure that Trialsanderrors closed as "Content discussion moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)". So this issue is a bit complicated, in that Uncle G's speedy closure of the AFD is going against Trialsanderrors' admin action of DRV closure (and Trialsanderrors' revert of the closure went against Uncle G's admin action of closing the AFD). There is no reason for either party to have reverted as many times as they did. However, it seems like the matter is settled for now. The discussion is closed, and it seems like Trialsanderrors is content with the state of things. On the originating issue put before DRV, I would comment that DRV does not seem to be the forum to handle something that wasn't ever party to a deletion discussion or accompanying admin action (and therefore, an AFD should not have been started to solve a content dispute for an article that wasn't being considered for deletion). Just my take on the matter. It looks like things are settled so I'm not sure there needs to be any further action on anyone's part.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I reverted exactly once, and then came here to ask for third opinions. The other reversions were not mine. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• There was no wheel warring, although that term is ambiguous and annoying, but I'd agree with Uncle G that the nomination should have been closed (claims of procedural nominations notwithstanding) and that reverting his closure multiple times was absolutely the wrong step to take. ^Avruchtalk 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You might find that I did not ask Uncle G to reopen the discussion, solely to correct the closing statement. As I pointed out elsewhere, I routinely move discussions popping up on WP:DRV to the related deletion forums if no accusation of admin wrongdoing is involved, even if the possibility of deletion is remote. The point of the exercise is to establish a clear outcome that can be referred to in the future. The accusations in Uncle G's closing statement were therefore completely off the mark. I have no editorial interest in the article and therefore can't be "Forum Shopping", which requires that I look for a forum that creates an outcome that is favorable to me. I would have been perfectly happy with a snowball keep under the current situation, but Uncle G decided to fly off the handle instead. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were forum shopping. I think you nominated an article for deletion as part of your closing of the DRV, which was an error if an actual deletion was not being contemplated (aside from delete and redirect, which is license issues). The next error was reverting the closure in an attempt to either (a) reopen the discussion or (b) change the closing rationale to something that didn't criticize you. This is for two clear reasons: (1) You were the nominator, and not an uninvolved admin and (2) reversion of a non-NPA criticism of you in a closing rationale is ill-considered. Only your last edit left Uncle G's closing rationale, struck it out and replaced it with yours. The other reversions were reversions - i.e. reopening the AfD. ^Avruchtalk 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to continue to revert spurious closures when I nominate articles at AfD as a closer of DRV discussion, because I act as an admin, on behalf of the community, and not as an editor, because of an editorial opinion I hold, after I asked to closer to do it him/herself. Again, if there are question whether I'm qualified to close DRV discussions WP:RFC is the right forum, but as long as my overall competence is not in dispute, I will continue to enforce relisting decisions made at DRV, including my own. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

blpdispute tag being added to Amy L. Lansky

The anon editor User:200.104.203.106 has been repeatedly adding the {{blpdispute}} tag to this article. This is not a 3RR issue as the reverts did not all occur in a 24-hour period. However, the anon editor has added the tag repeatedly despite being warned by User:Dicklyon that this is not appropriate unless the editor states on the talk page what the dispute is about. The anon editor has not clearly stated what they think the unsourced biographical claims in the article are, but rather, has made personal attacks on the Amy L. Lansky talk page, and has acknowledged their own lack of NPOV in the same discussion. The last revision occurred after the anon user received a clear warning on their talk page. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned them one last time. They appear to at least be using the talk page. However, the continued use of the tag, given the disagreement with it, would be disruptive. If ANY tags get added to this article again, someone will block them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did state the reasons on the talk page, and I apologize if my last comment was taken as a personal attack, but you'll have to agree that this article has issues. You may say it's just my opinion, but this article reads like blatant spam to me. We all know that homeopathy is controversial; and as with many other disciplines considered to be pseudoscientific, almost anyone can claim to be an expert on the field and get a reputation as such, so this is not just my opinion. Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but considering the lack of scientific evidence supporting homeopathy, how do we know this person is not a quack, or self-deluded? I really don't think this article meets the notability criteria. If you say the tag is inappropriate then, what is the procedure to follow in this situation? 200.104.203.106 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, and I quote, "Homeopathy sucks!!!". Now you wish to be taken seriously? Bstone (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First recognize that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if she's a quack or self-deluded, so long as we only republish what has been written in reliable sources, and add none of our own analysis. As for the tagging, firstly you shouldn't add tags that don't apply (the tag you've been adding is for articles that contain unsourced defamations of living persons). Secondly, you shouldn't be repeating an edit when multiple users have disagreed with you. The process to follow when someone reverts you is to list your grievances on the article's talk page, and file a request for comment if you fail to achieve a consensus. If you feel the article should be deleted, you create an account and open an articles for deletion discussion (or kindly ask a registered user to do this for you). If that's the case, you should provide a reasonable explanation as to how she fails the biographical notability guideline. Appearing to be promotional, or appearing to be written in a non-neutral point of view is not in and of itself a reason to delete an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Create Account

Hi, I'm not sure to be on the correct site? But I'm de:Benutzer:Widescreen on german Wikipedia. I tryed to create an account at en:wiki with the same name. User:Widescreen seems to be not reserved on any other user. But I can't create an account with that user name. On one try an advice appeared to contact an admin. Can you help me to crate an account with my uncreative username? Thx LOBSTERbrain ^® 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The username you want has been registered, it merely hasn't made any edits. The official way to make this request is through Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try. LOBSTERbrain ^® 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking unblocked Tor (anonymity network) nodes

Hey, everyone. For a bit now, I've been creating and monitoring User:SQL/Unblocked TOR, using my bot, User:SQLBot. I believe, that I've got a stable list, of valid Tor (anonymity network) nodes, that allow exit to en.wikipedia.org. No other exits, not the secure server, nothing else. It's been suggested, that my list is inaccurate, as someone else list shows a few more TOR nodes. I seriously believe, that this is because I double-check nodes, and, try to err on the side of not listing it, if there is any doubt at all.

WP:BLOCK presently states Open or anonymous proxies are prohibited from editing by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may be blocked on sight., so, it seems that policy supports this. However, Tor (anonymity network) has it's good uses, such as for chineese users.

I'm presently, contemplating on a one-time run, blocking all valid TOR exits, that allow access to en.wikipedia.org, leaning towards setting the following flags: Anon only, Account Creation Blocked. The block would be for a period of 48 hours, as a test, and, tagging those exits with {{tor}}. This would leave open the secure server, for the duration of this test, and allow for logged-in editing. This would be in order to enforce our policy on open and anonymizing proxies, which is in place, to prevent vandalism, and disruption, particularly by banned users.

Now, I want to make it crystal clear, that I absolutely do not intend on doing this, without a clear consensus here, to do so. Also, if I do, I have absolutely no intention on continuing it in the future, without an equally clear consensus to do so. I run a TOR node, myself, however, I disallow wikipedia exits.

I'd like to see what other admins, and editors think, about doing this. Especially, hardblock v softblock. SQL^{Query me!} 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Open or anonymous proxies are prohibited from editing by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may be blocked on sight. Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked for any length of time to deal with abuse. This has bugger all to do with the Foundation – Gurch 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One objection I have is after this is done will there any way to anonymously create an account and edit and if so has this process been detailed anywhere? This may be a stupid idea but I don't have any trust in the checkuser process nor the foundation's ability to protect user information against large organizations or corrupt governments. BJ^Talk 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's always unblock-en-l, I see a lot of account creation traffic there, already. SQL^{Query me!} 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that there is neither a prohibition on Tor nodes editing, nor a policy against it, nor any overwhelming reason to block them all. There is also no censensus on the soft-or-hard-block question. The recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Tor nodes is probably relevant. If someone is writing a bot, how about one to unblock all the indef-blocked proxies which are no longer open. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to :) If you get me a list of every IP presently blocked for being a TOR / proxy (I've got a list of the 222 present blocked TOR nodes), I should be able to have it done by the end of the day... As far as policy regarding disabling editing from TOR, there's a couple, WP:OP, and WP:BLOCK quoted above. Not talking about blocking them all, either... Just the ones that allow WP exit (and even then, just to the regular server -- not the secure server). SQL^{Query me!} 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are currently over 7,000 dynamic IPs listed at WT:OP waiting to be checked, and there's a whole category full (I count over 2,000) listed at Category:Tor proxies blocked on Wikipedia. I rephrase my point - there is no overwhelming reason to block all the Tor nodes capable of editing Wikipedia, nor any consensus on the other issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a category! Unfortunately, real life has intervened once again :( I'll look at them in a moment, thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the more fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. Blocking tor nodes would unnecessarily hinder this principle. Soft-block them all. BETA 13:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SQL, give me 24 hours and Ill get you a list of all IP's that are blocked after 2010. that will be all indef's and very long IP blocks that are caused by proxy blocks. β^_command 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Betacommand, could you possibly filter it by those with {{tor}} in/as the block message? SQL^{Query me!} 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SQL http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/tor%20IP.txt that is a list of all IP's with "tor" in the block summary sorted by unblock date. β^_command 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking Blocked IP's blocked as TOR, that are probably no longer nodes

Alright, preliminary work done (see: User:SQL/Funky_TOR), and, it seems like there are a whole lot of blocked TOR nodes, that possibly should not be. Questions...

1. Do we just overturn the previous block, if it's soley for being a TOR node (e.g. no disruption / socking / etc)?
2. Should the initial blocking admin be consulted on each block? (Some seem to have been blocking at high-speed, and may not want hundreds of messages)
3. Would anyone like to help review the nearly 2,000 blocks in question? :)

There are a number of factors, that would keep me from automating the unblock process, partially, the amount of circumstances that the bot simply cannot judge (Block summaries mostly, evaluating the talk page, etc). So, now that we have a good place to start, what would be the best way to go about this? SQL^{Query me!} 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would Like to get Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonaldBot 2 operational on en.wiki just like its doing on nl.wiki. β^_command 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the policy on this?

A user wants his coaching discussion page deleted because he believes his IP could be discovered through it. What's the policy on this?

... please see and reply to this discussion.

The Transhumanist 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(posting here because it's not on your talk page) - The editor may still indeed be editing from a similar range, etc, and there may be enough information to geolocate them as a result. Personally, as it's a relatively trivial page, is in userspace, has only been edited my yourself and himself and if you're both in agreement, I then don'see a problem, especially as the editor has privacy concerns. It should fall under WP:CSD#U1 - Alison ^❤ 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(The above link redirects to my talk page). There are no IPs in the page's history, but one of the links on the page supposedly leads to an article that has an old IP of his in its history. Also, the coaching page may be relevant at the student's or the coach's next RfA. The Transhumanist 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre award giving pattern

Ok I just received a barnstar form user Brokenchicken who is new to the project, I usually don't accept awards from single-purpouse accounts based on past experience with sock-trolls, I tried to explain this to the user but he keeps readding it, he said that he is a student from Africa who is new to English and that this is somehow a request from a teacher, can somebody familiar with the various African dialects try to have a talk with him? I have tried to ask him nicelly not to add it but its 3:00 a.m. and I'm getting grouchy, I wouldn't call it harrassment (although it may be trolling coming from a sock of another user) but this is seriously getting ridiculous, has there ever been a presedent? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I left what I hope is a clear and stern, yet gentle warning about continuing to give you the barnstar. If this does not stop him, he may be blocked for repeated disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh: [27]. He doesn't appear to get it. I left another warning... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! sorry for that, I just couldn't do it, moral dilema, I didn't want to bite him, but he seriously makes it a bit hard with the persistence and all (maybe Jimbo can receive the award, he receives like ten of these per day so maybe he won't notice it ;-) 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribbean H.Q. (talk • contribs)

No problem man. I have just directed him to leave it on his own talk page. For the record, I have NO IDEA what his motivation is. What teacher gives assignments like "Give a random user at Wikipedia a barnstar?" This dude is just WEIRD if you ask me. If he adds the award to his own talk page, then lets just let him be... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will satisfy him: [28] --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Assigned to do a random act of kindness, maybe? Gimmetrow 08:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He explained that it had something to do with my contribution in articles of countries outside the US [29], so the assigment may have something to do with Wiki's international scope? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My hypothesis is that he's some kid who was caught vandalising Wikipedia by his teacher, and she, as a punishment, demanded that he do something positive instead of negative to make up for it. How does that sound? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probable, he says that his teacher wants to see it on Monday, that gives me an idea... - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, "somebody familiar with the various African dialects"?!? Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy said he was African, he couldn't understand English and was asking for help, what is so strange about that? do you have an idea of how many languages there are in Africa? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Much too many for anyone to be familiar with even a fraction; but I'm glad to see we're now accepting them as languages, not "dialects", presumably of "African". Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A dialect is a manner of speech charasteristic to a region or a group of people, every country has a wide variety of dialects, thus my sentence was correct, anyways you are making a storm in a glass of water. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he is, but I nevertheless suggest you abandon your ill-starred search for someone familiar with "the various African dialects". ;-) If he returns and insists on placing a barnstar on someone else's talk page (though he seems fine with leaving it on his own), tell him he can leave me one. Picaroon (t) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept any and all awards from anyone. Like most members of my household I have an incurable weakness for shiny things. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have found that becoming an admin is an almost certain way of prompting a terminal decline in being awarded barnstars... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfC

Resolved

Please could someone who is familiar with the wp:AFC page come and help me because it is malfunctioning. For some reason, everything displays correctly on the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today page. However there is a problem on the main Wikipedia:Articles for creation page, in that not all the entries are being displayed.

In addition the bot that normally archives these requests daily did not work yesterday. I'm guessing it's related. If someone could sort this out it would be appreciated! MSGJ (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've made some progress, but there are still a couple of requests which won't display. Dalibor Veselinović and Vojo Ubiparip. MSGJ (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, working again. The problem seemed to be that some noinclude tags had lost their partners! MSGJ (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work, looks fixed. :-) delldot talk 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U is disputed.

Please see WP:VPP#WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?. Will ^(talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Denial of speedy's by User:Jayron32

Can someone please review some of the speedy's denied by Jayron. There seems to be a large number of clear cut case's which as denied , I've listed 2 below

• Bear beer bowl doughnut listed as nonsense , would tend to agree
• Féile na nGael clear cut case of copyvio.

From article The competition hosts approximately 25,000 boys and girls each year with all 32 GAA counties represented along with teams from London GAA and Warwickshire GAA.

When the preliminary competition is completed in each county, the winning club then travels to the host county or Provincial councils where they are hosted by families and engage the host club in hurling, camogie and handball games. Since 1971 over 1 million boys and girls have participated in this great festival.

From website Each year some 25,000 boys and girls take part in this festival in all 32 counties. London and Warwickshire also participate in this festival. When the preliminary competition is completed in each county, the winning club then travels to the host county or province where they are hosted by families and engage the host club in hurling, camogie and handball games. Since 1971 over 1 million boys and girls have participated in this great festival.Gnevin (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree on Féile na nGael, a copyvio doesn't need to be exactly literal in order to be a copyvio. But somebody is now taking care of it by rewriting, which is of course better than deletion. I've prod'ed the other, won't object to somebody else speedying. Jayron is formally right on that one; the "blatant nonsense" clause is rather narrow. Although a bit of IAR wouldn't have hurt here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Copyvio have to be deleted from the history also, not just removed from the article? Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nah, not necessarily. We'd have a lot of work if we wanted to do that to all plagiarized revisions that get added here or there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok would just tidied up and removed the copyvio myself if I had of known that,Thanks you've been most helpful Gnevin (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If an article is a copyright violation from the very first revision, it should be deleted. (It's possible to rewrite in place, but one must rewrite from scratch. Using the prior content in any way creates a derivative work, which is still a copyright violation. The {{copyvio}} template directs rewrites to a new page where new articles can be started from scratch. This is the safest and the recommended way to do a rewrite.) If there is an earlier non-infringing version, it should be reverted. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • While I agree with Jayron32 that speedy deletion of Féile na nGael was a close call, I have deleted the history revisions prior to the rewrite, just in case. I believe this solution meets the requirements Uncle G has set forth as well. Review welcome, as always. — Satori Son 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• I tend to be conservative at times in my speedy deletion assessments. I have speedy deleted plenty of articles, but the speedy deletion criteria are fairly narrowly defined. For example, I deny many A7 claims because A7 is specifically written for articles where no assertion of importance is claimed. Where an article asserts that "Megadynocorp is the industry leader in widget production in the East-Midlands region", well, that is a clear assertion of importance. It claims a place as an industry leader. Whether such statements amount to Wikipedia's definition of notability is debatable, which is why there is a forum in which to have that debate. A7 specificly exempts "notability" concerns as a reason for deletion, claims of importance are not the same as proof of notability. Likewise, the other criteria are specifically written as narrow as possible. G1, Patent Nonsense, the criteria that the Beer Pong Whatever game was tagged under, is specifically for gibberish or otherwise incoherant articles. The article was perfectly coherant. It was entirely in violation of WP:NFT, however, NFT is not a speedy deletion criteria. There are other venues to get articles deleted, and a denial of a speedy deletion IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A KEEP VOTE BY THE ADMIN. I am not saying that these articles are worth keeping at Wikipedia, however the speedy deletion process is not equiped to deal with them. Even apparent NFT articles could turn up sources at some point. As far as the copyvio criteria, I have always taken the idea of "blatant copyright" (and that is the word in G12, "blatant") to mean a straight cut-and-paste text job. If an article is paraphrased from another source, and such a paraphrase represents a questionable use of copyright, well, its the kind of thing that requires interpretation of the reader to say how close the text is or isn't to the source text. That doesn't sound blatant. Its open for interpretation, which again, is why we have places for said debates to go on. For me, that there are 2 other deletion processes in place, means that there is less harm in keeping a borderline case than deleting it. If its borderline, then having a discussion as to which side of the border it lies is appropriate... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Very well stated, Jayron. I've been doing a bit of CSD myself, and it's a lot tougher than it looks on the surface. Either the article's creator is going to blast your talkpage, or the article's nominator. It's better to err on the side of keeping with an explicit edit summary that says exactly why it's not speedy and exactly where the nominator should bring it. Keeper | 76 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear beer bowl doughnut was tricky--I too almost deleted it as nonsense, but I decided to see if anyone else would do it. Borderline, and deleting or declining equally reasonable. An AfD would have given a quick snow delete, as an alternative. The question is more that if one admin explicitly declines, should another admin speedy it? I do not think so. DGG (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strictly construed, I don't believe bear beer etc. was speedy-able except as an "IAR speedy" - it wasn't nonsense, it was just a clear violation of WP:NFT, which is currently not a speedy deletion criterion. I certainly wouldn't object to adding NFT (in some form) as a speedy criterion, as it's among the most common "wish I could speedy-tag this, but I'll prod it instead" circumstances I encounter when new-page patrolling. I assume it's been brought up before on WT:CSD, though. JavaTenor (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should note that getting a new CSD is about as hard as teaching a fish to ride a bicycle some times; for example I proposed that non-notable products be added to the A7 criteria, and it was completely shot down. Thus we are left with the strange situation that a company's article can be deleted as A7, but products and services provided BY that company can't, and stick around for 5 days under PROD or AFD. Is it ideal, no, but for CSD to be legitimate it must be enforced as currently written. When the criteria change to include articles like the beer bear whatever article, you will find me speedy deleting faster than you can type "db", but until then, I am constrained by the criteria. And, per its own instruction, sometimes I ignore WP:IAR, where appropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've observed that many of the regular speedy nominators, and a number of the admins who handle CSD, take a somewhat expansive interpretation of the speedy criteria. Is this a good thing? Gimmetrow 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone who looks at my deleted contributions will see that I regularly deny speedies that other admins speedily delete anyway, on the very dubious criteira of A3, A7, and A1 for articles that do not meet that criteria. I'm insistent that anything that doesn't meet the strict critiera should go through PROD instead. The latest one is E-Lottery, and I asked A4T about it but he just archived it without comment. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"fake move attack" comes back again

• (See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip 63.215.28.110 to add fake information into Spike (MGM), thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User hasn't vandalized in 3 hours. I have issued a final warning. If you notice the user has come back and continues to vandalize, please report to WP:AIV. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So I hope you see archive118 again, I reported this attack at WP:AIV 8 times (from 2 December 2007 to 21 December 2007) , At the 8th time , some administrator told me to report here.

This guy comes back again today , he uses ip 64.24.84.3 to add information of a fake movie Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear.123.193.12.44 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:172.129.149.184 -- Help needed

Can someone help me speedy delete the bogus subpages this IP made? bibliomaniac15 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think IP's were allowed to create pages? D.M.N. (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an IP, his/her username is their IP. They are all deleted now. Woody (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) They aren't allowed to create pages in the main namespace. They are in other namespaces. --Hut 8.5 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 31 hours for vandalism. The pages have been deleted now. bibliomaniac15 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Block log analysis proposal

A proposal to analyse the block logs can be seen here. Comments and suggestions are invited. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of indef block of Piperdown

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.

---

Per Wizardman this discussion has done all that it can. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Piperdown has asked that his block be reviewed [30] in which he was accused of being a sock and/or meatpuppet of User:Wordbomb. I agree that it should be reviewed in light of recent events. Piperdown explains in a WR thread that it appears that someone monkeyed with his account to make it difficult for him to post to his talk page [31]. Also, David Gerard's actions with respect to anything he thinks is associated with Overstock.com and WordBomb is suspect, the evidence being his block of a town in Utah, stating that WordBomb lived there and falsely stating that the local ISP was an open proxy [32]. Only after a second, independent source confirmed that his statement was false did he unblock the town [33]. I don't personally believe that Piperdown's block was justified or fair and am asking that he get a neutral review from an uninvolved admin. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I read what Piperdown had to say both on his talk page here and on WR, and I have to say that I'm confused as to why he was blocked. He'd certainly seemed to be making perfectly good and valid edits up to the point of his being blocked, and his talk page looks pretty much like any other established editor's. He appears to have been indefinitely blocked without warning, from what I can see from his talkpage history. However, without David Gerard's input, I've very little to go on here so what I'd like to maybe see happen would be for David to post a statement here giving his rationale for indefinitely blocking Piperdown as a sock of Wordbomb, and allowing the admin community to review accordingly. I'm guessing David is unaware of this thread as of now, so I'll see he's made aware of it - Alison ^❤ 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and I admit that I was remiss in not notifying Gerard of this thread myself. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused why he was ever blocked in the first place. He needs to be unblocked immediately Bstone (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This page User:Piperdown/1 makes it appear that the user is either Wordbomb or a meatpuppet of him. I suggest we wait to hear from the blocking admin. Since the block was placed several months ago this isn't urgent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this user subpage seems to have played a large part in Piperdown's block, I've temporarily restored it so people can check out the evidence while this block is being reviewed. krimpet✽ 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Piperdown is probably WordBomb's most vociferous supporter on Wikipedia Review, and his comments on WR leave little doubt that he is highly unlikely to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. It is also not credible that he is only just aware of being blocked; I am sure his ban was mentioned on WR ages ago. This looks like gaming the system, or at least playing us for a bunch of naive fools. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Piperdown's request [34] is that he was aware of the block at the time it was placed and he is not claiming otherwise. Thincat (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

His unblock request from September is all about how what he did was ok, not about how he would drop the subject so he could edit other areas of interest. Considering that, and his deleted contributions, I agree with Guy that he is unlikely to be (or resume being, if he was before) a productive editor. Thatcher 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone contributions on WR have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to effectively write and edit articles on this project. I am shocked anyone would make such a claim. Bstone (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If there was no overlap between the two, fine. However, Piperdown's deleted contributions (especially User:Piperdown/1) shows that he wants to pursue the same agenda as Wordbomb of attacking certain editors for alleged conflicts of interest on certain articles, and his unblock request from September did not say, "I want to write and edit articles" but "there is nothing wrong with pursuing conflict of interest charges in this case." Thatcher 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he admits that he created User:Piperdown/1 as a result of User:Mantanmoreland/1, at least that's what the deleted page states. Regarding his September unblock request, how about we ask him what the situation is now? I'm not seeing a lot of evidence here other than hearsay and the after-the-fact comments that "he is unlikely to be [...] a productive editor". I suspect he's active and vociferous on WR because he's been indefinitely blocked on here and that he sees his block as being in error. He appears to have always stated that he's not WordBomb and, frankly, if he was a throwaway sock of WB, he's kept up this pretense for an awfully long time now - Alison ^❤ 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison, you might want to take a close look at some of the conspiracy-mongering this user engaged in before the block. Some diffs have been collected here, although these only scratch the surface. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I've no idea of this editor's background or past history, but I'll take a look. From his talk page history, it looks just like any other, really. I'd like to see David Gerard comment here as he's obviously the most familiar - Alison ^❤ 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If "pursuing conflict of interest charges" is something to be discouraged, we should delete WP:COI/N. Even if the conflicts he believes exist in fact do not - I'm sure there are some percentage of WP:COI/N reports that turn out to be incorrect. He has the right to be wrong. —Random832 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But he does not have the right to harass other users as a proxy for a banned editor. If he wants to pursue COI charges "for the good of the Wiki" he can contact Arbcom privately. I suppose he could be unblocked if he said something like "I disagree on principle but I will avoid that subject and edit other topics" (subject to monitoring by whatever admin took responsibility for him by unblocking) but honestly his defenders here are doing more harm than good. Thatcher 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of avoiding one subject, though. He used to follow me around trying to tie every admin action of mine into his grand conspiracy theory, and I'm probably not the only one he did it to. Can any of his defenders point to any good content he added to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The last time you made such a statement, it led to a flood of meatpuppets blanking pages that Jon Awbrey had contributed to in order to prove a point; right or wrong, I would suggest you ought to do more research before categorically stating (as you did there) or implying (as you did here) that someone has made no worthwhile contributions, since even ignoring the disruptive effect, it is a personal attack. —Random832 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:AGF apply here? This is pretty much what the question boils down to at the root. If he may help wikipedia, then an unblock is right. If it's clear that he won't, then the indef block is fine. Since I haven't followed the case, I don't have an opinion personally. Wizardman 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked this has gone on as far as it has. This fellow is blocked because he's posting at WR and because of what he might do. Seemingly, he has an opinion held by another blocked editor. Shocking. Unblock this person and be done with this. Bstone (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there's an extensive history of meatpuppet behavior here, which has reached the "quacking louder than we can ignore anymore" stage. Wordbomb and other overstock.com related abusers are not welcome here, in any form. You cannot reasonably ignore the long history of misbehavior that this user has exhibited. What they're saying now here and presumably on Wikipedia Review (I haven't gone to look yet) doesn't excuse or explain their contributions for the last year. 65.200.208.230 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a really, really tough time with a random, anon IP telling me that overstock.com abusers are not welcome at wikipedia. Moreover without any arbcom or other policies to backup your claim I am at the verge of giggles. This whole thing is silly. Unblock the fellow who was a good contributor to this project and enough of these silly games. Bstone (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I will agree with the IP editor that Piperdown's block is about more than OMG he posts to WR. And do you really mean "overstock.com abusers" should be welcome? I assume there is typo in there somewhere, because editors who are associated with overstock.com and its crusade to explain its crappy share price as the result of naked short selling, and who then go on to smear anyone who says otherwise, including Wall Street Journal reporters, stock analysts and Wikipedia editors and administrators, is absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Tell you what, as soon as Piperdown agrees to stay off the topic, you can personally unblock him, as long as you are willing to be responsible for his edits. Oh wait... Thatcher 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SV and others claim he was blocked due to harassment, so I don't see how a topic ban would help...unless he was actually blocked due to an unpopular POV. I'm also a little puzzled by this block. Cool Hand Luke 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, Piperdown has not been blocked because he posts to WR, he's been blocked because he's been accused of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of WordBomb. That's the issue here, not WR participation - Alison ^❤ 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was blocked because he was harassing people, in a way that suggested WordBomb sock or meatpuppetry. But it's the harassment (trolling, wikistalking, conspiracy-mongering) that was the main issue, as I recall. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "evidence" compiled on Mantanmoreland's sub-page, I don't see any harrassment or incivility severe enough to warrant an indefinite block. In fact, I've seen some of the editors who have commented above, including myself, give opinions on issues that are just as strong. The fact that he spends some of his editing time addressing a few of the issues that Wordbomb took an interest in should also not be an offense worthy of an infefinite block. Looking at his contribution history shows a lot of value-added edits to a great variety of topics. Any association with what may or may not be Wordbomb's past agenda, no matter how tenuous, should not be some kind of "third rail" that results in indefinite blocks for good faith editors. Again, I don't believe Piperdown was treated fairly here or in a manner consistent with how other editors are treated. Cla68 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue was the harassment, which was similar to the harassment WordBomb engaged in (similar subject matter, similar voice, the same targets), but the issue was the harassment, and it was pretty extensive. Can you supply some diffs showing positive content he added to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One has only to look at his contributions list. In addition to editing a wide variety of topics, he also started at least one article (diff later). Do you have any evidence of what most would consider to be harrassment? Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[35] Well, there's one, still looking through contribs. Wizardman 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's a response to SlimVirgin's request and not Cla68, since the diff appears to be a productive edit, and I can see nothing harassing about it. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was a response to SlimVirgin. She asked for diffs, so I provided one. To be fair she asked for diffs, plural. So, here's a few more: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Wizardman 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? "He was blocked because he posts at WR". Better pull out the banhammer then, more than a few administrators post at that site. How about "for what they do/don't do", not "who they associate with, and what 'we' think of their association". I realize it is de rigeur to play the "WR=Troll" card, but it really looks nothing more than petty when stated so clearly. Achromatic (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Struck as a result of misreading Bstone. My sheepish apologies. Achromatic (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant some hyperbole, but they are using his activities in WR to justify the continued block. Bstone (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think at this stage it would be more useful if diffs of clear cut harassment were supplied to back up the block. Arguments have been stated expressing that the block should be removed, so evidence refuting these arguments should be supplied. If none can be produced, then an unblock is clearly in order. Remember - anyone unblocked can be reblocked, and its unlikely anyone will die in the meantime. ^Avruchtalk 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This block was already challenged and upheld.[41]:

Decline reason: "I don't know about the overstock.com issue, but your stalking page User:Piperdown/1 was unacceptable, and is not less so because another user may have created a similar page. Your personal attacks on the blocking admin do not help to persuade me that you have understood what you did wrong and that you will stop doing it when unblocked. — Sandstein 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit fuzzy as to what has changed since then. In fact, his personal attacks on me and other editors off-site certainly don't indicate that he has any kind of deeper understanding that what he did was wrong.--Samiharris (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus can change"... right? If there is new information, anyway? ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And that decision is sovereign and not subject to community review? I think not. Notice that there are many voices chiming in here all saying that there is not enough evidence to show that an indef block is appropriate. Unblock this fellow and let's be done with this drama. Bstone (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this situation to say whether anyone should be unblocked or not, but the "similar page" to which the reviewing admin refers, has been up since June of last year, even though such pages are "unacceptable". R. Baley (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That page was a collection of diffs, Piperdown's own words. Piperdown responded with an attack page. It was deleted so I can't quote from it. Bstone, you don't have any inkling of the "evidence" so how can you say it was "insufficient"? Why the rush to unblock this character?--Samiharris (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

With a total lack of incriminating evidence, a request from the editor to be allowed to edit and a viewable and demonstratable history of good editing and you want me to side with you on keeping the indef block? Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person. Bstone (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sami, the only allowable circumstance (AFAIK) in which one editor may keep a collection of diffs (or otherwise collect "evidence") on another editor is in a short term situation where there is a forthcoming process to be initiated (such as preparing for an ANI report, filing an RfAR, or starting an RfC on an editor) otherwise it isn't allowed. That page should have been deleted as well a long time ago. R. Baley (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the evidence page was overtaken by events. Bstone, sorry but nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it talk about "life, liberty and the pursuit of editing Wikipedia." Piperdown seems plenty liberated right where he is, which is in the pages of off-site websites where he can give full vent to his conspiracy theories as relates to the stock market and Wikipedia. and where he can now openly advocate WordBomb's cause.--Samiharris (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So without any evidence and with a history of good editing this fellow should remain blocked on your say so? That's a travesty. Bstone (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He was not blocked on my sayso. I had nothing to do with it, or in his remaining blocked, or in his becoming an active and vibrant representative of the WordBomb Chowder and Marching Society off-wiki. He was blocked by Mr. Gerard, and I think it behooves us all to await his return. It is not a travesty of anything to do so, and the Bill of Rights will survive if Mr. Piperdown remains blocked in the interim.--Samiharris (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You mis understand, Samiharris. I never said he was blocked because of you but you are the one pressing for his continued block, but without a shred of evidence. Sans evidence or Mr Gerard, it behooves us to immediately unblock him and allow him to return to editing wikipedia. What he does off-site is not any of our business and I urge you to stop worrying what people do with their time outside this project. Bstone (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of an unblock, this editor has been blocked for nearly 4 months. There's no sudden urgency to unblock him "immediately". Surely we can wait for a bit more community input, or even for the blocking admin to comment? MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It can go both ways, tho. 4 months of injustice, as I see it, and now any lack of incriminating evidence would mean an immediate unblock would be prudent. But I think taking a step back at this point would be wise. Say 48 hours to wait for Mr Gerard? Bstone (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, sorry. This is not up for general review. Meatpuppets of known extremely banned users don't get the benefit of the doubt. And non admins don't get to come to AN and insist that admins comply with their idea of justice.

If someone has good evidence that this was a mistake, then they should have posted it here. Nobody has. Lacking that good evidence, this is functionally (if not labeled properly) a community ban. The appeal process for community bans is Arbcom, or Jimmy. Neither of those venues are particularly happy with Bagley and companies ongoing hijinks, but they will listen to an appeal request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except Admins (such as Alison and myself) may have problems with it (Alison has said she's reviewing the situation, and personally I haven't looked at it). I find your dismissiveness a bit disturbing, GWH. If there is good reason for the block, present it, and if it's agreed that it fits, fine, we'll get out of your way. But don't try steamrolling folks who have honest concerns. Also. Don't try calling it a community ban, and then say the community shouldn't come in and have their say about it (added On) SirFozzie (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The good reason for the block is why he was blocked - editing related to naked short selling, in patterns and with content that clearly passes the duck test on association with Wordbomb / Bagley / Overstock. Yes, they edited other stuff, too. But there is quite clearly a major focus of editing on those topics, and even a brief review of their edits (to the naked short selling article, to biography articles of people accused of naked short selling, etc) will show that the patterns there are identical to the ones that are Wordbomb signature, and have resulted in quite a large number of sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts to be banned from the site.

This is not new, and not news. That Wordbomb related accounts are banned from Wikipedia due to innumerable abuses from Overstock people is not new, and not news. Any cursory review of the last 500 edits by Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows a clear pattern of that type and content of edit. The duck quacks, and it does not quack alone in a field where nobody notices. It quacks in the usual place, with the usual suspects.

The duck is not welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - on the community ban / input point - a community ban ends when an administrator (any administrator) unblocks. Per definition. It does not end when a random user account, who I AGF about but is not an administrator, insists that it must. Bstone does not have standing to insist on an unblock, though he can of course comment and request etc. Any administrator on this thread can simply unblock. However, I hope that they review the contributions history and consider what's there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) WP:MEAT applies to new editors, not editors who are with the project for 7 months. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to back up SirFozzie's reasoning here, and while I have not looked into the block or the edits, I did take a look at both /1 pages and have to echo Alsisons question - why are they so different that one got someone indef blocked and the other hung around on WP for ages? As a WR member I have had contact with piperdown, and have to say, that if he is a sock of wordbomb, that pretense has gone on waaaaaaaaaaaay longer than it had to - making it unlikley that he was ever a sock. The word meatpuppet has also been bandied about, but I find it hard to work out how an established editor can be a meatpuppet. It seems to me that some people might actually just come to the same conclusion, either independantly or through communication, thereby holding their own views that happen to overlap? Independant thought, now there is a novel concept. Viridae^Talk 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an extensive history of sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry associated with Wordbomb / overstock accounts. Figuring out who a person is and what the connection is are interesting intellectual exercises, but not necessary - WP:DUCK is behavioral based, and the behavior pattern here matched. Contrary to you and Kendrick's assertions, Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are what they are, established user or not. We ban established accounts for acting as an agent for / reposting stuff for indef blocked accounts. Meatpuppetry is a more subtle version of that. Anyone can start doing that on behalf of a banned user. And an alternate identity sockpuppet is clearly not beyond these people - they've done it a lot before, and are probably, nay almost certainly doing it now with other accounts we have not yet tagged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I just need to say that your dismissive, condescending attitude to non-admins only furthers to widen the gap between admins and regular editors. You were given tools to help the project but not a platform of power. Your attitude is profoundly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, please keep the discussion civil and focused on the case at hand, and either ignore attitudes that rub you the wrong way or take your concerns up on the person's talk page. We don't need this to generate unwarranted heat. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, civility is of paramount importance. Which is why I stand to is at all times. Bstone (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Without speaking to the merits of this particular case, it seems to me that if several trusted and informed editors are dubious about the conclusions drawn, then the WP:DUCK test is by definition not met, no matter how convincing others may find it. The duck-spotter should always be willing to show that they have not mistakenly identified a loon or other fowl creature, if a colleague asks in good faith for such assurance. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Non admins are as welcome as anyone to point out questionable actions, provide evidence, etc.

To date, you have posted no evidence that Piperdown isn't who David Gerard thought he was. Nobody has yet refuted the point that hundreds of the last 500 edits made by Piperdown fit the Wordbomb edit profile to a T.

Perhaps, despite that, they are in fact someone else and unrelated. However, WP:DUCK establishes a reasonableness test and then shifts burden of proof. We have a historical pattern used repeatedly by ... I don't know exactly how many by now, but I've seen dozens of Wordbomb sockpuppets over time. A large quantity of Piperdown edits match that pattern. Duck test's criteria are met.

This is a rebutable conclusion. But it's a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence. Any administrator who seeks to overturn the indef block should generate reasonable evidence to rebut that conclusion first.

The observation that you don't have the authority to declare what jurisprudence demands we do ("Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person." as you said earlier) is perhaps rude but it's also very importantly correct. Wikipedia doesn't allow just anyone, even just anyone who's a longstanding editor, to make user block decisions (in either direction). That power is reserved for administrators, with appeal to the body of administrators as a whole, the Arbitration Committee, and Jimbo ultimately.

It would be foolish for me or anyone to declare that abusive user blocking never makes mistakes. I have myself made mistakes doing so. Being open to the possibility that a given action (mine, or someone elses) is wrong is an important part of being a responsible administrator.

All of that said, nothing that's been posted here so far has positive information content that changes my mind that the earlier conclusion was correct, that Piperdown is either Wordbomb or acting in concert with them. A couple of people who frequent Wikipedia Review have indicated that they think that Piperdown is not, based on discussions with them over there. However, those opinions don't have any specific WR discussion posts or thread links provided, and haven't addressed the edit patterns here which were the Duck test evidence.

Perhaps we'll have such evidence tomorrow. If Alison or Viridae or you or others post it, I will read it and consider it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, he has a lot of productive edits. What kind of evidence should we have? Are we trying to prove a negative? Can you prove I'm not related to Wordbomb? If I was blocked for this reason, could anyone prove I'm not? Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK does not require anyone who opposes a block to take the (impossible) step of proving a negative. It's one thing if only a few people are disagreeing. But as Alanyst says, you can't just declare "WP:DUCK, prove me wrong or go away".

You have very few edits that appear to match the Wordbomb pattern: Naked short selling, Pump and dump, Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation‎, Overstock.com and related topics are the predominant targets, though you have cleaned up Patrick M. Byrne a bit in the last few days, which is also involved. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim based on your edit patterns that you might be WB. The same cannot be said of Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who though they have also edited diverse topics, on first impression appear to be about 50% contributing to Wordbomb target articles (those articles listed, articles about people associated with short selling, etc). People who only contribute tangentally if at all to the target topics associated with Wordbomb, and don't otherwise go on overstock.com related rampages in article or user talk or emails, are rather unlikely to be an active Wordbomb sock, though there are probably some sleepers out there which wouldn't be detectable by the Duck test at the moment.

As I said upwards - Piperdown could be a false positive on the Duck test for Wordbomb. But, hundreds of edits by them fall into the pattern, and it's really really suspicious. Just look at the last 500 edits in history, much less going back further.

We could run a whole stack of sample users through "prove or disprove that they're X", but there aren't many that have the problematic contribution histories which are very short selling centric as to match Wordbomb's pattern. Piperdown does. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very big on "you don't get to say what has to happen, that's for us administrators". The community has a voice. The community decides. The community does (be it as a whole, or subsections thereof). You take this approach, and then you start to state that if people have evidence, you will "read and consider it". Consider rewording, as your tone and phrasing implies that the decision is yours to make. You name administrators, and state that they may supply evidence for your consideration. The duck test is inconclusive, especially when there seems to be something very far from consensus here. It is not a crime of meatpuppetry to hold similar opinions to that of a banned user. Out of curiosity, what is an "extremely banned" user? Is that like, with apologies to A Few Good Men a "strenuous objection"? Achromatic (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar opinions didn't get Piperdown in trouble. Plenty of people don't like short selling. Piperdown edited on first glance about a dozen articles in the topic in the same manner, and with the same intensity, that Wordbomb and other confirmed WB socks did. Walks like a duck.

Extremely banned would cover things like creating a website dedicated to, among other things, stalking and harrassing Wikipedia editors and administrators, including trying to harrass them at home and at work. Wordbomb and related overstock.com staff are not welcome here. You are welcome to talk to Arbcom or Jimmy about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

George care to provide actual examples where Piperdown edited "In the same manner as wordbomb"? That would certainly give weight to your accusations. Viridae^Talk 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) They are contributing 50% to "WordBomb target articles" (which, as you say, means "articles related to naked short selling"). Are we really banning people for having similar interests to banned users? Or is there only one person in the world who cares about naked short selling? -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To the same set of articles, if their edits appear to be of the same nature? And also being an active Wikipedia Review participant? That's what the Duck test definition is, pretty much. It's established policy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When Piperdown started editing naked short selling, which was within a few days of arriving at Wikipedia, he immediately started edit warring and was belligerent in the extreme. It is not as if a light bulb went on over his head after he had been pacifically editing for some months. He immediately commenced edits that misconstrued sources to twist to his POV. He also was paranoid in the extreme. I remember praising some edits that he did and getting my head bit off on the grounds that I was being "patronizing" or somesuch. In hindsight he is about as obvious a WordBomb meatpuppet as can be imagined. He then attacked me in his attack page, and alleged that I had some connection with a journalist he hates because of clues of a relationship with Chicago, which is where the journalist went to school. It was paranoid, loony stuff and it is a wonder that Piperdown remained unscathed for as long as he did. He was not just quacking like the duck WordBomb but leaving droppings all over the place.--Samiharris (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not like all new users are nice. There are many new users who edit war and are belligerent. In fact, that's probably evidence that he was actually new, since someone familiar with Wikipedia would know how to avoid being viewed as bad. As for Wikipedia Review... that's really not relevant. Unless someone has evidence that I'm a sockpuppet? -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That he complains on WR seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, unfortunately. He was blocked on September 7, 2007; his WR account was created three days later on September 10. Frustrated people often feel the need to vent, and it looks like Piperdown, like many other Wikipedians who feel sleighted, found WR in the wake of his block and decided to vent there. It's a bit of a shame, since there's really nowhere else for them to appeal and take legitimate complaints to, and they get lost in the muck of frivolous accusations and poisonous speculation that is WR. krimpet✽ 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Another outdent.) The problem with WP:DUCK (which is an essay, neither guideline nor policy) is that it is highly susceptible to confirmation bias: we tend to see what we expect to see and unconsciously ignore or discount evidence to the contrary. If there were a person who shared WordBomb's views on naked short selling, etc. but was trying to constructively contribute to WP, how would we distinguish them from a WordBomb meatpuppet? Aside from the common interest, what criteria would separate the block-worthy from the barnstar-worthy? Can anyone show, with diffs, that a significant number of Piperdown's edits would have been found disruptive if they had been about 18th-century poetry instead of Overstock-related matters? If so, I'm all for maintaining the block, but if not, it seems reasonable to offer another chance at contributing constructively. I'll be honest, what I've seen of Piperdown's comments on WR worry me about inviting a mud-slinger here where too much mud is already slung - but perhaps Piperdown will resolve to interact differently here given the different environment and purpose. I'm sure plenty of people will keep a close eye on him in case he proves to be here to disrupt. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just how is one supposed to wind up with a NPOV article on naked short selling if one side of the debate on it is declared to be "acting for a banned user" and forbidden? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia editor should be capable of writing articles with the neutral point of view. We don't need active Neo-nazi editors in order to write an NPOV article on Adolf Hitler. There are plenty of press reports on naked short selling to summarize, personal knowledge or viewpoints aren't required. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The pattern is not "just editing naked short selling". Piperdown's edits on Overstock related topics in a wider sense are the rest of the pattern. By no means has every editor involved in the Naked short selling article done anything like other Overstock related edits which raise suspicions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown questionable edits

Section break, and new section to list out Wordbomb pattern edits ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So... going back through Piperdown's history. I decided to start at the beginning and work forwards.

A week after signing up, this first edit to Naked short selling, the first in the Wordbomb pattern as far as I spot: [42] restores a Christopher Cox quote that had been added by Errudite (sic) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) earlier that day, which has been specifically added by a bunch of Wordbomb sockpuppets. On closer examination, Errudiate (sic) proves to be an shiningly clear example of Wordbomb sockpuppets, and not previously identified as such and blocked - however, I have just rectified that.

Three edits later, to Patrick M. Byrne - [43], again a link Wordbomb's used before.

More to come, later. Others welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait wait. So, when looking at this evidence you've seen before, you run into another sockpuppet? Does it occur to you that it's far more likely that your sockpuppet detection method is faulty? It's reasonable that most people interested in naked short selling read the same stuff... -Amarkov moo! 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually review Errudite (sic)'s edits? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have. I fail to see how they can be reliably differentiated from edits by someone else who doesn't like Gary Weiss. -Amarkov moo! 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only people with a serious beef against Gary Weiss who've showed up on Wikipedia are Wordbomb and his gang. It's not normal for people in the world to have large beefs with financial reporters. Your comment doesn't make the case that they're not in the pattern... it reinforces it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except the only reason you have to believe this is that everyone who dislikes Gary Weiss has been discredited as being in WordBomb's gang. That's circular logic, which does not help. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So because he restores a section of text he believes to be valid he is immediatley a meatpuppet. Its not possible of course that he actually agreed with the addition of that text, not necessarily knowing that it was a (possible) sockpuppet? And I am still waiting for evidence of him editing "In the same manner as wordbomb", not just having an overlap in idealogies... Viridae^Talk 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to sign off for the night, but jeez. They have over 1500 edits. I presented two examples in the pattern (not necessarily by themselves conclusive, but in the pattern) in the first fifty edits they ever made. Properly documenting everything that Piperdown did that matches the Wordbomb pattern will undoubtedly take dozens to hundreds of specific edits listed, and probably a day or two of people digging and listing them. If your point is that I have not yet established the case with what I posted here then that's fine. That will take time. If you don't think it's there because it wasn't evident and clear looking only at the first 3% of their contributions so far ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice the huge chorus of community members who are challenging and questioning the validity of this. I add my voice to this growing number. Bstone (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we got that Bstone.

I think Georgewilliamherbert's point is that editing on these topics is inherently unlike, say, editing from a stridently pro-Palestinian position. Many people in the world have the same POV as stridently pro-Palestine banned users, but WordBombesque opinions on Byrne and naked short selling are relatively much more likely to be coming from Overstock.com or its agents. As an empirical matter, I suspect this is true. I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason for a ban though. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His edits on Wikipedia Review confirm that. I'm not suggesting they be used to justify the continued ban, as I don't think it is necessary. But it is worth observing that Piperdown is one of the most off the wall, paranoid contributors to Wiki Review, and it's always "Weiss this" and "Weiss that," and how "Weiss" is the source of all that ails Wikipedia. If there was any doubt that he was a WordBomb meatpuppet he allayed those doubts after he left here.--Samiharris (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're still only giving evidence that he really hates Weiss. That's certainly true, but that doesn't make him WordBomb. -Amarkov

OK, granted. Maybe he hates Weiss because he was involved in an auto accident with him, and just by coincidence also happens to be obsessed with naked short selling. Let's get real about this.--Samiharris (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

moo! 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His account on WR postdates his ban from WP. WP:CIVIL or not (and without implying that WP policies carry any weight elsewhere), it would seem to be an entirely human failing to have some anger towards someone you might see (be it correctly or incorrectly) as having played a role in your being banned (and I qualify that by saying that my statement in no way implies Piperdown's blocking/edits at the time were or were not controversial). Also, I'd like to point out that, with exceptionally few exceptions, Piperdown's comments off-wiki have very little relevance here, as a matter of policy, and it is inappropriate to refer to his off-wiki behavior (because, if for no other reason, you have no idea that they are one in the same, though I'm happy to acknowledge that they are, the principle does not change) as justifications for an on-wiki block to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is zero controversy that meat puppetry on behalf of banned editors has been something that invariably earns the meat puppet a ban. This has remained true for the 3 + years I've been contributing to Wikipedia. The only question is whether it is reasonable to view Piperdown as a meat puppet of Wordbomb. Most of those commenting here weren't even around when WordBomb participated here and was blocked, but I was and remember him well. And viewing the editing patterns of Piperdown, it appears likely to me that Piperdown is indeed a meat puppet of Wordbomb. That being so, I feel that the block was not only reasonable but necessary given our policy and convention on bans and meat puppetry and support the block of Piperdown. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This "meat puppet" claim is really bothering me. What does it even mean to be a meat puppet of someone gone for 10 months? It seems to mean merely that the user shares a POV and that we can't prove they're a sock puppet. There may be good reason to infer that such a user has a COI with regards to the subjects (see my comment above), but we're not banning them for meat puppetry per se. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what happened in this instance. He was blocked for being a meatpuppet of a banned user who continually re-appeared for many months on Wikipedia via several dozen socks. I believe there were about 40 checkuser-confirmed socks [44]and an larger number of suspected ones[45], all blocked. There are quite a few others blocked for being WordBomb socks who are not on the list. This was not a situation in which one errant fellow was banned and then some poor slob was accused of being like him ten months later. This was a protracted situation over a period of many months.--Samiharris (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, because WordBomb had many sockpuppets, it logically follows that anyone who shares his views must also be a sockpuppet? What? I mean, that shows that the accusation is not unreasonable, but it is by no means proof. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that his block was reasonable. For further details on the block, you will have to await Mr. Gerard. All you can get from me is my worm's eye view.--Samiharris (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not what I said. It is reasonable to accuse him of being WordBomb, in the sense that it would be unreasonable to accuse him of being the Roswell space aliens. I have seen no reason to believe that the actual block was justified, because nobody has any reasons other than "but look, they share the same opinions!" If you think David will have better reasons, by all means wait for him. -Amarkov moo! 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's considered this, but if he's editing productively, does it even matter if the person behind the account was Wordbomb? Yes, I know what WordBomb did. But that would assume the two are one and the same, and I am unconvinced - the "evidence" provided for Piperdown being a sock of WB is really shitty evidence, and Piperdown should be unblocked. By all means keep an eye on his editng and if he acts up, take action then. Neıl ☎ 10:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that, and repeat what I said above: Felonious et al. are misunderstanding WP:MEAT and need to reread the policy. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Simply making the acquaintance of a banned user isn't a reasonable excuse for an indef block, nor simply being an editor with a POV on naked short selling different from the WP:OWNers of that article, for that matter, who seem to find being able to declare any such editor a sock or meatpuppet of Wordbomb a little too convenient. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way on naked short selling. Wordbomb and overstock.com related accounts are not welcome here due to an obscene amount of corporate sponsored attacks on Wikipedia editors and other related abuse. There's nothing wrong with being against naked short selling and editing Wikipedia in a policy compliant manner to address that, which other editors have in fact done. When the pattern jumps out at you, of overstock.com plus naked short selling plus Byrne article edits, that's not a random opponent of naked short selling, that's someone associated with Wordbomb. And we block them. Making up false red herrings like "everyone who is against naked short selling is accused of being a Wordbomb sock" is just confusing the issue - I don't believe that statement, I have never heard anyone else who's blocked Wordbomb accounts make that statement, and I don't believe they believe it either.

Let's stick with the facts - there's a pattern which ties edit patterns across a wide set of topics together, which is distinctive and unique to Overstock.com and Wordbomb. Dozens, perhaps a hundred or more, accounts matched this pattern. Many of them were using IP addresses inside Overstock.com or in netblocks of homes in the area of its headquarters. Some of them are further afield, but display the exact same edit patterns. This account displays those edit patterns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Those three articles are intricately linked; this isn't some divine coincidence indicating a "pattern" which should "jump out" at anyone. Patrick M. Byrne is the CEO of Overstock.com, whose article is 2/3s about a controversy over naked short selling, which article also mentions and links back to Byrne and Overstock. Dozens if not hundreds have edited all three articles which relate to a current event an {{ongoing lawsuit}}, you say? I'm completely and totally unshocked. Running around blocking any editor no matter how long they've been with the project because you think they're all the same person, or friends of some person, who got indef blocked within their first 24 hours for violating WP:NPA a long long time ago? If that's not due to POV pushing, then it's extreme paranoia. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wordbomb is indef blocked for a whole host of reasons including real-world stalking and harrassment, creating a Wikipedia editor stalking website, and dozens of checkuser confirmed sockpuppet accounts. Defending him is bizarre and inexplicable. Any account which is associated with him is most certainly not welcome.

Yes, there's a topical linkage. However, contrary to your assertion that it's natural for people to edit the different articles innocently, the vast majority of those who have edited across the set of articles corresponding to Wordbomb's fingerprint have been proven, by Checkuser or self-admission later on, to have been sockpuppets or in a few cases meatpuppets. We did not leap to this conclusion. We have years of evidence that the pattern is used by WB and essentially nobody else. People who are interested in financial matters and aren't WB have made similar edits across smaller sets of articles, but haven't matched the whole identifying pattern.

Piperdown does.

I reinterate - I have no interest in or position on naked short selling or the financial industry/articles in general. I have a strong interest in keeping Wikipedia free of highly abusive accounts and people. I have never been engaged in an edit war or user argument with Wordbomb. But I've seen what he does here and on WR, and elsewhere. And if he pops up, like any responsible administrator aware of what all he's been doing, I block him.

He and Overstock may turn out to have been entirely right about the financial industry ills associated with naked short selling. Even if they are, however, nothing in the world could excuse their grossly abusive behavior towards Wikipedia and Wikipedians. They are not banned because of any conclusion as to the merits of their position on the issue. They're banned because they behave sociopathically and abusively towards editors here, tracking down real names, calling their homes, their employers, their friends, trying to get them fired, urging others to stalk them in real life, threatening violence, etc.

This behavior is categorically not ok. It is not "indef blocked for violating NPA". This case is the single worst case, ongoing and sustained and widespread, of abuse of Wikipedia editors by a particular outside group. Defending Wordbomb is not OK.

Piperdown could be an innocent mistaken identity case in this. But his behavior on Wikipedia Review didn't convince me of that.

The magnitude of the situation absolutely calls for us to apply special attention and care, but also a firm hand to exclude Wordbomb. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Wordbomb mess is an object lesson in WP:BITE. Because he didn't know any better than to just take his concerns to WP:COI/N, he was instead indef blocked and his talk page protected so he could never appeal, and thus we created a rather stalwart enemy of the project, and yeah, all kinds of badness has occurred since. I don't think it had to be that way, though. But, so because of all that, now here, in this apparently unrelated matter, we've taken a perfectly fine editor, indef blocked him on the most tenuous of rationales, and driven him into the arms of our critics at Wikipedia Review, thus making him guilty of association after the fact. Trying to make Wordbomb out to be the Emmanuel Goldstein of Wikipedia, and thus tar User:Piperdown with the same wide brush is more of the same, because trying to make this all about some other editor misses the point that Piperdown doesn't seem to have actually done any of those dreadful things. Thus you're argument -- and in particular the lack of diffs -- have failed to convince me. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a bizarre and historically inaccurate interpretation of how Wordbomb got blocked. People who are ignorant of history might want to not assert stuff about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, you're dismissing some of the worst stalking that Wikipedia has seen as though it were some irritating misunderstanding. People need to spend the time informing themselves before commenting. I know it's dull having to pour through so much material, but there are no short cuts, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Worst stalking"? We're talking about Piperdown here, not WordBomb. And anyway, are you sure that's an accurate description for what took place with WordBomb? If you'd like, we can open another thread on it, because I definitely have some questions I'd like to ask you about your involvement in that whole affair. Anyway, this thread is about Piperdown and the unfair way he has been labled and treated by a few who apparently don't approve of some of his edits. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick is apparently challenging the block of Wordbomb, incidental to the case of whether Piperdown is a WB sock or not. These are logically unrelated issues. But we cannot not address Kendrick's claims that the Wordbomb incidents weren't that serious. The history there is far too bad to let that sort of claim be made and stand unanswered. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is exactly the point of this entire thread. If Piperdown simply wants to edit Wikipedia, all he has to do is power down his modem to get a new IP, and create a new account. If he edits well, no one will know it is him.

But instead what is really wants is a giant fuss. The people who know the background can do one of two things: either we keep quiet, in which case he and his supporters get to rewrite history. Or we speak up, and we end up being targets of more abuse.

Cla, I have no "involvement" in this, other than to have blocked WordBomb for trying to out another editor; admin-deleted some of his edits from Gary Weiss; and semi-protected the article to stop him posting more attacks there. That is the beginning and end of my "involvement." All the rest is fantasy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you support sockpuppetry? Wouldn't it be easier to keep tabs on his behavior with an established account? 67.167.0.156 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his WR posts, it seems he might have conflicts with Samiharris, Mantanmoreland, other editors he accuses of sockpuppetry, and David Gerard. After a careful look at his many productive contributions, I support an unblock, but he should have a civility parole in place. He should understand that we won't tolerate personal attacks or idle accusations of non-abusive sockpuppetry. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair and reasonable. I assume Alison is still waiting for a response from Gerard. I hope she will post a follow-up here on what action was taken or not taken. Thanks everyone. Cla68 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's about as likely to work as bringing Willy on Wheels back on Wikipedia on page move parole. — Save_Us † 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, geez, you can't discount his expertise! -- Kendrick7^talk ON WHEELS! 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't work, there's nothing stopping us from re-blocking. And since there are people with significant concerns about the initial block, it's worth a try. -Amarkov moo! 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just declare a general amnesty for all banned and blocked users? I'm perfectly serious. The same "logic" that is being employed here can be applied to every single person ever vomited off this site.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

I've absolutely no interest in WordBomb nor his antics, to be honest. However, looking at this case, I see very little reason to maintain an indefinite block. Requests to prove innocence are largely pointless here, as it's nearly impossible to prove. We could equally apply WP:DUCK criteria to just about anyone on the project and have them indefinitely blocked as a meatpuppet of some undesireable. The fact that Piperdown ran over to WR to rant after the fact is hardly surprising given that he was told on unequivocal terms that he was unwanted here. Guilt by association doesn't wash with me either, regardless of whether it's the tenuous WordBomb connection or the WR postings. I find it hard to believe that WordBomb, given that George has suggested that he most likely already is socking here, would be so interested in having one account unblocked.

Yesterday, having read the suggestion from George above, that Piperdown was WordBomb and that he was likely already socking here, I ran a checkuser per policy as I had reasonable suspicion that Piperdown's IP would likely turn up a number of WordBomb socks. That would very quickly put an end to this matter and we could all move on to better things, having dealt with the socks. I was wrong. Not only has Piperdown not been active here on that range, far as I could tell; geographically, he doesn't fit with previous WordBomb socks either. Unless WordBomb has moved far away from Utah, they're quite unlikely to be the same. Then I discovered Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WordBomb (the latest one) and that only seems to confirm this.

I fully agree that this whole issue is divisive and that either unblocking or maintaining the block on Piperdown will upset a large number of people; it's a lose/lose scenario for whichever fool takes it on. Far easier to maintain the status quo here, right? Well, no. While what WordBomb did was pretty terrible in terms of the stalking, etc, I don't think it's fair to brand another editor with this then pointing to the egregious behaviour of another to ensure they never get unblocked. There have been plenty of real-life cases where a person was so identified and this was used to take them out of circulation without parole for a very long time indeed. These, in time, were also overturned.

Since User:Piperdown/1 has now been restored as evidence for all to see, it's remarkable in its similarity to User:Mantanmoreland/1 which, Piperdown tells us, was set up "In response to" the latter. This certainly lends perspective to the matter and to be honest, its contents, in terms of offensiveness, aren't all that dissimilar really.

Here's some background to my own rationale here. I indefinitely blocked an extremely disruptive and abusive editor last year. He had been caught red-handed harassing another editor by outting his home address on-wiki, sneakily inserting it into comments. This was the final straw in a long litany of abuse and blocks. Given that they were on the opposite sides of a disagreement involving certain paramilitary groups, and given the editor had previously made threats of bodily harm against an administrator here, I considered this a serious matter indeed. "We know where you live". So this guy deserved to be banned, and banned for good. Instead, what happened was the whole matter was sent to Arbitration in what would become known as "The Troubles" arbcom case. And, to everyone's amazement, ArbCom ruled that this guy, rather than be banned, would actually be put on parole on terms agreed by ArbCom. This was done and said editor was unblocked where he went on to be a reasonable productive editor, and is largely reformed. Okay, so he had a few glitches just today, but nevermind :)

Point is this; previously banned "incorrigible" editors have turned around and changed their ways. Not to say that Piperdown is incorrigible or that his ways were "extremely disruptive and abusive" - not that I can discern, to be honest. Just that people change, things change and folks should be given a chance to prove their worth, especially where doubt has been cast, as in this case. In the case of Vintagekits, I was largely proven wrong, and I'd stood my ground and refused to unblock him for quite a long time, too.

Given that David Gerard is back on-line today yet hasn't commented here, I'm willing to try to compromise here, though it won't be easy. There appears to be quite a body of opinion here that Piperdown be unblocked forthwith, dusted down and sent on his way with a gruff apology. There are also a number of respected editors here who are saying that he should stay indef'd and the key be thrown away. May I suggest the following? I'm willing to unblock Piperdown myself here - sticking my neck out somewhat, and putting my (murky!) reputation on the line - but under certain conditions. I'm certainly amenable to discussing these conditions with the community here and, of course, the editor in question would need to agree too. Per what's happened before in Vintagekits' case, I suggest Piperdown be unblocked but be placed on parole for a number of months. An admin would be assigned to liaise with him - a neutral admin - and if he persist in stalkery, etc and behaviour that the community finds offensive, he may be re-blocked for progressively longer times until blocked indefinitely, as any other editor would. I will personally re-block him myself if he re-offends, much as I am loathe to get involved in all that Overstock.com nonsense. While I understand that there's something in this rough plan to annoy both sides of this, it may make a useful compromise. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you again to take a very close look at his posts about me and others, here and on WR, and ask yourself how comfortable you think any of us would feel if you were to unblock him. Forget the WordBomb link and just look at his own posts. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example of his comments about me on WR, which I kept. It's from a list of insults about me: "post menopausal socializing. editing in sexy icons to go with your sexy name is really useful in trying to get laid on the nets, and getting your way with the boy editors. Double Useful !!!" (Wed 12th December 2007, 2:01pm)

Is this someone you would feel comfortable editing with, Alison, if he were making that kind of comment about you? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't link to the Wikipedia Review posts which, if they exist, is allowed because the BADSITES nonsense was rejected by the community and the ArbCom. Anyway, under Alison's proposal, if he were to violate any polices after his block is lifted, he would lose his editing access. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asking Alison whether she would feel comfortable if she had recently been discussed in those terms by someone I was planning to unblock. In addition to wondering whether I'm post-menopausal, how about his speculation on my "Cunning Linguistic Skills in 69 Days or Less!" (Tue 4th December 2007, 11:05pm) or (about me and another woman admin):

“ There is power in projecting yourself as a sexy gal, or as a poor damsel in distress, whether either is true or not. And the people who try to play that power card are probably not up to anything good ... If I went on WP and called myself SexyHardBodyFemaleCoed and put up animated pictures of SilverNakedLadies on my talk pages, I'm not trying to be neutral on a political game. I'm trying to be an Italian Porn Starlet using the Old Cosa Nostra Hard On Network to get my way into the House of Retards." (Tue 11th December 2007, 2:15pm) ”

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Slim, google shows exactly 18 pages the two of you ever edited at the same time, or were both mentioned on wikipedia.[46] Indeed, you two had a bit of a dust-up after you accused him of being a sock back in May, with ensuing drama which definitely went on waaay too long, but nothing really out of bounds that I see. As for WR, well, you are an honorary piñata over there. Like it or not, razzing you is such a part of the culture on that site, I could even imagine it's part of the sign up process -- heck, it might even be in the form of a captcha. I'm not going to waste my time crawling around there for relevant threads though. I don't think we can blame Piper for trying to fit in, when you yourself could long ago have just taken your own advice.[47] "But instead what is really wants is a giant fuss." -- Kendrick7^talk 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, could you show me some diffs of me interacting with him? My memory is that he wikistalked me. I have no memory of otherwise having had much, if anything, to do with him. I'd appreciate some diffs in case I'm misremembering. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You claimed about four posts up he said somehow unworthy things about you here. He didn't AFAICT. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if User:Alison would accept taking a degree of responsibility if Piperdown were to continue being disrupting after an unblock. Her terms sound reasonable, but perhaps adding in this corollary would make the other side not as opposed to it. Wizardman 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "other side" makes this sound like a content dispute. Alison has found evidence that an indef block wasn't justified and Gerard's silence on the matter is deafening. The right and fair thing to do is to give Piperdown another chance. If he violates the community's trust with that chance, as with any other editor including me, then procedures are in place to deal with that. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think letting Piperdown edit Wikipedia, pending more abuse and harassment of more editors is simply ludicrous. If a psychopath who violated your mother and your sister, say, wanted to live with you, would you let him, until he violated your wife too? Crum375 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Crum, that's a personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Crum, I STRONGLY suggest you either self-revert, or strike through your comments. We don't want it said that folks are trying to use cheap emotional ploys to try to change what reasonable discussion has brought forward, do we? SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's over the top, but reading what Piperdown writes on Wikipedia Review doesn't give one much hope that he's going to be civil and policy-compliant if he edits here again.

That said, Crum, that sort of language debases the whole discussion and feeds the trolls. Please don't do things like that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about unblocking a vile individual from WR, who has repeatedly attacked our editors here. Letting such people edit until they offend again is offensive to their victims. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, we can make that point here without using language which is offensive to those participating in the debate. I'm (I guess) on your side in this, and I'm offended... Please, tone it down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The language has to reflect the feelings of the victims and the severity of the offense, which it does. We will not tolerate attacks or harassment of our editors. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It may reflect the feelings of the "victims", but as for the severity of the "offense", you aren't just making a mountain out of a molehill by comparing verbal jousts, no matter how hateful, to someone raping "your mother and sister" and then moving in with you, you are making Mount Vesuvius out of an anthill. I REALLY suggest you consider what you've just done, and apologize to all and sundry. SirFozzie (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On what authority to you speak for the "victims" of his offenses, Crum? Are you telling us you are qualified to do so? Oh, and along with SirFozzie, et al, I really suggest you strike under NPA re Piperdown, and by implication, anyone who supports the unblocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive? Such as is your constant shrill, over-the top attempts to inject OMG MOAR DRAMAHZ into a reasoned and reasonable discussion, Crum. Once again, as Georgewilliamherbert suggests, why don't you have a nice cup of tea and a sit down? You do your argument no good by coming in, and doing the Wiki-equivalent of stamping your feet and threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue, or everyone reverses course. SirFozzie (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Crum, that was way over the line. Either apologize or remove that personal attack. Wizardman 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is the object of my "personal attack"? Crum375 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown is, and incidental subjects are everyone else here who finds it objectionable. NPA applies to everyone, including personal attacks on banned users. Please knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're billing us as allowing psychopaths to ravage our homes, plus you're comparing Piperdown to a psychopath. It's twofold in a way, but mainly against Piperdown. As GWH said, WP:NPA applies to all. Wizardman 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a post by Piperdown this evening on Wikipedia Review. The title is "Alison & SlimVirgin: A Comparison, ...vive le diff-erence":

"Alison - Edits with a name that isn't sexually provocative in a venue full of young hormonal youths with banhammers of the opposite sex

"- Doesn't edit the BLP of the person that fired her, with some very nasty BLP violations that are WP:OR to boot, then get it oversighted by a rogue oversighter

"- Doesn't cover her talk page edit button with the cartoon of "silver naked lady" mudflapper. Points for that.

"- Doesn't forward evidence during a sensitive off-wiki request for BLP/COI evidence from the submitter to the accused under false pretenses

"- Appears to write what she thinks, does what she says, and calls it like it is.

"- Doesn't exaggerate to dramatic effect things that have only very tenuous attachment to a related point, and then disallow any debunking evidence of said exaggerations.

"- Doesn't sock puppet.

"- Doesn't double vote

"-Doesn't edit in 20+ hour continuous sessions that often lead to increasingly unreliable judgement toward the ends of those sessions, and bans on sight without prejudice.

"- Doesn't administer BLP's of former schoolmates who made her cry (that's an assumption on my part)

"SlimVirgin "- Does

"Alison, perhaps you should listen to admins types who aren't SlimVirgin, Crum375, Thatcher, Gerard, FloNight, and Bauder. There are a thousand more out there to listen to. Or consider the diffs for yourself, which you appear to be doing a fine job.

"I am also amazed at how many assumptions about who I agree with and what I believe are being posted on the AN review. I edited in material from reliable sources in all of the articles I edited, and never my opinion, which is not suitable for article content. I saw articles with amazingly one-sided inclusion of sources, articles that were shockingly poor, and people who were up to no good in having their way with WP's power structure.

"I still haven't seen anyone be able to point out any editing on WP I did that was bannable, uncivil (I just can't bring myself to wish people 'fuck off' on WP, although I do like to drop effbombs on WR in the afterglow, makes me feel better! You'll note I was banned on 9/9 and became a Slim WR Virgin on 9/10. Perhaps if I had used the fuckword on WP like Gerard and JzG more often I'd be on the super sekret mailing list too!

"Context, folks, context. Mantan's subpage is a list of soundbites that one needs to read the conversation around them. My most strident back-arching was usually done while the Mantanmoreland-Samiharris sockteam was blanking reliable sources they didn't like, then just telling me I'm crazy (sound familiar, Patrick?), then just telling me to stop or be banned.

"My subpage /1 is straight-forward, linked, and shows more bannable offenses than any "I object!" talk page edit I ever made."

He's on his best behavior, as you can see, trying to impress everybody here that he won't resume his old ways.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the accusations and constant crap thrown at him from this thread, I suggest this phrase from the King James bible, "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're far less poetic when you post on Wiki Review, SirFozzie. Bravo!--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, this "discussion" has brought the best out in me. SirFozzie (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the worst in me, because I of all people have been quoting from an attack site! Well, others have as well to demonstrate the behavior of this particular editor, and I thought that a post from Piperdown this evening is of some significance, as it was particularly vile and sexist. Yes, I realize he was provoked by all the indecent behavior of us curs on Wikipedia, and is blameless etc. etc. If anyone wants to see what this wounded soul posted this evening (in addition to what I posted already, which was deleted and then restored and then deleted......), I have a copy and can email it.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say he was blameless? No, I'd be one of the first to admit it was a damnfool move. I'm just saying that before accusing the otherside of throwing mud, make sure one hasn't reached down and grabbed a double handful yourselves. SirFozzie (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I forgot this is "Take a Stalker to Lunch Week." --Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I hear there's a buy 1, get 3 free special on Ad hominem attacks. You and Crum must shop at the same place. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And a violation of the GFDL. Users have been blocked by the Foundation and the content oversighted for importing others' words verbatim like that. krimpet✽ 05:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to proposed "compromise" unblocking Piperdown; walking in the footsteps of indef banned troublemakers is sufficient reason to block, and this editor as failed make any substantive contributions to Wikipedia in his time here, but seemed more interested in creating and feeding disruption which continues in his absence by those seeking to enable him. No substantive contributions + fanning the flames and disruption = Piperdown is a very, very low return on the community's investment. Enough is enough people, time to move along and return to building an encyclopdia, instead of fighting factional battles. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'm seeing personal attack, after personal attack, after posting of attack site messages, with a side of mudslinging here. If I see another comment resembling a personal attack, whether to another editor on here, piperdown, or otherwise, I will issue a block without further warning. We're editors of wikipedia, most of us being administrators, some of us for an awfully long time. We know better, enough! This applies to everyone making any posts in this topicspace. Wizardman 05:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm extending a final warning to the users who continuously add in/remove the verbatim WR chunk of text above. It adds little to the discussion, so stop edit warring over it. I will block the next person to touch it, right or wrong. I think some of you are close to violating 3RR on it anyway. Wizardman 06:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop issuing warnings, making threats and enabling troublemakers. No, really. You're not helping. You can expect any block you make related to this issue that is not solidly supported by policy to be undone. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Two cents from Jimmy

On Talk:Gary Weiss from October 2007, regarding cleanup from immediately after Piperdown was indef'ed - [48] . Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I particularly like the last comment from that section. Not saying I fully agree with it, mind you, just noting that. SirFozzie (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by that is, yes, it's useful to have the God-King on your side in any argument. However, don't just point to Jimbo's supporting someone and use that as a substitute for discussion. That's the same wolf, just with a different sheep skin on top (if you will excuse the horribly mangled simile) SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to suggest that discussion should end here and now on that point, of course not. My point is that the Piperdown incident was previously tied in to the Wordbomb harrassment and sockpuppetry, that tie in was run up the WP user discipline process review channel all the way to the to the top.

There's been a lingering suggestion that rouge admins were responsible for an ill-considered block. It and other actions at the time were reviewed in context, and given a green light. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Time does not legitimize misbehavior. As Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar demonstrates, meatpuppets do not merit the standing of legitimate editors simply by dodging scrutiny and continuing to proxy for banned editors for some unspecified length of time. Small quantities of useful edits were overshadowed by a campaign of harassment and disruption. Piperdown was blocked for legitimate reasons, and since then has behaved offsite in ways that affirm the legitimacy of the original block by continuing to profess the same things that led to the ban in the first place. The particular venue this person selected is beside the point. This is someone who has shown an unwillingness to abide by site standards; nothing has changed. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is Durova (and no disrespect intended), is there a meatpuppet relationship between the two accounts. There are a lot of mentions up above that just does NOT see that relationship. That's all. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has yet answered the obvious question. If he only wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, why does he not simply power down his modem, get a new IP, and create a new account? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically SV (I'm not him, thankfully, so I can't answer for him).. what happens if this new account steps just a bit over the line, or worse yet, gets caught up in a CU request looking for REAL WordBomb socks, and gets tied to the Piperdown account? Are you telling me that folks would not consider that proof of guilt and imemdiately usher him off the Wiki yet again? SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not answering the question, Sir Fozzie. Anyone who really wanted to edit the encyclopedia would simply abandon that account and edit. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, it's late here (past 1:00 am), I'm tired of arguing (I'm sure you are too), I've been cautioned privately by someone who's judgement I trust to try to avoid crossing that line, and it's a minor point (you may be right, and I may be imagining things), so I'll just say, I was trying to answer the question, and I will leave the argument there. SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, SV. Abandoning the account and starting anew makes sense. Here's the rub though. If he were to make a new account, what would he edit? Similar areas to where he's edited in the past, most likely. Would this be an issue if he were to return to these articles? Since I don't follow this particular articlespace we're discussing, I can't say. But it would be disappointing if we were to end up here again. I actually think he should take your advice, though there's some big potholes that may cause problems. Wizardman 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman, Piperdown wants to make the point that he didn't only make WordBomb-type edits, didn't only stalk and attack people, but also made good contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia (or rather, he is not saying that, but his supporters are saying it on his behalf). If that's true, all he needs to do is create a new account and do those things. No one would notice it was him. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If he's reading this then hopefully he'll listen and slide back in under a new account. Wizardman 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if his Piperdown account remains blocked; that would be sock puppetry to evade a ban. I hope you are not encouraging Piperdown to use sock puppetry to evade his ban, or saying that you support anyone doing so. If so, you need to read WP:SOCK and WP:BAN before participating in such discussions. If he is unblocked a returns, returning to his old ways is not advisble and will only cement his intent in the minds of those supported the ban and give them the ammo they need for another one. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You could utilize that same logic to issue a pardon to Mr. WordBomb and his five dozen sockpuppets.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't we do a checkuser on everyone in this thread and see who is using sockpuppets and who isn't? What do you say, Mantanmoreland? —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. While you're doing checkusers, can you do one on this?[49]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Right Fozzie. As my departed Irish grandmother used to say: Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly. One admin will say it's ok, another will come in and block as a sock. The old Mutt and Jeff as it were. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, in tune with Wizardman's request, I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, or might even happen. I'm just trying to find a way around any possible problems, so we don't have to go through this insanity again in the future. SirFozzie (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean that's it's an actual on purpose ruse, it's only that this would be the outcome. Slim's not the spider, the community is. Honestly, I've made the same suggestion Slim is making to users in similar straights myself, but I don't think it's practical when a matter as high-profile as this. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To put my point more systematically, here's a numbered list. Apologies in advance to people who object to the terminology:

1. Is Piperdown a meatpuppet?
2. If so, does proxying for a banned user for a while make it okay?
3. If not, was the account's conduct okay in other ways?

I'm not sure about no. 1, although I have a hunch there's merit to it. No. 2 is demonstrated by the arbcom decision I cited. As for 3 - I think the ban was merited. As a standard rule I'll support an unblock after six months if an editor doesn't evade a ban on socks and refrains from bashing Wikipedia at offsite fora. Sometimes I've reduced that on good faith when I see evidence that the person has turned over a new leaf. The leaf hasn't turned. And I ask both sides to turn down the heat on this discussion. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of us, Durova, are still just patiently waiting for diffs to support all these allegations flying around. What "campaign of harassment and disruption" are you even talking about? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to the blocking administrator there. And I ask you to please tone down the discussion (above). It's easier to get a resolution if we don't personalize things. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I clarified my remarks. We've been waiting for the blocking admin, but he or she isn't eager to show up, it seems. Allison knows more about the status there than me. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do wish he'd show up too. Would you like me to add my signature to the request at his user talk? Durova^Charge! 06:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think that one of the contributing factors to all this is that David was aware of the discussion and has been editing (I guess at least lightly), but hasn't stepped in and said anything. That's allowed things to fester. It could have nipped this in the bud. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point. Granted, the conflict didn't hit full speed until about 24 hours ago, and David appears to have no edits the past 24 hours. I really would like to hear his say on the matter, perhaps it will help resolve the conflict quicker. In either case, I'm glad that things are starting to calm down now. No need for anybody to get overexerted on the matter. Wizardman 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock and retire? Thoughts about P's own proposal

I have mixed feelings at this point. I'm inclined to think that Piperdown was inaccurately labeled a meatpuppet and thus the indefinite block on those grounds was unjustified at the time, though I do not impute bad faith on the part of those who advocated it. However, his comments at WR demonstrate that he's picked up the Sword of Great Justice against those he believes wronged him and is brandishing it in a terribly offensive way, and my chief concern is that he may not be willing (or able, at this point, given his WR history of attacks on editors) to beat it into a Plowshare of Civil Cooperation if allowed to return here. As I understand it, at WR he is offering a solution involving an unblock to clear him of the meatpuppet accusation, whereupon he will retire his account. This might actually be a relatively drama-free way to resolve the issue. He's also asking for some sort of action or inquiry against the editors involved in his banning, as I understand it, but I think that would be a counterproductive thing at this point and would not be in favor of his solution if he insisted on that part of it. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He says "I never asked to be allowed to edit WP any more, folks. I'd like my account unbanned, all mentions of Wordbomb, Overstock, meat puppeting, sock puppeting, etc. removed from my user and talk pages, and the people who violated WP rules in that banning, and in the article skirmishes that led to it, be treated the same way as anyone else that violates WP rules as shown in diffs and checkuser evidence." I agree with him. He should never be "allowed to edit WP any more." This whole thing is moot, and any further time spent on this person would be wasted. And no, he deserves no ritual unblocking so that he can clean his "record." --Mantanmoreland (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning to how this thread originally began, I requested a neutral admin review the block. One has. Alison's well-considered opinion is explained above in great detail. She definitely took serious pains to back-up her opinion by examining the evidence and even ran a checkuser. I believe her proposal is reasonable and fair and look forward to its implementation which will end the unnecessary drama in this thread which followed. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Two cents from Jonathan

Virtually every comment Piperdown makes to other editors is snarky. They are unhappy right from the start:

• [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

The appearance is that this person was never intending to do anything besides stir up trouble. They have a rather obvious hatred of the project. Why do we want them here?

Piperdown is into naked short selling.

• [61] [62] [63]

Wordbomb is obsessed with naked short selling.

With all respect to Alison, I think this is possibly Wordbomb, or somebody doing his bidding. A determined puppetmaster can defeat checkuser. This account should not be unblocked, except by appeal to ArbCom, or upon approval of the blocking administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? If we decide that Piperdown is not in fact a sockpuppet, why do we need Arbcom approval (or David Gerard approval)? -Amarkov moo! 06:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because you're not supposed to unblock without consensus or approval of the blocking administrator or ArbCom. There's no consensus to unblock here. However, the other two options that I mentioned are available. Jehochman ^Talk 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Where in the blocking policy does it say that? It doesn't, and for good reason. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I was once accused of being a sock or meatpuppet of Wordbomb by a once-respected contributor [64]. Like someone said above, anyone with an agenda can argue all day that someone is a meatpuppet if that editor, no matter how tenuously, appears to support the supposed agenda of an editor who is no longer allowed to edit in Wikipedia. It's unfair to Piperdown, especially since the admin who originally applied the block is purposefully keeping silent on why the block was applied. Piperdown's edits weren't perfect, but an idefinite block was way over the line. It's time for it to be lifted. If he doesn't follow the rules, well, we can deal with that. Somehow I think he's going to be watched rather closely based on some of the emotional comments I've seen by some of my esteemed colleagues above. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You asked for a neutral administrator to review the block. Jehochman is a neutral administrator. If, despite this, you feel you must continue to press your case, is it absolutely necessary to refer to SlimVirgin as a "once-respected contributor"? --Mantanmoreland (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla makes a valid point. If he wants to come back and edit under this account, he's going to be watched like a hawk. I'm sure all of you who oppose the unblock would be paying attention to all his edits, and rightfully so. It's something to take into account, I think. Wizardman 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Noo. As soon as they step one inch out of line, I predict they will be blocked, and major drama will follow. Let's get the facts right first, then act. Jehochman ^Talk 06:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Major drama will follow? I dunno, it seems like there's consensus here that a re-block is certainly fine if he steps out of line again. I'd be surprised if it caused drama. Then again, I'm not often involved in controversial matters, I may be completely wrong. Wizardman 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The length of this thread suggests major drama. I've been at ground zero a few times. Please, let's try to avoid that. Jehochman ^Talk 06:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there was an unblock/reblock and drama started to boil, we could simply refer to this very thread. However, it may backfire and cause another similar topic. So you're actually probably right on this matter. I'm off for the night though, hopefully things will remain relatively calm around here while I'm away. Wizardman 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, administrators should not engage in controversial use of tools, including both blocks and unblocks. If an admin blocked you without good evidence, I am sorry for that. With Piperdown, we should get everybody, or almost everybody, to agree before anybody starts using sysop tools. If this user is unblocked now, that will be a recipe for huge drama. Want an example? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph. Jehochman ^Talk 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If anybody doesn't like the result here (no consensus, block remains in place), please lodge an appeal with ArbCom. The user can email arbcom-l directly to request a review. Jehochman ^Talk 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation, and way over the line. See above. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I skipped over a bit of the discussion above, and it turns out I shouldn't have done that. I have to agree with you now. If someone really wants Piperdown unblocked, then convince Arbcom to do it. -Amarkov moo! 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Until Alison weighs back in on her proposal, this isn't closed. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is somewhere along the lines of "no". -Amarkov moo! 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And my own two cents (unfortunately American cents, which with the rapidly declining dollar don't buy much these days): Well, Piperdown has now done a very good job of undermining any prospects he may have had for getting un-banned, by going out of his way to cheese off the person who was trying to help him. This "validates" the decision to ban him, in the minds of opponents, though one ought to look also at the words and actions of "the other side" and inquire into whether incivility and bias are really found only among Wordbomb and "friends", and not in the clique that is up against them. But there's a lot of "cheesing off one's allies" all around, as seen by Crum's ill-conceived rape analogy managing to offend some of those on his own side. And, to risk being accused of once again beating my favorite dead horse, I find it amusing that some of the more fervent supporters of the concept that "one must never link to, quote from, or reference attack sites under any circumstances!" are the ones who are edit-warring in favor of adding such material this time. I guess "under any circumstances" has an exception for when you find it desirable. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I could add one more final thought to those well-said words...it wasn't just the support for the BADSITES censorship initiative that greatly damaged the credibility of the members of a small clique of editors, but also their support for helping protect a certain POV in the naked short selling article and protecting the bio of an obscure financial journalist who has a vocal opinion in the naked short selling debate. This support has included the defaming (like in the diff I provided above) and sometimes banning (Piperdown) of editors who have taken a contrary view or who have tried to introduce neutrality or tried to ensure that the rules were applied equally to everyone and every topic. Unfortunately, this thread shows that the issue still hasn't been laid to rest. Although many of the secrets and lies of this issue have been brought to light, there appears to be more to come until the entire, sordid episode is fully exposed. I think it would be to the project's benefit if it was sooner rather than later. Cla68 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify something here, because the conspiracymongering and innuendo is a bit much. The "diff that you provided above," which is here did not "defame" you or anyone. It accurately and neutrally describes your active partisanship for banned user WordBomb, which was the reason why your RfA was unsuccessful. In that diff, it was discussed how you restored edits that had to be oversighted in the article of the "obscure financial journalist" who is WordBomb's, Piperdown's and your obsession. Working out your bad feelings concerning that RfA by calling SlimVirgin, who raised that point, a "once-respected contributor," as you did earlier, is just not acceptable. The "issue" as you put it, is not some deep dark conspiracy but constant efforts to stir up trouble by WordBomb and his partisans.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That diff has the infamous "based in the same state as WordBomb" accusation, which takes the concept of guilt by association to a Looney-Tune high that's never been equaled since. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It says that, and it also says, "I don't know what Cla's intentions were, but there's no question that he was repeating libelous and toxic claims made on Wordbomb's attack site and on Wikipedia Review." I think that is more representative of the statements made in that RfA. So I guess there is a defamation issue here, but not the one stated by Cla.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm based in the same state as the Wikimedia Foundation (at least until they complete their move to California), and some of the things I believe in and espouse sometimes coincide with ideas held by them; therefore, I'm a meatpuppet of theirs. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good! It is a fine organization and does a lot of good work. You should stop hanging out with the fruitcakes on Wiki Review and spend more time at the Foundation while you can.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are unblock per Alison. Blocks shouldn't be implemented without warnings, and especially not for expressing controversial opinions. Granted, some of Piperdown's comments on WR since then may have been particularly heinous, but Wikipedia has given people second chances before and if P resorts to such behavior on-site it would be easy enough to block again. Amerique^dialectics 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I might support a second chance if the editor provided an indication that they wanted one, and that they would work cooperatively. They have not done so yet, so an unblock would be premature, in my opinion. Second chances do sometime work, but we need to use them carefully. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether this counts as a second chance, or the fellow even got a first one. Relata refero (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, feel free to lodge an appeal with the Arbitration Committee, or better yet, Piperdown can email them directly. Several administrators are on record opposing the unblock, myself included. It does not seem like this thread has any chance whatsoever of resulting in an unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that if someone is blocked that a community ban now means not just that no admin will unblock them, but that the unblocking admin also has to find consensus? My understanding was that if an admin is willing to unblock, then that ends the community ban. I suspect this isn't fully resolved, but don't believe stopping the discussion on that basis is really correct. If he wants another chance to edit productively, or wants a different label on his talk page, I think we should do either. Mackan79 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, please review the definition of an indefblock: a block that not one admin is willing to undo. I see several admins willing to undo the block here. You would have to take it to arbcom to desysop them, or undo them yourself and have arbcom investigate the wheel warring. Neither sensible approaches. (Please note that I really don't have an opinion on whether this chap will be a positive effect here afterwards.) Relata refero (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has become uncomfortable editing due largely to Wikipedia’s inability to address this situation, a thought: if NPA is going to be restored here, what we need is a return to neutral principles for what is acceptable on the encyclopedia. These should be straight-forward, like no personal attacks, no hinting at conflicts or personal identities, etc. Indeed, these basic rules seem to be what legitimately got Piperdown into trouble. Trying to say that this is somehow about meatpuppetry, on the other hand, or intemperate comments in another forum (I don’t know about others, but based on the various attacks he has endured here I cut him a fair bit of slack -- to the extent these comments can be relevant here whatsoever) only ends up violating the much more sensible principle that editors should stay away from this kind personalization. This would in my view be a much better way of dealing with this kind of thing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In discussing whether to unblock a user who engages in vile conduct off-site directly related to Wikipedia, when he is engaged in that conduct at the time his unblock is being considered, it's unrealistic to not take his vile conduct into consideration. In the case of Piperdown we're not talking about isolated events, but pretty much every word he has written off-site. His off-site comments are simply less restrained versions of the open contempt and "snarkiness" recorded by Jehochman. His Piperdown/1 attack page is filled with innuendo, personal attacks, and hinting at real identities and supposed conflicts of interest. It's unfortunate that his advocates here have, on one or two occasions, engaged in the same conduct. This kind of thing has gone on for a long time and I think that it really needs to be halted.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think our problem is that once you ban someone, it's not reasonable to expect them to respect Wikipedia customs and mores. Like them or not, snarkiness and innuendo are part of the real world. As such, I disagree; to raise the whole issue of whether someone's conduct offsite is "vile" is necessarily to invite a discussion that Wikipedia is much better off without. You're right that Piperdown/1 shows inappropriate comments, but if a person is willing to not make such comments, Wikipedia simply isn't in a position to block them based on discussions they are having somewhere else. All I have seen says it does a lot more harm than good. Mackan79 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only has Piperdown shown not the slight inclination to be "willing to not make such comments," but he feels such comments are jim-dandy and that the rest of the world is wrong and he is right. It was pointed out that he makes vicious sexist remarks. He reads that and responds by making even more vicious, more sexist remarks about an administrator who wanted to unblock him! It is impossible to ignore that kind of atrocious conduct in an unblock discussion.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be much better than making these kinds of characterizations about a person who is not allowed here to defend himself. Really, Wikipedia should aspire to more level headed discussions of what is allowed and what isn't. In that regard, if you'd like to present something he said offsite as a reason for banning him, I'll likely disagree for the reasons above. If it gets to the point where you have to characterize it as "vicious" and "vile," then I think we've lost something further -- including the basic principles behind NPA and BLP. I don't think it's necessary at all. Mackan79 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he hasn't shown any interest in moderating his ways. That's the issue here. Please present evidence that he has. When you make a comment that is not factually accurate, don't berate people for pointing out that your comment was not only inaccurate, but conspicuously so. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to what he is willing to do. It looks at this point like he simply wants his name cleared, which I think is appropriate. My opinion is that when there never was an initial discussion of what he should have done differently, it's not reasonable to keep him blocked without finding out if he's willing to adjust (which would then include not editing). Mackan79 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Walking in the footsteps of banned editors is never wise and almost inevitably leads to suspicions about meat puppetry and blocking. So the block appears completely warranted to many. Equally troubling has been the response of many of Piperdown's supporters here and their association with WR and its history of being a launching pad for organized disruption of Wikipedia. I'm seeing the same names here again and again that I've seen in other disruptions and unneccesary dramas. There's a level of disruptive factionalism going on around a certain set of editors who use Wikipedid to fan the flames of certain offsite campaigns against particular admins far, far more than they edit articles or contribute meaningfully to the project. That is what needs to stop. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are some names that come up again and again in the context of disruptive factionalism.... yours is one of them. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could stop throwing all this backroom drama around and boring the uninitiated (such as myself) and focus on the block being discussed. Relata refero (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan, ever hear of WP:CIVIL? Care to explain how your comment is not a trollish personal attack? FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Saying I'm bored by irrelevant discussions of other commenters' affiliations is a trollish personal attack now? A suggestion that we stay on-topic is hardly a personal attack, any more than Wizardman's warning below is. Neither is this. Discuss the block, please, or wait for David to come back and discuss it, which is what I would prefer. Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing Dan. But to your point, if a long running campaign is being conducted offsite to attack the administration of this site, and one is, then dicussing it on the administration pages of this site is not only useful, but necessary; hardly irrelevant. You're welcome to skip the comments that don't interest you, but don't expect others to act as if this is some isolated incident; it isn't. David Gerard was right when he said some years ago that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and letting a coordinated group game the system by hiding behind AGF is never going to fly. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Of course, as far as the uninvolved can see, there appear to be two coordinated groups demanding AGF, which is why the finger pointing is useless. AGF is not a suicide pact, but a circular firing squad is equally deadly. If we stick to the facts of an individual case, we are more likely to get things right than through guesswork and innuendo. This goes both ways. Relata refero (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But one of the groups is well-connected with the ruling clique here, while the other isn't, which makes all the difference. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, Dan, stop with the "ruling clique" stuff will you please? It's a tired and trite expression. Can't you substitute "Wikipedia Administrator Secret Conclave and Bowling Alley Wax Brigade" or something else more colorful?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If my statement was a "trollish personal attack" then how come none of yours are? One ought to be reminded of adages about pots calling kettles black, or of sauce for the goose and the gander. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And we're nearing the realm in incivility and attacks again. Since it's kinda hidden above, I'll reiterate my warning, I'll block the next user to issue personal attacks in this section here on sight, they're doing more harm than good. Things are starting to get off-topic again though. I would like to see who still supports an unblock after some of the recent drama though, with Alison changing her mind and the like. A lot of smoke and mirrors too, no need for that either. Wizardman 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping all the accusations of incivility and heated comments: the basic rule is that administrative actions should not be undone without consensus. The user is not banned at this point. However, they are indefinitely blocked, and will remain so until one of the following is true:

1. The blocking administrator unblocks
2. There is a consensus here to unblock, which there isn't
3. ArbCom decides to unblock

Rather than arguing further, please lodge an appeal with the arbitration committee. Please, show respect for each other and for Wikipedia. Run your disputes through the proper processes. Endless debating on this noticeboard is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blank and protect, or delete, userpage and talkpage?

From the thread above, my impression is that one of Piperdown's main goals at this point is to have his userpage and talkpage blanked, rather than to resume editing. Is there any reason not to go ahead and blank and protect, or delete, these pages? I certainly don't see that they are serving a substantive purpose at this point and perhaps through this simple step we could resolve the request avoid a need for further discussion, one way or the other, of this former editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Might as well, would be hard to make a case against that. Wizardman 18:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Other that sock and meat puppets benefit from having their tracks covered for them. I've seen far too many Charley McCarthyists over the years get away with a lot of disruption only because their tags removed from their account pages, both main and sock and months later admins not aware of the mindfield wade right and unblock etc. For this reason I don't support blanking at this time. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking to remove mentions of being a sockpuppet is something I wouldn't mind seeing someone do. Piperdown's objective in a nutshell is to be removed from being associated from WordBomb and overstock, which I wouldn't mind seeing if the drama was discontinued. By no means do I want him on Wikipedia as an editor, but if he is going to leave, let him leave in peace so he doesn't back on and cause disruption because of the tags. — Save_Us † 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason on earth to delete his user page. As for blanking, it was blanked for some months and he unblanked it.[65]. In fact, he complained about it off-wiki. I agree with Felonious Monk that a blanking is not warranted. Let's stop being manipulated by this guy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"removed from being associated from WordBomb and overstock" Reading his recent comments on WR, that is certainly not his intent. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What he's saying now is that he just wants to put a retired template on his page now. Might be reasonable. Would it make sense to have both an indefblock and retired template on one page though? Wizardman 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping him from putting a retired template on his page, as long as he doesn't take off any templates put there by administrators.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, I guess you missed the part where I'm the one who blanked his talk page in the first place. I guess you also missed the part where he also makes silly personal attacks about me on Wikipedia Review as well. I'm not letting him manipulating me in the least, but if he is going to leave, why not have him just leave and it be done with? Why drag on the drama? Why make this thread more unnessecarily longer than has to be? Continuing to keep the page tagged when the basis of the block is highly disputed to the point of legitimate editors wanting the block to be removed, then it's time to blank the page all together or tag it with a standard blocked template and let him leave already.

FeloniousMonk, consider what Mantanmoreland stated today as something Piperdown stated:

"...I'd like my account unbanned, all mentions of Wordbomb, Overstock, meat puppeting, sock puppeting, etc. removed from my user and talk page..."

Unblocking is one thing, which I highly don't recommend, but keeping it tagged is fanning flames. — Save_Us † 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It hadn't fanned the flames one bit in the many months that the indef block notice appeared on his page. I suggest that whether it remains or does not, his and his allies' efforts to start trouble will continue whenever they wish to do so. I think it is unrealistic to suggest that removing an indef block notice will somehow make everything right for this former user.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that would make everything alright. It would take a whole lot more than template removal to actually satisfy him. But the point is the tag isn't doing anything real valuable and keeping has no benefit but complaining from Piperdown. I'd remove a template if it stopped someone from complaining that much. — Save_Us † 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He was complaining long before he was banned from Wikipedia. He was unhappy before he was banned. He was griping from day one. Nor do I think that it is our job to make a blocked editor "happy" or "uncomplaining," particularly when doing so is an impossibility, and he appears to thrive on complaining and being unhappy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To hell if I want to make him happy, but uncomplaining (i.e. not causing disprution on Wikipedia), yes I want that. Why purposely upset someone who is leaving? Just let him leave. — Save_Us † 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That is my point, actually. I would suggest that if he feels encouraged by anything done here, it will result in still more disruption. Therefore no, I would not extend to him any courtesies (per the comment below).--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, the comment below is Jehochman's. You say: I would not extend to him any courtesies (per the comment below), yet Jehochman says I support deleting the user's pages. We should try to extend courtesies like this to banned users. Emphasis mine. There appears there is a contradiction there. — Save_Us † 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I support deleting the user's pages. We should try to extend courtesies like this to banned users. We should not turn them into a public spectacle. There is an indefinite block in place. Any administrator who undoes that without going through proper channels would be risking their bit, so I do not think it is particularly important to keep the sock puppet templates in place. Perhaps en entry can be made on their talk page before deletion referencing this discussion so that future administrators will be able to look backwards and see what happened. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he has a retired message on his main page now. Is at least this section resolved now? Wizardman 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. User claims thats all they want. If that's so, I see no need to unblock, and there's no consensus anyway. I think we can be done here. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and we should delete the subpage when we're done with it. Cool Hand Luke 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think you should have, until a consensus was reached here on whether to use a "retired" template on the user page of a blocked editor who did not, in fact, retire. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

They're dropping an appeal, so to speak. We accord users a right to vanish anyhow, so why prolong the drama with obscenely petty arguments about whether it's wrong to write "retired"?

Let's get back to working on an encyclopedia, eh? Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what do you hope to accomplish by having a template reinstated to his userpage? The block is still in place, what more do you want? BTW, even Jimbo has granted a banned editor their last wish before they left (see User:MARMOT). I understand your involved in the dispute you had with this editor, but the tagging isn't nessecary at all to confirm his status here. — Save_Us † 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Let's see.. every party got at least something they wanted out of this mess. He remains blocked, a retired template was added, we listened to both sides, etc. As far as I'm concerned this whole situation is closed. We weren't getting consensus on anything, what's now transpired is the best we're going to do. We'll all feel better if we drop this right now. Wizardman 20:09, 26 January 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.

Looks like I missed the conclusion of this. Oh well. Piperdown kinda blew it, far as I'm concerned after he posted those comments about me. However, I'm certain he's not WordBomb and I'm pretty sure his block isn't valid. How and ever, that's all largely moot now, from what I can see here - Alison ^❤ 07:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)