Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive391

Merle Terlesky

Merle Terlesky, who corresponds to Merlet (talk · contribs), made yet another legal threat regarding the picture that had been on his article just hours after coming off his original block for making legal threats earlier. The fact that he did so using an anon IP is particularly troubling in my view. Accordingly, I have blocked Merlet indefinitely, and blocked the IP for 31 hours. Feel free to review this action.

However, there is a larger concern at play here--his demand that the picture be removed from his article for safety reasons. The logic of this claim is, to say the least, disturbing. The current interpretation of WP:NFCC does not allow fair-use images in BLPs. I'm not sure we want to open up the possibility of allowing living people to demand that pics of them be removed, even if no reasonable person could claim that the pic could possibly be threatening. Blueboy96 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably best not to over-react to legalese posturings from article subjects, just point out to them that it's easier to work with us than against, and if they really want the picture removed then - in the short term at least - it's probably wise to do so, to calm them down. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense ... I could see removing the picture if it claimed that he was standing in front of his house, but in the short term, it does make sense to diffuse the situation. Still doesn't excuse the legal threat, though. Blueboy96 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hypothetical possibility to consider: some jerk on a web site with a cult following says "hey followers, I want you to kill this guy. he is out in public a lot, and you can find a real good picture of him on Wikipedia!". Suppose someone tells the subject of the threat about this. Isn't it just possible that this might make him a little nervous about having a real good mug shot publicly available for all the potential thugs? But what is that to us? If he is famous, then his picture must stay in the article, obviously. Loren.wilton (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Absolute statements of principle like this are rarely helpful in resolving an issue. Removing an image is no big deal, even if it is then debated and reinserted. Do try not to be needlessly aggressive towards article subjects, however dislikable they may be. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, that person could be, let's say, Tony Blair. So should we remove his photo? What if anyone who wants to know what he looks like can go and see photos of him - and perhaps the same photo - somewhere else? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that this guys picture is already publicly available in several places including his own website. It is possible he does not like the idea of a freely licensed picture anyone can use, but I can't be sure. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Long-term semi-protection for Keith Howard

• I realize this may be better suited for WP:RPP, but I got rejected there, and I'm not sure if people fully understand the situation. In a recent episode of the web parody of Yu-Gi-Oh! (entitled Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged Series), one of the characters mentions that another character's middle name is Steve or he wouldn't have been able to mind control him. Yadda yadda, that's all besides the point. The point is that the character then says "Just look at his Wikipedia article". And predictably, Keith Howard (and to a lesser extent, Ghouls (Yu-Gi-Oh!) has been vandalized daily by geniuses who think that because some Internet show says his middle name is Steve it must be true. (Either that or they think it's funny. Whatever.) I request long-term semi-protection for this article; the vandalism probably will not cease until the next episode is done, and I'm getting tired of reverting every three hours or so. JuJube (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to note that the vandals also seem to want to include references to the character being Canadian, including adding hidden text like "|homeland=Canada" in the article. This reference also seems to relate to the Yu-Gi-Oh web parody.[1], was very recently added, and seems to have slipped through. Blackworm (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection was declined yesterday at 7:22; there has been lots of activity since. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an update, the page was semi-protected at 7:46 this morning by Stifle. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at 11:46 UTC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock

Hello, I have the daily sock of user:scibaby removing info. We go through this every night, can someone block User:Wavie Gravy. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, someone took care of it. Brusegadi (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked by user:Raul654.

Inappropriate RfA

I'm not sure if this is a joke or an attempt at disruption (I'm rather skeptical that the story is true), but does anyone recognize the style here? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not to cast aspersions, but yeah-- I could venture a guess. Better not, I could be wrong. Does anyone not feel this is disruption? Dlohcierekim 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much disruption per my comments. The user I mentioned who went through RFA earlier today named as Having a wonderful time pretended to be an administrator earlier this morning, but the userbox and comment was later removed. That person, HAWT, also seems to be well acquainted with the workings of monobook's. Rudget. 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Albeit good faith or bad, no matter. I've closed it and left a note on the user talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP user is making edits with my name

This Special:Contributions/217.87.76.64 anonymous IP user is making edits using my real name and Wikipedia user name. The IP has already been blocked however it looks like the same user has been disruptive from the range of IPs attached to this ISP. This is shown by the logs towards the bottom of this page, all the IP that start with 217.87. Please can someone remove all of the edit history of this user to remove those edits and edit comments that incldue my real life name? A range block of the ISP for anonymous editing might also be needed since this user has been vandalising on the same topics since 4th November last year. Fnagaton 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted two of the four diffs in question; the remaining two are part of pretty large page histories so I'd recommend you request oversight. I'm useless with rangeblocks, so someone else will need to look at that. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 11:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware of the oversight process until now. Fnagaton 11:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed all the offending edits been removed now. Thanks again. Fnagaton 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

TFD Overdue

There is no deadline. :) On a serious note, the [irrel TFD] can probably be closed. Thank you in advance, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable political attack by User:Londo06

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

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 – User warned by LessHeard vanU

What kind of edit summary is this [2]? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor. Just as poor as removing a line as unsourced in an article that has been in existence for less than 24 hours. I suggest you leave the article alone, to be worked up to a reasonable stub, and possibly Londo06 also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not call it a political attack, as per my initial note on the users talk page, I saw the userbox that labelled him as an anarchist, I would certainly not call it a leap from there. Definitely taken under advisement though.Londo06 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is political attack when you liken anarchism with vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I liken them, I used opened with Anarchists Vandalism which was explained in the detail that was deleted.Londo06 13:21, 26 March 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.

User:Soiled himself

Does User:Soiled himself look familiar to anyone? I've got nobody in particular in mind, but this doesn't look like a new user's first edits...and I'm fairly sure that joking about pedo still isn't taken lightly. --Onorem♠Dil 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked as troll acount. Yawn, nothing to see here.--Doc^g 13:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bonny Eberndu (talk · contribs · count) - sock

Resolved

 – The user has been blocked as a sock puppet of Pope Benjamin Lister _(1 == 2)^Until 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted the user. Definite sock. Not sure who. Trying to nominate iar for deletion. Requested speedy for the AfD page also. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They have nominated for MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I closed it out. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs). Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a request for unblock on its talk page. Says its the wrong guy, but it shouldn't matter. It was clearly an attack account. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been check user confirmed. I've protected his talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Peck123

Resolved

This little vandal has messed up my user page and user talk through redirects that I don't know how to fix. All of my history for both pages are gone, and once again, I don't know how to fix it. I reverted some vandalism he did to User:El C's page, then he took revenge on me. Can someone revert all the changes to my user and user talk pages, along with restoring the history? And anyone who can tell me how to do it (or if it requires an admin), I'd appreciate learning how to do it. Thanks for the help.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. An admin blocked Peck123 and fixed my pages, and now I know how to do it! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Despute on the Krishna article about Crowley/Thelema section

Dear Admins, Can we please have a third party on the issue of keeping the Crowley/Thelema section in the Krishna article. The majority of the editors feel that it is unappropriate and should be removed. I have been threatened by one of the opposing editor with barring me from editing that page...Please help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be looking for WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB. Good luck! --jonny-mt 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

user:Fitz Mackins showing ownership of articles

I hope this is an appropriate place to post this - I haven't listed this in WP:AIV because I'm not sure that this is vandalism per se, but Fitz Mackins's edits are really problematic. He has assumed ownership of a few articles, notably Edwin Wijeyeratne‎ and Nissanka Wijeyeratne‎ (which he initially created), and is reverting every change to them and othr articles by any other editor. This includes the simple addition of article improvement tags which the articles could really use: here, here, and here, just to pick three from Edwin Wijeyeratne‎. There are many more examples at Nissanka Wijeyeratne‎, at Radala, at Govigama, at Diyawadana Nilame and many others. None of these edits are ever explained even in an edit summary, and attempts to engage him in discussion on his talk page haven't been effective - he will not engage in any discussion. Note on his talk page that he has been warned for ownership, edit warring, and general vandalism, but has continued the behaviour. Other editors have also expressed similar frustrations at the article talk pages. At what point do we stop assuming good faith and start calling this ownership behaviour vandalism? Dawn bard (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am investigating his edits of today. He has been amply warned. If I see edit warring going on today, I will block this user.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He/she hasn't appeared to have made any edits since earlier today. Well, I will watch this user over the next few days. Report any further incidents here. In the meantime, put forth every effort to be peaceable and cooperative with this user. Among those bringing the complaints, I have seen some edit warring as well. Blocking someone from Wikipedia, though sometimes necessary, is a sad event. In the interim that he is not editing, begin to make some constructive and non-controversial edits - preferably beyond just article tagging. I would like to see this resolved peacefully, but if the complete lack of cooperation continues then we'll have to block.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and racism

See above. User:Svetovid has been blocked 2 times for edit warring on Hedvig Malina page. Guess, what he's doing since his last block? Editwarring on the Hedvig Malina page :) now carefully avoiding to break 3RR. Intrestingly an IP came to help him :) Svetovid is forcing an obviously biased version instead of the compromised (NPOV) version. Action needed, thanks. --87.97.109.54 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Hindi script from the page Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind by Tuncrypt

Tuncrypt (talk · contribs) keeps deleting the Hindi script from the page Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind insisting that the name is not Hindi but urdu. I have repeatedly shown him that the official language of this organisation was Hindustani which is derived from a blend of Hindi and Urdu. But he keeps insisting that I have not been able to prove anything and he is right and keeps on deleting the Hindi script. I have triede to reason with him in the past but have now given up. Can somebody please have a look at this? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Someone have a look at this. Rueben lys's poverty in logic and drama queen sensibilities are astounding. He doesn't explain himself, doesn't make an effort to understand me, contradicts himself, and utterly lacks good faith. To an entirely reasonable and dispute-settling explanation of mine, he replies with charges of it being a "nonsensical rant", a "quench(ing) of (my) bloated sense of knowledge", and something that does not "deserve a logical answer" so he "wont tax (his) brain". All throughout, he has without reason presupposed some sort of bias in me, "by your logics it is actually urdu because you want it to be". He seemingly shrugs off the existence of an attested grammatical construction simply because its page is currently lacking in size and scope (as if I'd somehow lie about it?), and then ends in a lame tactic of shifting the topic and throwing out petty insults and presuppositions, "you dont know anything about AHG, I doubt you know anything about language either. Make some constructive edits and try to improve this page instead of tring to make a point of your scholarship." What to do! Hopefully reason and sense win out. Tuncrypt (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And couldn't this have been put on an Indian topics-related noticeboard or something? Well whatever. Tuncrypt (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My Assumption of good faith I hope will be bourne by my earlier posts on Tuncrypt's page last year, linked here and here, which again addresses Tuncrypts next point that I dont explain myself. The posts in Azad Hind talk page, along with the previous two links should show wether I am exlaining myself or not. Tuncrypts dispute settling explanation is "it's not because it's not" with a strong hint of "'cause I say so". That he doesn't know anything about AH-e-AH is bourne by his insistence that it is urdu, while every historians knows that the official language was Hindustani, which is similar to but not the same as Urdu, having been mixed with Hindi. By logical reasoning the name of the organisation itself then would be hindustani, and not Hindi or Urdu. As for Tuncrypt's posts on the talk page, any alternative interpretations of his arguments other than "'cause I say so (think so, feel so, ie baseless, not referenced or supported by any evidence) are welcome. For the record, I dont have a clue what Izafat is, and the page does not really explain anything whatsoever. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PS You're welcome to link this to Indian topic-related noticeboard. In fact I suggested to you long ago that you call an RfC if you felt so strongly about this.I felt this needed admin attention, and hence this is posted here. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you yourself don't know anything about language, and yet you feel can rubbish others who claim to. And, then you go and say of me, "I doubt you know anything about language either", when a quick check of my userpage would allay such concerns: my edits are almost exclusively language-related, and I have single-handedly and quite proudly written the following pages: Gujarati language, Gujarati grammar, Gujarati script, Gujarati phonology, Hindi-Urdu phonology, Hindi-Urdu grammar, Punjabi grammar.

So honestly, just read and try to understand, what I have said in the first place. I have added a tad bit extra in brackets, if that helps.

“ We are not at an impasse; you're just not making sense. You say that Azad Hind's language was Hindustani in Roman script, and yet you argue for the inclusion of Hindi script. That is a contradiction. If Azad Hind's language was Hindustani in Roman script as you have repeated endlessly and which I never denied anyway, then you can remove both Urdu and Hindi scripts.

Having done that, my second point is that again, while Azad Hind no doubt declared its working language as Hindustani, outside of that and for all purposes the actual phrase Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind itself is objectively Urdu in character (i.e. by vocabulary and grammar: izafat [the words are entirely of high Persian and Arabic origin, and the linking -e- is a Persian grammatical construction]) and therefore having an Urdu transcription [Perso-Arabic script] would be appropriate.

So that is it. I think that I have laid out my case in this post clearly and logically, and it is now simply left to be understood. I'm not here to fight you or to manifest any anti-Hindi bias or whatever (which I don't have). I'm simply calling for the removal of at least Hindi script because of its inappropriateness to the topic, and your point on Hindustani confirms that anyway.

”

Tuncrypt (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was adopted as a Hindustani name. Also, since the official language was Hindustani, how can the name adopted be Urdu? Besides, words like Sarkar-e-Bartania (British Sarkar, British Government), mausam-i-garma (summer), Mahmula-i-Jahaz, etc have adjoining -e- (or -i-) in them, but these are hindustani words. My "I doubt you know much about languages either" is an expression of frustration, but I am quite certain you dont know much about Azad Hind, no offence meant there. You may have built a lot of language pages, which is admirable, but you will notice I have alomost single handedly built the Indian National Army content, and know enough to know the name was adopted for being Hindustani, not urdu because that would have upset Hindus, and not Urdu because that would have upset Muslims. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are stylistic Urdu constructions, chosen to be included as a part of the proposed Hindustani language, which was "a mix of Urdu and Hindi". But that's not the point anyway. I just want the Hindi script to be removed. Are you saying that "Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind" is Hindi? No, you aren't, so let the Hindi script be stricken. Take the Urdu script away too if you want (but I just think it'd help if it remained, because of, as I've said, the Perso-Arabic nature of the phrase). Tuncrypt (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad the two of you are close to settling this content dispute. User:rueben_lys, is there some adminstrative action you are seeking, or should this section be marked as closed? Relata refero (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am saying since since the language is derived from Hindi and Urdu, both have an equal impportance and should belong there. Perso-Arabic nature of the script I dont know, Hindustani Language of the script it is I do know. As you say you want the Hindi script removed, and absolutely cant see why, and moreover I think you're trying to prove a point here. I want the hindi script to remain along with the urdu script for the same reason that you think urdu would help, and more- on the basis that the two forms the basis of the language that it is in actuallity. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

tag Tuncrypt (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Decorative fair use

There is presently an edit war at Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) regarding the use of a fair use image in the article, which I consider decorative (as it doesn't comply with the NFCC). Comments would be welcomed. Matthew (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Lerdthenerd (talk · contribs) should have his rollback removed, as he's used it in a dispute and not for regular vandalism. Qst (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Matthew has violated 3rr here:

• 1st removal of image.
• 1st RV, of other text.
• 2nd RV, or other text.
• 1st RV of image.
• 2nd RV of image.
• 3rd RV of image.
• 4th RV of image.

This is due for a 3rr block. Lawrence § t/e 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a block, and utterly disagree with removing Lerdthenerd's rollback. Matthew was behaving extremely badly and strangely. I also think that 48-hr full protection would be good. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I haven't. I've been enforcing the non-free content policy, which is exempt from 3RR. Matthew (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, removing clear vios is exempt. Five users, one an admin, disagreeing makes the issue unclear. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

3rr report filed here for the procedurally inclined. Lawrence § t/e 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clear violations. Exactly what this is. You/they may disagree with the policy (as you did last time) but that doesn't make the violation any less clearer. Matthew (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked up what clear meant. I got: "free from confusion or doubt; to go unchallenged". None of those definitions are met. There is confusion amongst the five users, one an admin. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you challenging the policy? If not then I'm quite sure this is a clear violation of that policy. I'm sure there's no confusion or doubt as the policy is quite straight. Matthew (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm clearly not challenging the policy. I guess that the word "clear" appears in that sentence for a reason; namely, to exclude ambiguous cases. Would you agree with that point? I also suggest that if one non-admin thinks an image is a vio, and four non-admins and one admin think that it is fine, then that is ambiguous. Would you agree with that? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm blind, but where again does the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria say you get a 3rr exemption? BLP spells that out, this does not. Lawrence § t/e 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Second point under Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions: "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies;" Don't see it on the NFCC page, but the exception is there on the 3RR page. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I see right here, it is not a cut and dry situation as there are people who agree and disagree with the decision? That is not a free pass to begin edit warring. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Just like BLP, you don't automagically get the exemption, if you are challenged. Blocking for 3rr violations on disputed NFCC and BLP is perfectly valid if it needs to happen. Using an acronym is not a magic shield to revert wildly. Lawrence § t/e 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone finds him or herself edit warring against 2+ registered users (and in this case 5? users), the "clear" violation standard is not met and 3rr needs to be enforced. No free passes, R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Larwence and R. Baley, it says clear copyright violations. When one is dealing with users in good faith who think something might be within our fair-use criterion that's hardly clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is also the reason why pages like fair-use review exist. I've already told Matthew to use it if he feels it violates NFC. — Edokter • Talk • 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is not decorative fair use, then what is? How is the image even vaguely connected to the article? This must be the first time I've ever said this, and probably it will be the last - but Matthew looks to be right. Moreschi (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this too? Or for Meet Kevin Johnson, Pilot (Lost), The Hunting Party (Lost), or The Man from Tallahassee? Are we removing all images from episode articles? Lawrence § t/e 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly. The fair use media has to connect with the article, as at Concerto delle donne. If not, it's decorative. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the episode; how much more connected does it need to be? Also note the word "decorative" is nowhere to be found in WP:NFCC; that is just a buzz-word used in arguments to present a vague notion of "breaking a rule" that actually isn't there. — Edokter • Talk • 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, when editors refer to a decorative non-free image, that is in reference to NFCC #8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. If that is not met, then it is a decorative non-free image. Given that, I agree with Matthew that the image on Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) is not warrented, as the random screenshot of this epsiode in an infobox does not increase readers' understanding of the topic. — Κaiba 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectively, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no but "standard infobox screencap" is not an exemption from NFCC. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with NFCC#8 has always been "who judges". The reader of the article (which the criterion is supposedly meant to be thinking of) or the editor of the article? Often you get editors who are not readers of a particular article, judging on the basis of free content ideology and not the article content. Not always, but sometimes. Argument on the necessity of the image for the article tend to end up with one side going "it is necessary" and the other side going "it is not - oh, and by the way, this is a free content project". Time and time and time again. Carcharoth (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• The question I always ask is "if I took this image out of the article, would it impair the reader's ability to understand the content?" Ususally, the answer is "no", and so it is in this case. That's not to say that all episode screencaps fall into this category, of course. Black Kite 10:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• • And to reply to Cacharoth, those who state "This is a free content project" are entirely correct; one may see that simply by looking at the logo at top left. "The free encyclopedia" does not mean "The encyclopedia one may read without being charged money", it means "The encyclopedia composed of content which may be modified, copied, and reused without restriction as to who may do so or for what purpose it may be used". This project is intended to be free content, and to be an encyclopedia. In a few cases, something nonfree is so important to the "encyclopedia" part of that that we can overlook the fact that it violates the "free" part of the mission. But that's not the normal case, and free content is every bit as important and critical a part of our mission as being an encyclopedia. A persuasive case must be made that a nonfree image is critical to the understanding of the article's subject, "the infobox needs a picture" is not such a case. Editors should be judging based on "free content ideology", this project is based upon free content ideology! Anyone not doing so is remiss. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And if non-free content is appropriately labelled, it can be filtered out and the free content can be "modified, copied, and reused without restriction as to who may do so or for what purpose it may be used". Any re-users of our content need to be aware of this, and also to be aware that what we say is free may not in fact be free. Can you guarantee that all the "free" content is actually free? If we have non-free content labelled as such and managed (ie. kept to a minimum), and are aware of when it becomes free, we can increase free content that way. Synergy between non-free content and free content can increase the amount of free content. ie. people write more when they don't have the distractions of an ideological image battle going on around them. In terms of images, long-term stability, rather than an incessant battleground, should be the aim. And since there will always be some need for non-free use, the proponents of removing all non-free use (and there are quite a few around, there are userboxes and banners about this) are disrupting the aim of reaching some form of stability, where other tasks (eg. BLPs, featured articles, etc) can be worked on. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This has happened before with Doctor Who articles (which, truth be told, are actually pretty strict with FU compared to other TV shows), same editor, on Utopia (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Seeing as the episode airs in ten days (and 40 minutes) [3], we shouldn't get beat up about the image - the earliest the image can be deleted in without causing a fuss is the 3rd (seeing as an I7 deletion will be hotly contested). I think what's more worrying is the fact that: a) the mindset that "if only living people are in an image, it's RFU", b) that people are trying to dissuade editors from trying to justify its fair use, c) the editor who removed it has a rather murky history with fair use image (Utopia edit war, VotD edit war, mass G7s), and d) Matthew said on MSN that he was "going to start an edit war". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that a 3RR block would normally be appropriate here. However, the page is now protected, so I'm uncertain. If Sceptre can prove his point d, the block should issue anyway because this would then have been shown to be willful and intentional disruption, and in the long run such behavior is prevented best when sanctions are a consequence of intentional disruption. GRBerry 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Will, because an episode will air in x amount of days is not an acceptable excuse to flout the NFCC. I'm also interested when I supposedly said "going to start an edit war"? That's just plain... naughty. Either way, I'm guessing I "said" (in this fictional universe) "You're going to start an edit war." Matthew (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that it's an excuse to "flout NFCC", it's a reason why the image shouldn't deleted. Wastes everyone's time (like this thread) And you know you said it, don't bother lawyering out of it. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

False dawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – indef blocked⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is looking increasingly like a vandalism only account. He's received a couple of warnings and his first article Pindick has been speedied. The latest contribution is a posting on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks suggesting that we edit the article to say "JEWS DID WTC". Now, normally I expect Jews to have as much sense of humour as the next person, but I this editor's contributions aren't funny any more. Please review - thankfully the contribs list isn't long. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI, looks like a troll to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the account reactivates, level4 warn and then report to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Jewsdidwtc" is a GNAA meme. They even once managed to troll CNN with it. That's probably what you're seeing here, so it should be handled as normal disruption. *** Crotalus *** 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy indef blocked for being a GNAA troll, vandal only account. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:In the Stacks again

Can someone unconnected with the CrimethInc. article please intervene in the edit-war? User:In the Stacks persists in re-adding links against consensus. This has been going on for 6 months.

• Article discussion: Talk:CrimethInc./archive1, Talk:CrimethInc.
• Previous EAR thread: Wikipedia:EAR#External_links_in_CrimethInc.
• Previous ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive387#User:In_the_Stacks_repeatedly_re-inserting_links_against_consensus

Thanks, Skomorokh 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE weigh in? Murderbike (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Admission of block evasion, but not sure which IP was blocked

The IP user 74.85.13.62 has been edit warring and reverting against consensus over genre classifications, particularly the Foo Fighters. Here this user makes the pretty plain assertion that he is evading IP blocks to keep this behavior going. The problem is, I have no idea which specific IP address was the one that was banned, so no way right now to tie them all together. Is there an easier way to ferret this info out? This person is also 131.125.114.132, as they admit to editing "between two different locations". 38.99.101.131 also edits in the exact same manner, but there hasn't been a conclusive admission yet from that one.

Also add in here some general incivility, i.e. [4] and [5].

Tarc (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That final diff is direct, but not uncivil. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Foo Fighters article is authorized by bigots..." is civil? Tarc (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 unrest in Tibet

I don't have time to dig into it now, but there's a raging edit war in the above article between two users. Could someone check it out and warn/block/protect as necessary/justified? Nesodak (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Even without looking at the substance of the war, the sheer number of [undid edit by...] [undid edit by...] [undid edit by...] [undid edit by...] in the page history over the past couple of hours was enough for me to protect The Wrong Version^TM for a while. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In Re: CAT:CSD

I'm seeing several User talk pages appearing as tagged for Speedy Deletion when they are not. The fault appears to be in the {{sandbox}} template, where a user was experimenting with a Speedy Deletion tag. Not calling anyone out, as that's what a sandbox is for - but, if you happen to look into a candidate for speedy deletion that doesn't appear to be tagged, be aware that it might not be tagged at all. The cache will clear shortly, but just an FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimblack's page moves

Resolved

Can someone undo this guy's recent page moves? He's made a mess of things and I couldn't quite fix it by just moving stuff back. Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're not kidding! Beach drifter (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed and nonsense redirects deleted. Hut 8.5 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IP address making legal threat to user

Resolved

 – IP blocked for one month by User:Angusmclellan. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please have a look at this diff. It seems like the IP is making a legal threat to Sunderland06, which is of course against WP:LEGAL. As IP's can't be blocked indefintely, I suggest this IP is blocked for a year (unless it's an actual user hiding under his IP, which is likely). D.M.N. (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He making a valiant effort into rendering himself a non-issue. This problem will cease to be one in a few minutes. HalfShadow (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about copying/moving page histories (my bad)

Hi all, technical question for you (sorry if this isn't the right place, but I think I need an admin to sort it out). A while back, when I was still (even more) inexperienced and all, I found that someone had changed information in the article Adam Russell from its current form of a redirect to Story of the Year, to information on a baseball player. Not wanting to just cut-and-paste move that information (especially assuming that those editors interested in the baseball player would be looking for it again), I did a page move to Adam W. Russell (which has since been moved to Adam Russell (baseball)). Anyway, long story short - I didn't realize that ALL of the page history went with the move. Since there used to be a fair amount of information on the original Adam Russell before his page was changed to a redirect to the band he's in, I was wondering if there's any way to copy the page history (either all, or up to and including November 13, 2007) (or split it) back to Adam Russell from Adam Russell (baseball). If not, okay, but I just wanted to check. (I admit to a little personal interest in the case, as I went to high school with the first guy.) (My current "remedy" was to leave a note on the Talk page for the original Adam Russell mentioning where the history was, but...) Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User adverting meat-puppet service

see here I will consider such submissions, reviewing them for appropriateness according to my own standards., Please do not revert additions to this page by any user or IP editor, regardless of block or parole status. --87.115.8.224 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the linked page and the talk page of the person in question, you, or someone with a similar IP as you, are currently engaged in a dispute of some sort with this person. Jtrainor (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That would be User:Fredrick day. Indeed. If anyone sees that I have done anything improper with that page, or with content placed upon it, please advise me so that I can review my actions. For starters, though, the bad-hand IP user starting this notice did the same thing with a minor transgression of User:Larry E. Jordan, waving an appearance of a Bad Deed, it really Looked Bad, (Article about Obscene Easter Bunny Hotline! Think of the Children! Wikipedia Reputation Will Be Ruined!) essentially starting a riot, the effects of which are still reverberating as more administrators are drawn in to deal with the disruption. Normally, if an editor does something improper, response begins with warning, and in most cases good-faith editors discuss it and work out consensus, without calling 911, which is what AN/I properly is. So when something starts here that was not preceded by a warning or discussion and which is not an emergency, very good chance the initiator is trolling for some personally desired response. This particular one has caught some fish here before, so he returns to the same spot. Quite understandable.

Good catch, Jtrainor. Even without a program, such as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, you recognized the spider. Squish. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted. Quite apart from the concerns of meat-puppetry and proxying for banned or blocked users, there are GFDL issues with second-hand editing of this type. Black Kite 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, a blocked editor, on a page accessible to him, makes a suggestion and an administrator rushes to implement it. What that page invited is what is open to any editor through any page that can be edited by an IP editor or new account. It would only be meat-puppetry or proxying if I improperly act on it. I can already do that with edits, visible in history, from various blocked socks, and I can certainly receive such content by email, and use it appropriately. Well, I could go to DRV, but, frankly, it's not worth the effort, and I'm sure Black Kite has better things to do as well. I'd suggest, though, that he just allowed himself to be used, through his knee-jerk response, as a meat puppet for a blocked user. Food for thought. If the page was improper, it's gone. And if it was not, well, I could recreate it any time, depending on stuff that has not happened yet as far as I know. So, moot, even if it were needed, which it is not. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mic of orion

Mic of orion has uploaded several images with a dubious permission. For example Image:M95 interior shot.jpg. There is only a permission to use on wiki documented. In other cases he has the permission to use the images for educational purpose. That´s not free enough. Images must be free for every purpose if we want them to use here. Because of that I tagged the images, but the uploader - Mic of orion - simply removes the tags or even distortes the description pages of the images (e. g. [6]). And he annoys me with bad words on my discussion page ([7]).

Furthermore this IP has vandalized my user page ([8]) and later vandalized some of these description pages in the same way as Mic of orion. So I believe the IP and Mic are the same person.

I hope, there is anyone who could help me. It´s not about me but about the images whose upload violates our policies. Mic of orion menaced to upload these images again if they would be deleted (he said "and if you delete the images I'll just upload them again" [9]). For now it would be already enough if Mic of orion would not edit the description pages until the case is clarified. Chaddy (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, User:east718 deleted the images. So that's the end of it. Chaddy (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with user Kaji13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed that this user seemed to be engaging in problematic behavior (mainly civility issues), so I tried to help him/her out [10] (this diff includes links to said problems), but he replied with [11]. Could someone analyze this. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As the user had made nothing but vandal edits, I reported him to AIV and the user has been blocked indef. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue

From Wikipedia:Help desk#Copyvio or not?, it seems Thismightbezach (talk · contribs) has added a number of plot summaries to Wikipedia (such as Pickup on South Street, Garden of Evil, Run for the Sun, and Road House (1948 film)) that are currently copyrighted by Turner Classic Movies (i.e. [12]). However, these plot summaries were added to Wikipedia just over a year ago, and TCM's website claims copyright from 2008, so maybe they're the ones violating it? I tried looking through this user's contribs to see if this pattern extended anywhere else, but it's hard to pick out good edits to check given his complete lack of edit summary usage. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery industry and Plastic and Reconstructive surgery are not the same thing

Resolved

 – Content dispute, sage advice provided.

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. I have tried to protect the article (Cosmetic surgery), however someone has been consistently redirecting the article on "cosmetic surgery" to a different article about a related but entirely separate topic (ie. the specialty of Plastic and reconstructive surgery).

Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":

• Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Board of Cosmetic Surgery
• Canadian Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• European Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• Is facial cosmetic surgery for you?

http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties teach cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to facial cosmetic surgery approx: 15-30%)

There are many other medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures. The surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" is not the only provider of these services. Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. I do agree the article needs to be cleaned up, however deleting it completly and/or redirecting I don't feel are the right thing to do. Can someone please help with this matter. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions to cosmetic surgery were reverted and the article redirected because you seemed to be creating an advertisement for it, which is certainly not a neutral point of view. But if you dispute how the articles are set up, you have discuss it at Talk:Plastic surgery and follow dispute resolution if that doesn't work out. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD disruption by MickMacNee

Merged to section below (WP:ANI#Opinion on an Afd re disruption).–08:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Determined registered user vandalism

I don't know if anyone wants to do anything about this, but there was a flurry of RfA vandalism from a single user. Accounts:

• User_talk:Howudd - temp block
• User talk:Lu Kewen - indef block
• User talk:Circ=Barbaric - temp block
• User talk:BongsAway - reported to ARV, block apparently declined - blocked indef
• User talk:The RfA Inquisitioner - same, reported but block declined - blocked indef
• User:BeshtWent - user that threatened more of the same

If you think this report is just feeding the troll, feel free to delete it. I thought perhaps someone could run some checkusers and get an IP range, or at least indef block the accounts that aren't already. And what just happened to Wiki for fifteen minutes there? Tan | 39 15:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They are all part of some wiki-mafia, see my talk page history :) They all belong to one user and they've been at it for a while. They appear to be stemming from here, and not to mention all these. The IP seems to change every day aswell, so each account is from a different range, I think. Rudget. 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Also up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_vandals. See also: User:SQL/RfASocks. SQL^{Query me!} 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say best course of action, as I see it, is a combination of WP:RBI, and WP:DNFT. The funny thing about announcing that you are in a mafia, is that anyone that is really in a mafia would never annouce it. Prime example of violating WP:TINC, and a prime example of a really bored individual. Revert, block, ignore. They'll go away. (they all do eventually) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Littleteddy (talk · contribs), I'm afraid. Rangeblock for 24 hours anon-only ACB, but its a big range. Thatcher 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's an other range to block. Zubey1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

blacklised wikimafians.org --Hu12 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

C4455471 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ubibok3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Thethirdrealm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Routeeggs911 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Plkyphn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Opajfj (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ya'akov1234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
JWPurvis13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Whoops, this editor is completely unrelated. Thatcher 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Aoijgjokltg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
more--Hu12 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the other range. Thatcher 11:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ihfgoihg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
uggh--Hu12 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• User the {{checkuser}} template instead of {{vandal}}, it saves me a step. Now he's moved to open proxies. Ugg indeed. Thatcher 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a bunch of attention-seeking school children so RBI and DENY really apply here, I think. Thatcher 12:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:L.djinevski

Resolved

 – no incivility⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:L.djinevski let an unsigned impolite and uncivilized comment here... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you get the correct comment? The statement there looks civil to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You’ve got to be kidding, right? In case you didn't notice, that's the comment: "The people of the former turkish republic of greece al also not descendant from the antient Macedonians.". Let's wait and see the opinion of others. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, right? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the comment is insulting but most important the user moves around reverting almost everything. He should be warned of how to participate and behave. Seleukosa (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats racist.Megistias (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing racist or incivil about that comment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is if you are in the other end.???Megistias (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete rudeness from User:Abtract

Resolved

 – Warnings have been issued, apologies made and feedback provided, here and elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting very upset from seeing improper comments of this editor, such as here, here, and here, and can not tell if they are plain lack of civility or harassment, but are looking more like personal attacks. Can an admin. step in and tell the user to stop? I have issued an {{npa3}} but I feel this may not have helped. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now (s)he appears to be testing other contributors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be seen that you are baiting this user, now aided by others, and you might like to consider disengaging. Then, after a period for everybody to be a bit cooler, consider dispute resolution rather than telling tales here. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I only plan to seek WP:DISPUTE if his/her behaviour doesn't change. Just would like for someone of higher authority to immediately let Abtract knowing that treating others by assuming good faith is crucial. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anybody of higher authority (save for Jimbo, perhaps) here. Administrators are not magistrates and are not going to involve themselves in petty disputes... unless you're happy for your own conduct to be equally examined? As I say, it could easily be seen that you are baiting the user you are telling tales on. And that's not good either. And the problem would go away to some degree if you left them alone. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What am I baiting them into? I am not intentionally bothering anyone. Example, as you can see here, the editor chose to make a nasty remark, which I didn't trigger in any way, shape or form. This type of irritating behaviour is what pisses me off. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<-Well, first you swept in and templated a regular. When they got annoyed, your response was to template them again. Then, having pushed someone already annoyed pretty far, you came here and told tales. So I repeat: disengage. Step back. Walk away. Give it up. Now, please. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies gentlefolk and User:Sesshomaru. Thank you for your comments and, be assured, such unsubtle insults will not recur. Abtract (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alsharptonsbuddy on a vandal tear

On (what else) the Al Sharpton article. Making the same text replacement other redlinked names have made eg, Pioneervalleywoman, 'cept this guy is more prolific. Seven in a row at last count for today. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged, 24 hour block at this point, and encouraged the editor to discuss instead of blind revert. If it starts again, drop a note in AIV. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, a look at the article history suggests a return vandal, and probably socks. More watchers on the article would be a good thing at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

that username seems problematic. Corvus cornix_talk 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the name should get an indef. As fo the article, a new account has started editing there as well. I left what I hoep was a blunt and clear message about using talk pages, but I doubt much will come of it. ThuranX (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also affecting the Dunbar Village Housing Projects article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats from Bmjmureithi (talk · contribs)

Bmjmureithi (talk · contribs) left a legal threat (and also unexplained accusations of racism) here on my user page. Likely relates to this AfD. That's two legal threats against me in less than a month. I must be doing something wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They actually repeated themselves on Delicious carbuncle's talk page and on the AfD. They were warned by User:Stephan Schulz, but so far they've made no move to retract the comments. --jonny-mt 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops; looks like I spoke too soon. --jonny-mt 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not. The comments have not been removed or retracted on my talk page, and now the editor is deleting more comments at the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Now signing themselves as "Kenyan lobby group". Shall I let the threats on my page stand or blank them since similar threats were retracted (and then unretracted and restored by someone else) elsewhere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We are a Kenyan Lobby group and have retracted the threat as advised. We did not know it was against the Wikipedia rules. This , however, does not mean that we agree with the proposed deletion of Ben Muriithi. The references given should serve as proof of notability as a journalist if not anything else. We do take exception with Delicious Carbuncle's use of language though.She should be careful when using words like 'ridiculous'. They are disrespectiful yet respect should be both ways. Thankyou. (Bmjmureithi (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

I offered this group of people the opportunity to create individual accounts, and informed them that we don't permit role accounts, but they said they didn't see why they shouldn't have a role account. I have blocked the account for now as a role account, but if any of them want to create separate accounts with which to refrain from making legal threats and disruptive edits, I'm sure we can find a way to help them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying something with my Brit friends...

A "pork scratching" is the UK version of "pork rind", yes? Crunchy little greasy snacky-thing, horribly bad for you? I ask because I want to make sure that saying someone has "the same (body-fat) percentage as a pork scratching"[13] is, in fact, the gross BLP-vio I suspect it is. Gladys J Cortez 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct (and indeed pork scratching redirects to pork rind). FiggyBee (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm .... pork scratchings. But ... Rik Waller is a very large chap, so if his body fat ratio was actually 60%, the comparison would be technically valid (though completely unnecessary, unkind and deletable on the spot).Black Kite 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I thought. (The percentage was unsourced, incidentally; I hung a fact tag on that, but deleted the pork-scratching.) Thanks for the info!Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be a BLP vio - but its a great insult! Viridae^Talk 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree it's not needed. Apropos of nothing, the line about Rik Waller having the same fat percentage as a pork scratching comes from a Ricky Gervais stand up show. Gladys, you missed the line in the article that said "Waller also once shamefully admitted that he used to use whipped cream instead of shaving foam." (I've removed that, too). Poor old Rik Waller, people do pick on him. I've watchlisted the article. Neıl ☎ 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

snertch I most certainly DID miss that one...hee! (Actually, having not the faintest foggy blue idea of who Rik Weller is, nor how he found his way onto my watchlist, I wasn't reading closely. I gathered, though, that he was a big guy.) Thanks for the help!Gladys J Cortez 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring and edit-warring by User:JHunterJ

In the HP (disambiguation) page, user (and admin) JHunterj has been repeatedly altering (1, 2 3) the section titles of the recent archive to titles that were not being used prior to the archival, to titles that reflect JHunterj's personal, original feelings on the subject.

Furthermore, JHunterj has been altering the titles of these sections in the Discussion page's summary links (3, 4 5) to that archive, to reflect his/her personal point of view.

Repeated requests (6) for explanation as to why JHunterj was making these inappropriate changes to the archive went unanswered, except to say that he was making corrections to alterations made to his statements - which never, ever occurred during the archival or linking process. When finally, the user was warned that further actions (placing them beyond the threshold of a 3RR violation) would prompt action, user JHunterj made the same edits again and curtly stated that I should take further action as necessary, with the edit summary of "good luck".

I feel uncomfortable posting a complaint about any admin's behavior, as I am concerned about reprisals from his fellow admins, but no one gets to refactor existing section headers after they have been archived, personal feelings or not, possessing The Mop or not. Clearly, the admin isn't anting/needing to listen to me; perhaps some of his colleagues may have more of an impact. I am not sure de-sysopping is called for here, but an admin needs to follow the rules even more closely than the regular editors, as they set the example. If this admin chooses not to, then perhaps the yoke of adminship is too heavy to bear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It also bears pointing out that JHunterj has (as of this filing) violated 3RR in both archive 2 of the HP dab page (1, 2, 3) and the discussion page (4, 5).

As 3RR covers cumulative edits of a disruptive nature within the same article, I think the violation is somewhat clear. I don't mind filing the 3RR, but it might be easier to address it here, as the violations are part of the same problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A section header was inserted in front of a comment I made after the fact, and once I became aware of it, I edited it to restate what I was saying in the comment. No comments were refactored, and no "closed" discussions were reopened. I answered all comments on my talk page prior to this ANI being opened. Enough time has been wasted; perhaps another editor can address the Talk:HP (disambiguation) and its archive if i'm not supposed to, or give me the all-clear to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I also ignored the patently false claims of 3RR violations: 24-hour window? No. Same edit? No. More than 3 reverts even outside of the 24-hours window? No. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the noting of the 3RR claim isn't false, as the multiple reverts occurred in the same article (repeatedly altering discussions and archves- which are still a part of the article - count towards that total).

I think that to simplify matters, allow me to demonstrate why they weren't "maintenance edits." With respect:

1. You did not add the section header into the article;

2. An amount of time passed between the insertion of that header and the archiving of the older information; and

3. You altered the archive to reflect your point of view in all three archived sections, including removing completely one of the archived sections and their links.

4. The alteration you performed retitled sections as "anti-cruft blinders", a term you (and only you) had used in discussion.

Ergo, not maintenance edits. I am unsure how I am misinterpreting your actions here, J. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review my block

Please review my block of 71.202.161.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He was repeatedly labeling Polish mathematicians as Ukrainians, put anti-Polish rants in the articles, etc. He was repeatedly asked not to do it by many users (me included). The reason I am asking the reivew of the block is that while I have no interest in the articles I have been marginally involved in the editing of Stefan Banach and Mark Kac‎ - I was trying to accommodate grievances of the anonim into the articles and undid the disruptive edits a few time. If found that my block is baseless - please unblock the IP Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Good block. There is too much edit warring and POV pushing here to keep around. If they return to the same behavior, I would block longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, ditto. Bearian (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

User_talk:Ubibok3 must be a sock?--Hu12 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, see #Determined_registered_user_vandalism above. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, to be 12 again. Thatcher 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review

User:Jejequeso, with whom I have had previous disagreements concerning a nonsense page (Penelopism), having been blocked late last year for persistently adding nonsense to my talk page, showed up again today and started making high-speed replacements on it. (See history.) He is certainly aware that his actions are out of order. I blocked him for 48 hours as the most direct way of stopping the vandalism, but as it concerns a use by me of admin tools when I am involved, I am reporting the matter here for review. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see vandalism, not a content dispute, so you can't actually be 'involved'. I say good block. — Edokter • Talk • 12:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block, per Edokter. I have also issued an open ended warning to Jejequeso not to edit your talkpage again. Please feel free to advise me if Jejequeso violates this warning at any time in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Main page image

Can someone take a look at this RFPP request (/me dashes out the door). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, been 20 minutes or so. Shall I overwrite the Commons image with a giant penis to make a point? If someone's gonna do it, may as well be me. 65.213.184.1 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done (not overwriting with a penis, but uploaded here). Woody (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Check. No smudgy ink found on image. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the main page image usually automatically protected on commons? (with a page mirroring our main page, that is cascade protected) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, automatic protection of items on the main page only effects pages on Wikipedia, no Commons. Thus it is important to make a local copy of any image we are going to use on the main page. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism from multiple IPs

Someone has been vandalising Iyer article from multiple IPs.

• 122.163.56.48(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=prev&oldid=199592895)
• 122.164.171.221(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=200514789&oldid=199888661)
• 122.164.166.7(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=201036090&oldid=200786739)
• 59.99.64.113(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=201294037&oldid=201293872)

All these vandalisms could be attributed to one and the same person who is behaving in such a manner to avoid edit blocks. -Ravichandar 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They seem to belong to 3 different service providers in India, all but the last are non-portable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But the edits made have been absolutely identical indicating that it is either the same person making the edit from multiple computers associated with multiple service providers (it is quite possible that one of those edits were from a domestic internet connection, the other from a workplace and another from a cyber cafe)or other individuals making those edits on behalf of a particular individual. -Ravichandar 14:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I just checked them. One of the edits have been made from India's BSNL DataOne service provider while the others have been made from Airtel's service provider. The user appears to be a resident of Chennai -Ravichandar 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Snigbrook (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Snigbrook (talk · contribs) has been wiki-stalking me, and has been tampering with unblock templates on various pages, claiming they were placed there by hoax admins. I would like to request an indefinite block of this user. Sunderland University Lecturers Watchdog (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland University Lecturers Watchdog is an obvious sock of User:Allen Lee Remis, blocked above. I've ifdefed this sock too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange series of edits on user talk page

Can someone checkout User talk:Sylvan wu and review the latest series of edits between an anon IP and User:HyphyyGut$$? They seem to be using this user's talk page as a chat room or IM client. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm looking at this user's history I'd say they are in on it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I issued the account (HyphyyGut$$) a {{uw-chat3}} and the IP a {{uw-chat4}}. I'm also going to request a checkuser on the three accounts to see if they're all related. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that a checkuser is actually necessary? No need to go OTT on a bunch of kids not actually causing any harm. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU isn't necessary at all - talk page chat isn't entirely disruptive, unless the user in question is starting to object to it. Yes, wikipedia is WP:NOT a forum, but still. I think the warnings are sufficient. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Durban

Zenboy29 (talk) has been editing the the Durban article as well as a few other with non neutral point of view.
I have tried, (on his talk page), to explain to him what the problems were with the edits but he keeps re-adding his changes.
He has now started accusing me of political censorship.[14]
I know that on the face of it, it looks like an edit conflict, but his references cannot be accessed, (either broken or you have to subscribe), or are unrelated to the section of text. Can an Admin please have a look at it and help us out. Thanks FFMG (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a NPOV noticeboard where you can address this issue as well. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a WP:3RR warning on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor working for CAMERA’s ongoing POV pushing on that article

Editor Gni has been documented to have edited the CAMERA article, and related articles from a computer in the CAMERA offices. See the WP:COIN report here On a WP:ANI complaint that was filed here, Gni was advised to avoid to "avoid editing the CAMERA article, or any articles related to that one," and it was noted "his protestations about not promoting Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America don't appear convincing." Following a a 3RR block and an additional block for Gni's use of an IP registered to CAMERA to dodge a block, Gni returned to the CAMERA article and related articles to continue to press the CAMERA POV. He is currently pushing contentious, pro-CAMERA edits on the CAMERA article (poorly sourced "praise" of the organization) as well as deleting without explanation sourced criticism of the organization. See this edit where Gni attempts to sneak a additional removal of criticism under the guise of reverting back his version.

I do not wish to provoked into edit warring with an editor with a clear and serious WP:COIN issue. although there is an open case on WP:COIN, Gni's behavior is warranting this WP:ANI posting as well. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the content issues, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with the number of forums in which this complaint is currently open. That said, when an employee of an organization is editing aggressively and racking up 3RR and sockpuppetry blocks for promoting said organization, it's a COI problem. I would suggest that Gni (talk · contribs) be warned of the terms of the Palestine-Israeli articles Arbitration case, which was intended to empower the community to help deal with this sort of thing, and placed on 1RR with free access to the talk page to advance their case and try to achieve consensus without edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. And yes, it has COI in spades. You might also want to point out to the editor that it's also the kind of thing which can attract bad media publicity to his apparent employers (recall the controversial corporate edits unearthed by Wikiscanner). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one's shown up yet to accuse me of being biased, I'll leave this open a bit longer before acting. :) MastCell ^Talk 03:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This is NOT a new issue. Gni has been warned repeatedly of this, and should be given NO MORE leeway on this issue. See:

• Where he is blocked for 3RR on the article in question, and several different users and admins try to counsel him, rather gently, on how to properly resolve disputes
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]
  • [18]
  • [19]
• Where he has tried to dodge the above block by editing anonymously:
  • [20]
• Where he was warned about mischaractizing the edits of others as harrassing or vandalising:
  • [21]

That softer measures have been tried, and apparently failed, shows me that we need to get more stringent on this one. Gni knows that what he is doing is tendentious and against consensus, and yet he persists in doing so beyond the patience of the community. He's been the subject of half-a-dozen ANI threads over the past month or so as well. We need to move on sanctions, perhaps a topic ban, on this one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, an alternative would be a complete ban from editing the article on CAMERA, though freedom to post and discuss on the talk page. This remedy could be rapidly expanded to a wider topic ban, under the provisions of the Palestine-Israel ArbCom case, if problematic editing continues on other non-CAMERA articles. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really stunned by this exchange. I don't understand Jayron32's aggressive attitude toward me. There was one day -- one day -- when I was blocked, initially for 3RR and then again because, before I realized I was blocked, I made an edits after forgetting to log in (which explains why I didn't immediately realize I was blocked). When I tried to explain this to Jayron32, his response was: "Eh..." That's all. Perhaps it's funny, but is that the way an admin is supposed to behave? Another time I put a rejoinder on Jayron32's talk page after being attacked by Boodlesthecat, Jayron32 replied: "This is the sound of me not caring..." But he certain seems responsive to Boodlesthecat's complaints, as his talk page makes clear. If an admin, to borrow his phrase, 'doesn't care' about one side of a dispute, is he really one to weigh in on the dispute? I would think absolutely not.

So again, there was one day and one day only when I had been blocked. ("Racking up blocks," MastCell? Yes, I think that description is extremely problematic.) Boodlesthecat can't say the same. I don't think, then, that my blocking history is at all the germane issue.

The germane issues are: The very title of this thread (chosen by Boodlesthecat) is prejudicial and misleading. Even after his attempt to prove COI on the COIN noticeboard amounted to very little (there was, I would note, a suggestion on that noticeboard that both Boodlesthecat and myself avoid editing this article for 30 days), he still titles this post as if his accusation was vindicated, and says as fact that I am "working for CAMERA." According to my reading of the COI page, it's content, and not mere allegations, that determine COI.

More importantly, though, what about the content of my edits? What of the fact that I've relied heavily on the discussion page when making those edits? And what of the content of my arguments on the discussion page? These all show that I'm editing with good faith, and within the guidelines of Wikipedia, but that I'm involved in a content dispute with an editor whose behavior in this dispute seems no better (and IMHO much more disruptive and aggressive) than my own. He rejected my request for mediation by the mediation cabal. He admitted to not reading my carefully laid out case for an edit before reverting it. He made numerous other reverts of my contributions without discussion. He ignored the few precious moments of consensus between certain other editors, who tend to agree with him, and myself, and reverted changes based on that consensus. (e.g., of the top of my head, an anon with ip address starting with 68 agreeing that Koch's quote was praise and reliable, but Boodlesthecat continuing to revert as if it wasn't.) Almost every singe attempt to add to this article is reverted (and currently stands reverted) by Boodlesthecat, even though these were by all measures reasonable edits. Which of my edits suggest that I am subjugating Wikipedia guidelines to some alleged COI? Remember that putting up cited and notable material that might reflect positively on CAMERA is not the same as showing a conflict of interest. It is the same as editing according to Wikipedia guidelines, and keeping the article from being a hatchet job based on edits by someone who clearly harbors animus toward CAMERA. But to go back to my main point, which of my edits can one point to that show disregard for Wikipedia guidelines? If there is no critical mass of such edits (and I know that there is no such critical mass, if any at all), than why should I be banned at all? Why is the history of edits and discussion (or lack thereof) and resistance to mediation by my chief accuser, Boodlesthecat, ignored? Gni (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the content of your edits is solid, then you should be able to persuade other editors of that on the talk page. I'm proposing that you no longer directly edit the article, and instead confine yourself to using the talk page and potentially pursuing dispute resolution. There is sufficient documentation that a) you have a relevant conflict of interest, and b) you are editing the article in a problematic fashion. I'm going to impose this unless there are objections from uninvolved admins. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you, then, to point out which edits of mine were problematic, since the relevant policy pages make clear that this is relevant to both points a and b above. I don't get the impression that anyone has actually looked at the history of my edits and discussion on this page, which seems to be a bare minimum necessity before ruling on COI or disruption and barring me from editing. And, regarding your first sentence above: from what I can tell by my attempts to learn Wikipedia's policies, it's not about whether I can "persuade" the few other editors, including one who has been extremely disruptive and unwilling to agree with my request for mediation, to like my content. It's about whether my edits violate Wikipedia policy. (And by the way, people should take note that some editors have agreed with my edits, just as some have not agreed with my edits; again, even editors who tend to strongly disagree have agreed with some of my edits, which were reverted anyway by Boodlesthecat.)

Please also explain whether this is a 'proposal,' or a formal decision, as an administrator suggested [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz#Admins_at_ANI_weigh_in_on_CAMERA], and if so, please let me know according to which policy this decision can be and is being made. I'm a relatively new editor here, so forgive me for not understanding all the complexities of the Wikipedia power hierarchy. I also ask that if there is a binding decision made on anything, that somebody mention this on my talk page. It is difficult to keep track of all the forums, and I would imagine that a user should be made directly aware a decision via email or talk. If the content of my edits and discussion are not considered -- both of which seem to be the main issue when ruling on COI and whether I edited "in a problematic fashion," it would seem that Arbitration is a reasonable next step here. Thanks for your help. Gni (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that self-described "relatively new editor here" Gni has been editing Wikipedia under the user name Gni since January 2006. Within 33 minutes of his first edit under that user name, he was already using savvy edit summaries like " Removed partisan POV reference"; within his first hour of editing under that user name, he was making his own partisan edits that were reverted by an admin. "Relatively new," I suppose, is relative. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a surprise that Boodles is continuing with what certainly feels to me like an uncivil, innuendo-laden obsession with me. So I'll clarify my above point: I'm extremely new to this world of sanctions and noticeboards and administrators and interactions with extremely hostile editors. I urge, once again, for all to follow Boodlesthecat's links just above, and to judge the merits of my edits.Gni (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

← I have left a note at User Talk:Gni indicating that the editing restriction is now in place; Gni may not edit the article CAMERA, though he may post freely on the associated talk page. I'll leave this open for review; as I think the positions of Gni and Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs) are fairly clear, I would be most interested in uninvolved input. I will additionally log this editing restriction on the Israeli-Palestinian articles arbitration case page. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the notice on my talk page. I will appeal this decision. I will also be relaying my offer for a détente that was passed on to MastCell, but apparently rejected. Gni (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Gni was willing to join me in an email discussion. MastCell's editing restriction on Gni does address the concerns that I have that the edit-warring cease and that we respond vigorously to the perceived COI. I note that the diff is here for MastCell's entry on the case page for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Obuibo Mbstpo back again, I think

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abuv the law. I initially accused him of being a User:Fredrick day sock (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, to which the user responded thusly. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(rv by Abuv the law, restored by Eq) So you decided to shoot from the hip again, eh? Abuv the law (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Aww, don't blank that most telling response. To answer it, yes. The great thing about that is, if you're right, you look real good in the end. Based on your tone, I'm fairly confident. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:06, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Man, you really get a kick out of trying to piss me off, don't you? Abuv the law (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So Fredrick day was as sock all along? How disappointing. Anyone know why? ThuranX (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a sock of Obuibo Mbstpo, if that's what you mean. At least I don't think... He just socked from a bunch of IPs as far as we know. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:20, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, that'a LITTLE better, but still a shame. he was helpful on a feww articles I worked on. ah well. ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious not-here-to-improve-the-encyclopedia sock. Quack. Black Kite 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would a checkuser be willing to check Obuibo Mbstpo, et al. (I have a list of about a dozen socks) and if their all from the same ip address/range, hardblock it? MBisanz ^talk 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree that should probably be done. This user has clearly stated his intention to continue creating socks. A hard block would be appropriate here. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:49, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
• Checkuser verified sock of Sarsparilla et al. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does that mean the IP(s) are now blocked? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:01, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Good that it CU'd, but if all (most) of these socksUser:Obuibo Mbstpo, User:Abuv the law, User:Candi Marisa, User:David Janssen, User:Emily Stevens Gardner, User:Jesse R. Binnall, CPP-T, PRP, User:Larry E. Jordan, User:Refactory, User:SpiritWorldWiki, User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, User:Absidy, User:71.63.91.68, User:ReplyToSM, User:Captain Zyrain, User:Thespian Seagull, User:Take You There are from the same, IP, can you hardblock it? MBisanz ^talk 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, could someone please consolidate all the SSPs and SSP cats, I think User:Sarsaparilla is the oldest provable account. MBisanz ^talk 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Problem is, the main one is a university; the /16 has a number of annoying socks, but also a lot of perfectly good users. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, I understand, I was really hoping it was a static IP or something blockable. But its not like this guy is hard to miss. MBisanz ^talk 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Things are really getting very weird here (Air Fortress is an OM sock, and I presume the IP is a Fredrick Day sock, although it also looks like it might be an OM sock pretending to be a Fredrick Day sock in order to further OM's point, whatever it is). I'm not sure admin action is required (I don't actually know what kind of admin action would be required) but it bears watching. Or ignoring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(Oh, and if anybody's wondering after reading that, there is a section31 (talk · contribs), but he appears completely unrelated to this nonsense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

OM is (officially?) banned, so... I kinda assumed any further known socks from him are blocked on sight. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:13, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All socks have been blocked on sight. That wasn't my point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm blocked and all that - but would some admins like to pop across to here, so that one way or the other things can be sorted out with User:Sarsaparilla. Either some way is worked out to 1) lift his ban, 1) he heads off to arbcom or 3) he's talked down and convinced to give up his socking. That has to be a better outcome than chasing his socks from day to day right? --87.112.87.215 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He had his chance (the latest one, that is) here. He's exhausted my patience, and I daresay that I started off with a good deal more of it than did most. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OM is not "officially banned." No serious effort has been made to restore his access, and he can't even ask without creating a new account, because his Talk page (last open account he had access to, User:Larry E. Jordan), is protected. He is a blocked user. His block *could* be appealed to ArbComm or possibly resolved at some lower level, but the latter looks pretty grim at this point. I would estimate the probability of success for him with ArbComm at better than 50%, though. He only started socking, of course, this time, well after his Talk page was protected. It's predictable, folks. Take away legitimate means of communicating with the community, he will find illegitimate ones, thus creating more fuss and work. I tried to convince him to do otherwise, to be patient, but I was trying to swim upstream. He is not Section 31, you can tell from the IP in England. That's a name being used by User:Fredrick day for his IP edits, originally for bad hand edits while User:Fredrick day was still also being used. He forgot to log out with one edit and so his signature as Section 31 showed in an edit from Fd. Oops! He recognized it right away (as did I), so he abandoned the User:Fredrick day account, and has expressed an intention to continue as an IP editor. And he was being incredibly disruptive. Much of the fuss over Larry E. Jordan was fomented by him, including false, inflammatory descriptions of the message on the Easter Bunny hotline article or whatever it's name was. (Contrary to what has been said about it, that message could be broadcast over the radio without FCC sanction in the U.S. It's not legally obscene.) Given that, the rapprochement apparent at User talk:Air Fortress is startling, I don't know what to make of it. --Abd (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your latest bit of verbose, vague, and pointless wikilawyering aside, OM is banned in the sense that no one is willing to unblock him -- again -- to cause more problems. Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 08:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:45, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I've discovered Equazcion cheering at a number of these "events." I will guarantee this: this user will cause a hundred times as much trouble blocked as he did unblocked. See below. But am I trying to get him unblocked? Look for evidence, I'd like to see it, perhaps I'm schizophrenic. I've simply pointed out the truth. "wikilawyering" is an offensive term, used by real wikilawyers to discount arguments from others based on truth and policy. Yes, he is banned in the sense described. However, such a ban cannot be used as an argument for any particular action, it was never formally decided; instead there was a riot and the police broke it up by hauling off the perceived agitator. Happens all the time. Occasionally it actually works, just as often, though, they get the wrong guy, or they merely get one of those fighting. Here is what I say about Sarsaparilla: he died and went to meta. May he rest in peace. Occasionally he may toss a thunderbolt down here. Rail at him and he may toss more. Your move.--Abd (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss whether or not he should be banned? It looks like this has been mishandled at several levels, and that he's been framed for things it is now clear that he was not involved in. Going forward, has he actually done anything - prior to his block - that deserves being banned? —Random832 (contribs) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'Framed' is awfully stiff language. Could you be a bit more specific about what Sarsaparilla has been accused of doing that he was not involved in, and who has misrepresented evidence so as to 'frame' him? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I considered OM's blocks mostly unjustified (I'm not going to go into great detail as to which ones I thought we unjustified and why; suffice it to say that I'm reasonably certain that I'm the last admin who showed any interest in unblocking him). However, his conduct since the ban took effect has, in my view, been bad enough to retroactively justify that ban. It's like he was wrongly incarcerated for something and, while awaiting trial, broke out and shivved three guards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be a tad dramatic as a description, I think. Was he "awaiting trial"? Let's suppose he was, though he wasn't actually under any sort of official parole or undergoing any complaint process against him. The real analogy would be that he had been falsely accused of numerous crimes, a judge found no cause to confine him, and even befriended him, but as he was leaving the courtroom, he made an offensive joke. And so the judge tossed him in jail and threw away the key. His "crimes" as a block evader are entirely related to evasion itself. He made a series of very legitimate edits to Parli Pro articles. None of these edits, were he not blocked, would have been disruptive. Should he be unblocked? By what standard would we judge? If I seriously wanted him unblocked, I'd be pursuing the process. If he asked me to, I would. He has not asked. What has happened on Wikipedia is that very dysfunctional responses to controversy and disruption have become routine. As I've mentioned, Sarsaparilla has died and gone to meta. I've visited him there and looked around. The phenomena we are seeing here are well known and described there, as they are in other places that are "about" Wikipedia. Sarsaparilla made all this clear to me, in a very short time. I'm grateful for it, and it may be that some day it will be appreciated. Yes, he's frustrating. So was Mozart. Fart jokes, in really inappropriate places.

(I will also note that Sarcasticidealist offered to help this user to go to ArbComm, which was quite proper. I can understand this administrator's frustration over the unenthusiastic response he got. At that point (yesterday?), Sarsaparilla had become really, really pessimistic about this community and the possibility that he would be able to continue to work here. It's a reasonably sane judgment. For him, the atmosphere has become entirely too poisonous. I know him fairly well, I understand him because I am like him, and, at 27, I don't think I could have pulled it off, walking the straight and narrow, never making any fart jokes. Or whatever. Even now, I can slip, just not nearly as often. I am really intensely resisting representing a very rude noise. After all, this is Serious Wikipedia Process here. Quick. Hit Save Page! --Abd (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

--Abd (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarsaparilla is getting packed up and ready to go. 129.174.91.116 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of that can be speedied, I would imagine, as db-author. No need for MfD drama over it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy away! (Whoever has admin privileges) 129.174.90.122 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me in keeping up with all the IP socks appearing over this thread? I just blocked 129.174.91.121 who I'm confident that is Sarsaparilla. Yesterday I blocked 87.112.87.215 who is most likely Obuibo Mbstpo, in any case if both of these users admited to being socks, how come nobody blocked them inmediately after doing so? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to lessen, hopefully, a little confusion, there were a series of accounts used, one after another (not simultaneously) by Sarsaparilla. They were explicitly linked and acknowledged; this would be Ron Duvall, Absidy, Obuibo Mbstpo, and Larry E. Jordan. For a user to abandon one account and create another is not grounds for a block, in itself. However, the accounts created to evade blocks, essentially throw-aways, are another matter. With the creation of the Jordan account, this user agreed to not use other accounts. However, having been blocked for what would ordinarily be a trivial offense not even resulting in a warning, he may, apparently, consider that agreement to be void, since the community did not keep up its side of the bargain. There is far, far more disruption here caused by the block and responses to it than by any original offenses, and I don't think this is rare. It will usually fade with time, though.--Abd (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

87.112.87.215 is most emphatically NOT OM; it is almost certainly Fredrick Day--who, incidentally, has caused way more in the scope of actual problems than OM/Larry Jordan/whatever he's going by now has ever caused. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fredrick_day

Incidentally, I must ask again: have any of OM's socks ever actually caused any trouble? Because really, blocking someone for evading an illegitimate block is itself an illegitimate act; the proper course of action is to remove the initial block, or at least leave the socks he has to create to get around it alone. Fredrick Day's socks were harassing users (mostly myself), vandalizing users' comments (mostly my own), and generally causing trouble. All OM ever did was put forth a bunch of good ideas that ruffled the feathers of some people who have a vested interest in the seriously corrupt status quo.

And so yes, I will come right out and say it: Any action taken to evade an illegitimate block is perfectly legitimate, and any action taken to enforce an illegitimate block is itself illegitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't always WHOIS all IP addresses that come my way, regardless the 87.112. account traces back to England, thus it is very likely that Fredick Day is behind it, as far all the ammount of disruption, just today a bunch of these socks broke 3, 4 and 5 RR by edit warring just for the sake of pestering Equiazcion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidently a range block is in order, regardless I'm dropping out for now, not in the mood to play Whac-A-Mole. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently rangeblock isnt an option because these are shared IPs of a university. Perhaps an abuse report. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:13, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Just do a whois on those IPs, and you'll see the problem; 129.174.0.0/16 is George Mason University. We've got a lot of good contributors from there, and one person who really seems to want us to have to inconvenience his classmates. The others are dynamic IPs, which doesn't help much either. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with both Sarsaparilla and OM in the past, and wasn't aware they're the same person. I was about to ask about the proof that OM was Sarsaparilla. Then I saw this. [22] WTF. This guy is seriously abusive with sockpuppets. I hope somebody does play whack-a-mole to make sure all of these sockpuppets are gone. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How so? As long as the sockpuppets aren't actually used for any nefarious purposes (which they weren't), why does it matter how many he has or the circumstances under which he creates them? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It'll be difficult to whack-a-mole due to the shared IPs. I think an abuse report would be more useful. Let the institution deal with him. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:11, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(dedent insertion)Continuation accounts are not really sock puppets in the traditional sense. I don't know if he did it this time, but in the past, Sarsaparilla would spike an account when he created a new one, so he couldn't have two active accounts simultaneously. Zenwhat fell for the propaganda. Sarsaparilla was a user who, having made voluminous contributions to this encyclopedia (he had prior accounts, one of which is not difficult to find), decided to work on policy and process, and he discovered just how unrewarding this can be, to say the least. He made a (small) mistake -- he wasn't even warned about it, if I'm correct, it was a joke, in fact -- and that may have motivated him to change his account. An SSP report was filed, though it was utterly and blindly obvious what was going on, all one had to do was glance over the contributions, it wasn't concealed, that User:Ron Duvall was the next account. For reasons I won't explain, there are privacy issues, he then changed his account again, this time explicitly acknowledging the connection in the account creation summary for User:Absidy. This is not what true sock puppets do. Frustrated over the rather amazing response he received to WP:PRX he did some odd things: he dropped a notice on the Talk page for every member of ArbComm and a couple of administrators. He was warned to stop canvassing. He said he was done, and put an image of a finger on the Talk page of the warning admin, who blocked him. First block. No prior blocks, in over two years of intense editing. So ... that admin relented, let him come back (with some outrage expressed by others about allowing this abuser of sock puppets to return (even though there was not, until the block, any sock puppet abuse, and not even after the block, the new accounts were not for simultaneous or alternating use). But there was now a body of users really out to get this guy. He edited as User:Obuibo Mbstpo, 1600 edits in about three weeks. At the end of this, he created a hoax article, as a jape, Obuibo Mbstpo. Speedied. And promptly blocked. This time, more legitimately, though normally such an action would result in a warning, not a block. He lied about having a source. Eventually, he admitted having lied and was allowed to return. Now editing as User:Larry E. Jordan, he was once again active with parliamentary procedure articles. But apparently, I'm going to guess, having a bit of fun, he created the Easter Bunny Hotline article. This was not a hoax, it really existed. And then User:Fredrick day took it to WP:AN/I, using a bad-hand IP account. And lots of, shall we say, disinformation and misinformation was supplied. For what would ordinarily result in a simple speedy, probably no warning at all, he was blocked again. If we look back over it, a huge amount of disruption was resulting from his participation here. Who or what was the cause of all this? If we think the answer is "Sarsaparilla," we may have a piece of an answer, but, quite clearly, not the whole answer. Whatever his crime was, it was not "sock puppetry." The only arguable socks would be accounts used while blocked. Like many his age, he has a "you can't make me" attitude toward authority. This is one reason why using indef blocks to maintain order is a classic Bad Idea. It creates far more disruption than it prevents. This was not a user who attacked people, he was not ordinarily uncivil (with one exception mentioned, which was not a personal attack.)

As someone who came to appreciate his contributions, which go deeper than a few articles, and who came to consider him a friend, I regret the troubles his presence has caused some administrators, who are faced with enforcing blocks. But he never harassed users, he never made personal attacks (the finger on Jehochman's Talk page was the worst thing he did, and that is a classic message of defiance of authority, which most societies have learned to not treat as actually violating law but only decorum). I know for a fact that he was here to benefit the project and not to disrupt it. Now, he has died and gone to meta. Mostly. He's trying to get his files deleted. I'll address that with the MfD.--Abd (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While what I've seen (not to mention the sheer drama on here for our entertainment on a daily basis) seems to merit the ban, I would like somebody to actually make a (concise) case for his being banned that doesn't simply relate to the drama on here. My understanding is that his main disruption was creating a series of rolling non-concurrent accounts which may have been used to stack a vote which wasn't going to change anything anyway, since it was a completely new idea he had raised - I'm thinking back to delegable proxy or whatever it was called. I'm not sure of the exact events after that, except that he ended up blocked. He then sockpuppeted around the block until we finally agreed to let him have the Jordan account. Then he created hoax articles and got banned on that. Is my interpretation correct, or is there bits that need to be added? Are the arguments against his being banned simply that there is no meaningful "for" case in their opinion? As a relative bystander I am guessing I'm asking these questions for more than a few people. Perhaps it's up to us bystanders to actually help in resolving it now. Orderinchaos 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that your summary is pretty close to correct, Orderinchaos. Abd's statement above is mostly accurate, though incomplete and rather slanted. My summary of accounts used up to March 15 is in this diff: [23]. Briefly, in the course of discussing his and Abd's delegable proxy proposal, he used at least six different accounts. While we generally are flexible about allowing editors to change their usernames on Wikipedia, doing so on a twice-weekly basis while actively participating in discussions is confusing and disruptive—particularly when talking about a proposal to allow editors to delegate authority from one account to another.

As to the use of the term 'sockpuppet', in at least one case, two of his accounts (User:Thespian Seagull and User:Take You There) overlap their editing. Somewhat more gravely, I can locate no discussion page where Sarsaparilla/OM was the first editor to identify one of his new accounts as a continuation account; another editor always had to point it out first. In some cases he openly identified himself on his user or user talk page, but certainly not always. (Abd has often argued that the new accounts – even when not explicitly identified as continuation accounts – were 'obvious' and therefore not deceptive. Such obviousness depends on the reader being familiar with Sarsaparilla's style and interests; there's no protection there for the naive new visitor to a talk page, where half a dozen Sarsaparilla accounts have engaged in debate.) A quick sifting through Sarsaparilla's contributions finds instances where he refers to himself in the third person (Thespian Seagull talking about Absidy's use of multiple accounts: [24]; Take You There talking about Sarsaparilla: [25]). I freely admit I can't bring myself to dig through all of this editor's numerous talk page edits, so I doubt that's an exhaustive list.

As Obuibo Mbstpo, he created a mainspace hoax article (Obuibo Mbstpo) which was a fake biography of a Nigerian engineer and government official. The article was speedied as a likely hoax, and he reinserted the content in his userspace, at the same time fabricating a book source for the material and repeatedly lying about the existence of his imagined Nigerian (see User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo). Abd's 'assistance' there probably didn't help Sarsaparilla. Anyway, Sarsaparilla's insistence on clinging to an obvious fabrication led to serious concerns about his trustworthiness to contribute mainspace content in general. Based on his poor judgement with this hoax, his disruptive and deceptive use of multiple accounts during his policy proposals, and his general tendency to waste the community's time, he was blocked again. (There may be additional reasons I'm not aware of.)

I wasn't involved in the Larry E. Jordan stuff, so if someone better-acquainted wants to expand on it then dive in. Frankly I think that an editor eventually runs out of second chances. Creating an article about a non-notable and borderline-obscene phone number – the Easter Bunny Hotline – just in time for Easter was decidedly tacky and in poor taste, especially given that the article contained no real warning as to the nature of the content. By itself it might have drawn only a warning or a short block, but this was an editor who had already had ample warning that he was on his last last chance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above is, I am sure, sincere, but it is also inaccurate. Instead of six accounts being used while WP:PRX was being discussed, as stated by TenOfAllTrades, there were three: User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, and User:Absidy, up until the block of Absidy, the first block ever for this user. (In fact, I don't think he was every warned for a serious offense until a couple of hours before the block, and he did not violate the warning. All other accounts after that and until User:Obuibo Mbstpo were block-evading accounts, temporary. There is a discussion of the history on the Talk page for Absidy, which is tricky to get to because it has been redirected. Yes, I think there is some overlap, with the temporary accounts, the kind possibly explained by persistence of cookies, though I have not examined this in detail (I actually did not find overlap when I reviewed this before, but Sarsaparilla did say it happened). (Note that the TOAT description of overlap is only with those evading accounts, all of which were quickly blocked.) When you look at the first three accounts, what you will see is that there was one improper shift of account, with no sock puppetry involved. Improper because not directly acknowledged without being asked. When he was asked, he acknowledged the connection, not that it wasn't totally obvious. If you look at the first edits of User:Absidy, you will see that the connection was explicitly acknowledged,[26] contrary to what TOAT states above. Absidy was blocked, and then User:Obuibo Mbstpo was created as a negotiated return (he could not return to Absidy because he had munged the passwords, so it would have taken more admin fuss to deal with it than setting up a new account. Mbstpo was, thus, known to be Sarsaparilla from the very beginning, also. Then Mbstpo was blocked, the occasion being the marriage proposal joke and the hoax article. There were then, again, a series of block-evading socks, until Sarcasticidealist kindly recognized that the earlier blocks had been a tad excessive. So then there was, again, User:Larry E. Jordan, who likewise represented a negotiated return, openly acknowledged from the beginning. Here, Sarsaparilla promised to not shift accounts again; but that was on condition he was unblocked. Now, if we look at this history of accounts, it certainly looks terrible. I can understand the immediate rejection of most to this as "abusive sock puppetry." None of it was intentional sock puppetry except in the block-evading sense. (It is possible that he has kept the password for Larry E. Jordan, he was asked not to munge it as he had done with prior accounts, so ... as that might technically be considered an active account, he might technically be creating sock puppets. But he has no history of true abusive sock puppetry, and he was not actually blocked for sock puppetry, at any point, and if I look at the vast majority of the "evading sock" accounts, they seem to have been made in good faith. Some seem to think that I am "defending" Sarsaparilla. Actually, no. I'm trying to prevent the community from forming a warped understanding of what happened, based on many, many false statements that have appeared, otherwise unchallenged, and they are legion. What I've said here in contradiction to what TenOfAllTrades' history is easily verifiable. And please don't consider this any kind of complaint against TenOfAllTrades. He's done his job. Not perfectly. But generally well. If we were paying him, perhaps we could expect him to be perfect. Nah! Nobody's perfect. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Sarsaparilla openly acknowledging (some of) his 'continuation' accounts, I'm afraid that Abd has misinterpreted what I have written. To be clear, what I meant was that Sarsaparilla – on many, many occasions – has participated in the same discussion under multiple user names. In none of those cases am I aware of any attempt by Sarsaparilla to explicitly identify himself as a new name for an account on the page where the discussion was taking place prior to another editor noting the change for him. While it might not be necessary to do so for a normal editor who makes a single name change, an editor who runs through a half-dozen accounts in three weeks and participates in discussions under multiple names absolutely must make his identity clear. Instead, Sarsaparilla made little effort to make clear his current and past identities, going so far as to remove links to them from his user page ([27]) and (as linked above) referring to his other accounts in the third person during discussion.

If Abd believes that any of the statements I have made here are false, I would urge him to explicitly identify them to clarify any other misunderstandings that might exist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just gonna step in here and say what everyone on the other side of that debate wants to say -- no disclaimers on wp and wp is not censored. However as Ten points out, the timing of this creation was tacky and I'll even say troll-y. As in, it's a move likely designed to stir up controversy -- a move in a game, as OM has called Wikipedia a number of times. Also as Ten points out, the creation alone would not have gotten a block for most users, but as nearly everyone involved saw it, myself included, this user simply used up his chances. He was even given further chances following this block, if I remember correctly, but he blew those as well. Sarcasticidealist along with a bunch of other admins have been much more lenient with this user than I was comfortable with, and even they support the ban now.

PS, this is pretty much a moot point. OM has stated that he has no interest in getting unbanned. He has even said that "there's no point in being good now". He doesn't wish to be unbanned yet he still comes back via IP socks to make a retort here and there. There's no reason to consider a de-ban, or even to solidify the case against him, IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:23, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It's true, there's not much point in unbanning. TenOfAllTrades has a pretty good account of it, above. With the Obuibo Mbstpo article, I was kinda doing a test similar to what TBSDY did when he vandalized the Daleks article. And then when I was unexpectedly blocked (I thought people would be more lenient than that), I thought I could bluff my way out of trouble by making up a source. That was, actually, my crucial mistake – as Nixon and Clinton also learned, it's not so much the actual offense, but the cover-up that gets you in trouble. The Easter Bunny thing was kind of a joke in the same vein as the marriage proposal edit (and not the kind of thing that's typically blockable in itself), but I guess it should have been saved for Uncyclopedia. If I were to be unbanned, I probably wouldn't engage in that kind of stuff, (although I might joke around on talk pages a bit) but an unban is unlikely to happen at this point, nor is it really necessary. I'm not too upset about it, as I can continue making constructive edits anonymously, and the political stuff I can do at meta, which may be a more receptive community anyway. New ideas may be better able to germinate there, and be discussed thoughtfully, without interference, ad hominem attacks, premature attempts to shut them down, etc. It's a slower-paced place with more constructive and open-minded dialog. All in all, this might be the best thing for everyone, because some people aren't going to be satisfied without an ban at this point. 129.174.73.27 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) has gotten into a debate with Prester John (talk · contribs),[28] Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs)[29] and CormHamster (talk · contribs)[30] over whether the Jihad Watch article should have Islamophobia as a "See also" and be included in the Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. In response to their objections that these inclusions are neither well-sourced nor NPOV, Sennen goroshi is now removing the terms "white supremacist", "hate site", and "neo-Nazi" from the Don Black (white nationalist) and Stormfront (website) articles (e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34]), claiming they are not NPOV, despite rather copious reliable sourcing attesting to these designations. It is unclear to me whether this is simple WP:POINT, or whether Sennen truly supports these individuals and websites. Most recently Sennen has stated that Yahel is "well known" for his "delight in gaming wikipedia and making changes purely to antagonise people", and has suggested that Yahel should get a "perm block" in order to "make wikipedia a little easier for the legit editors"[35] I'm guessing that Sennen fails to see the irony in his words, and wondering if some sort of remedy might, in fact, be more appropriately applied to Sennen goroshi himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this user is only editing Jihad Watch because he/she was in an earlier dispute with Prester John, and was stalked him here. See for example: [36][37][38][39][40] It seems this users methods of resolving disputes is to stalk others. With CornHamster, this user attempted to harass this new user by tagging his userpage with the single purpose account tag, unalbe to stalk him because he is a new editor who hasn't edited other pages yet. [41]

I think it is also important to mention that this user originally insulted me by refering to me as a " With all due respect, is there any reason for your dislike of Muslims and Pro-Whites?" [42] thus implying in her comment that he/she thinks I am prejudice against muslims, and that I am somehow anti-white, and has made similar controversial edits to Jew watch. [43][44] Yahel Guhan 06:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that there are very few sources for Jihad Watch in the first place. It's a fringe website that has appeared in a handful of news stories. There are issues here with WP:PARITY; most sources simply ignore this website completely. I think it should be merged back into the Robert Spencer article. None of this is to defend the particular user's actions, just to comment upon the underlying issue. *** Crotalus *** 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry if my edits have caused problems for people, I am just finding it hard to understand why certain terms which could be considered to be NPOV are constantly removed from Islam related articles, but constantly placed on articles refering to other races. I have editors with more experience than myself telling me that these terms are not acceptable, but the same editors are telling me they are acceptable in other articles. I am not trying to prove a point, I am merely trying to make the standards in wikipedia consistant no matter what the article is refering to. I do however take offence to people saying I am trying to "harrass" an editor by placing a tag on his page, I placed a single purpose tag on his account, because the user spent all his time editing two articles, both closely related to eachother, to me that is a single purpose account. It is not a new user, it is merely a user who has decided to make a new account, so I am hardly picking on someone new. On the Jew-watch article, I removed the term "hate site" because I assumed it was not quite NPOV. I don't think my actions are any different from those of any other users, apart from the fact that I have no agenda, no affiliation with any of the groups refered to, and that I am only looking for consistency, not some form of bias to reflect my personal beliefs. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the more it stinks. I was unaware of Jayjg and who he was until this report was made. I was dumbstruck when I realised that this report was made by an admin. I happened to stumble upon it, well considering an admin made this report, it would have been nice if they had actually informed me of its existence, or perhaps left a simple message on my talk page to give me a warning about my actions - but no, for some reason it was not considered a good idea by the admin who made this report, to inform me of the report or their opinion regarding my actions..nice. real nice.

To assume good faith in this is getting a little hard, the admin who makes this report about my interactions with user: Yahel Guhan, happens to have awards from guess who?...well Yahel Guhan of course, am I supposed to think this is just a coincedence? or is it a coincedence that this admin has numerous edits on Jewish related articles (just like Yahel Guhan) and is kicking my ass for using terms such as "Islamophobic" from an article about an anti-islamic website, while also kicking my ass for removing terms such as "hate site" and "neo-nazi" from a white-pride site? These are content disputes, but some editors/admins seem to have personal agendas when dealing with these articles. As an admin jayjg could have blocked me straight away if he thought there was the need, but I guess people would have seen the obvious bias in an action like that, so it is easier for him to make the report, and have someone else do the blocking...

Until today, I had no issues with wikipedia and the admins, editors like myself all have different opinions and attitudes, and I had total faith in the admins of wikipedia to keep check on everything/everyone, I have been blocked twice, 12 hours and 24 hours, and in both cases I emailed the blocking admin to say that I did not hold it against them, this report however is bullshit(sorry, I cant think of a more suitable term) and is not what I expected from an admin. Block me for 12 hours, 12 months or take no action against me, I will stand by these comments whatever the result of this report is.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets be honest. You saw this report because you saw my contribs, and noticed I commented here. Now you continue to stalk me, in spite of seeing the report about you doing so: [45][46][47][48][49][50] Yahel Guhan 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest, you clicked on my contribs and followed me to the Jew-watch article, and reverted my edit, so I decided to have a look at what other articles you had followed me to, and there staring me in the face was an ANI report with my name on it. Please dont accuse me of stalking you, when you have followed me to that article just to revert me. pot/kettle/black. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew_Watch&action=history Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no. I had the article on my watchlist ever since this Kirbytime sock edited it. (and I have edited it before [51]) Yahel Guhan 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This user now resorts to canvassing other editors who share his/her view on the issue (claiming they are unbias)[52] Yahel Guhan 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

← It looks distinctly like Sennen goroshi, having gotten in a dispute at Jihad Watch, then followed the opposing editors to articles on white-supremacist topics and made edits designed as tit-for-tat. Whether this is a bigger violation of WP:POINT or WP:STALK is debatable, but either way it's not appropriate and I agree with Jayjg's formulation at the top of the page. The canvassing doesn't look too good either - if Sennen wants outside input in an editing dispute, he needs to use RfC or WP:3O, not friendly editors' talk pages. I'd consider this a warning to Sennen goroshi; if this behavior (following other editors, WP:POINTy editing, and canvassing) doesn't stop right away, then a block would be appropriate. As far as specific content disputes, dispute resolution is thataway. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now what were you saying about me stalking you? How do you happen to see that edit? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had content disputes with that user before (I opposed her RFA [53]). Yahel Guhan 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see, so who were you stalking? me? her? both of us? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on. It's not "stalking" to click on user contributions and notice canvassing. It's stalking to follow someone to articles they edit in order to expand a dispute with them. Sennen, I would strongly suggest you drop this. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Drop this? I didn't make the report in the first place. I didn't canvas an editor, I left a message on the talk page of an admin who is a member of WikiProject Islam, because of the bias on an Islam related article, I certainly didn't leave a message on some troll's talk page, asking for help in an edit-war. I don't really mind people checking my contribs. however if as you say stalking is following someone to articles they edit, then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew_Watch&action=history is most certainly stalking..which I also don't really mind, I just find it ironic that the editor who is complaining about stalking, is doing exactly the same to me. The editor who complained about me looking at his contribs, in order to locate this ANI report, is doing exactly the same to me. But thanks for the advice, I appreciate people advising me, I however am highly annoyed by this report and the holier than thou attitude of some of the people in it. It might be in my best interest to drop it, I realise that, however apart from reducing the likelyhood of me being blocked, it wont change the way these people are making their agenda driven biased edits. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You did canvass, picking an editor whom you probably knew would take your side in the dispute. My edit to Jew Watch is not stalking. Thanks. I guess everyone you get into a dispute with is somehow bias and agenda driven (based on your last comment). I also await your acceptance of the mediation request (though considering this comment, I doubt you will agree to mediate the issue. Yahel Guhan 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I picked an editor who I probably knew would take my side? Are you not only an editor, but also a mind-reader? How can you possibly know why I decided to message that particular user? I have never talked to them before, I have never seen any of their edits - they are an admin, with an interest in islam related articles, that was the only reason. I really am interested why you do not consider your edit to Jew Watch to be stalking - an explanation would be nice. To be honest, I am rather sceptical regarding the mediation request, as far as I am concerned the Jihad Watch issue should not require mediation, it is cited with reliable sources, what is there to mediate? It seems a little like gaming wikipedia to me, mediation to push for a compromise, when no compromise should be required.Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Sennen goroshi's last comment is very honest about his/her intentions. I highly doubt this editor didn't know I had a previous dispute with User:AA (especially since he studied my edits all the way back to July) (as evident by his last comment). He/she also mentions his/her refusal to mediate, meaning he/she is unwilling to compromise on this issue, instead stating that editors who oppose him/her are somehow here to "game wikipedia". Yahel Guhan 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care what you do or do not doubt, you are not here to make assumptions about my intentions and motives, I have explained why I contacted that admin, so either accept my explanation or quit complaining about it. I did not refuse to mediate, I said I was sceptical, please dont try to put words into my mouth. I dont think that editors who oppose me are trying to game wikipedia, I think you are trying to game wikipedia, based on your previous comments, I have had disputes in the past, entered into mediation and compromised on many occasions. btw, who is your friend with the anon IP - he is running remote desktop isnt he? Dont misunderstand me, I dont for a moment think it is your PC sitting there with remote access, however I could probably make a pretty good guess as to who it is. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

anyway, perhaps I have been a little hasty with my edits, and perhaps I have been trying to balance articles, by dragging them all down to the same level, rather than dragging them up to the same level. I am willing to agree with you on the Stormfront and Jew-Watch articles, infact I am willing to agree with you on all articles we have clashed over, apart from Jihad Watch, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons article is debatable, however I will leave that for whoever can be bothered. I am still sceptical about mediation, and I do think you were trying to game wikipedia, however most editors have at some time paid close attention to the rules and used them to their advantage. I dont think for one moment think that the jihad watch article is a closed issue, however perhaps with a little 3rd party help it might get sorted out sooner, rather than later. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What I find surprising in this incident report is that while Sennen goroshi seems to complain about how people are reading motives into his actions, he seems to have little problems doing so himself.

The reason I am late-arriving to this complaint is that, until recently, I didn't know who sg was, and didn't much care. Then he made unbidden, impolite remarks on User;Abstract's page and this comment:

...just to annoy you, I will personally volunteer to take any block for incivility on Abtract's behalf, especially if that block is related to insulting you in an amusing manner(1).

Because this occurred in a completely unrelated page, subject and involved editors he hadn't interacted with before, I must presume that his behavioral failings are not specific to any one article (or group of articles) but instead part of his personality. A civility/personal attack block might be in order, if for no other reason that to protect the other editors from this user for a time. With any luck, this user will return to the project properly chastened. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic, that an editor who was threatening to [ [54] "bitch-slap"] another editor is commenting on my behaviour and suggesting that I am blocked for civility/personal attacks. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, you might want to re-read the post in its proper context. Neither did any "(editorial) bitch-slap" take place before or after the post, but spoke to the same need that otehrs had made to keep things cool in the discussion. If you are going to stalk my edits for ammo, have a car to actually read them more closely, wouldja? I should also point out that the comment didn't prompt an AN/I complaint, mainly because the others who were present knew the context in which the comment was used.

Secondly, I know when someone realizes that they screwed up: they try to make the argument about something else - anything else - anything other than their own behavior. I have been uncivil in the past, and have been blocked for it. Therefore, I know the methods. Commenting that you "don't care if (you) are blocked", if only to "make fun" of someone else, clearly indicated that civility isn't as important to you as it needs to be to contribute to the Project. Perhaps a block will impress that upon you. If you cannot play well with others, you cannot play here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippine FM radio stations

This section was originally entitled "User:Orangemike" but upon further discretion I changed it to a new title. --Howard the Duck 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Orangemike fully-protected all Metro Manila FM stations citing WP:OWN violations, despite no one "owning" or claiming to "own" articles. He moved all Metro Manila FM stations (see DWRT-FM) to their four-letter codes instead of the brand name, citing Wikipedia:NAME#Broadcasting.

I have two problems with this:

1. It is absolutely inappropriate to protect articles without any benefit of discussion. As much as I understand protection policy, it is not like the Iraq War where the article is preemptively.
2. It is absolutely inappropriate to move articles without any benefit of discussion. Orangemike may cite Wikipedia:NAME#Broadcasting but I can cite a rule that'll override it: WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I can certify that no one in Metro Manila calls an FM station by their callsigns but by their brand names. See a prior discussion on this issue.

Therefore, I request that an admin unprotect all of these station articles. Reversion will be done later if there's consensus either to move it back, or the moves were unilateral. --Howard the Duck 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin should unprotect all of these station articles quickly. Pinoybandwagon (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I went by the clear wording of the appropriate portion of WP:NAME, which says nothing about any exception for Philippine stations. (I believe the WP:NAME system makes much more sense. At least one of these stations has changed its slogan/brand/motto three times within the past two years, and I think it would be silly to keep creating a new article every time they rebrand themselves!) I explained what I was doing, on the talk page of the first couple of articles involved, and on the talk page of the editor User:Pinoybandwagon. I brought up the issue of WP:OWN because an editor had shown editorship tendencies; I believe he is either a current or former employee of one of the networks there. I also brought the issue here to WP:AN, and nobody criticized my actions! Instead of discussing the matter, Pinoybandwagon just reverted without edit summary, and later left a nasty note on my talk page ordering me not to interfere with his "FINAL" solution to the issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but why protect all of them? You could've just blocked/asked another admin to block him/her for disruption.

Also, I'm not asking for an exception; I'm saying once a child rule/guideline is in conflict with his parent rule/guideline, the parent rule/guideline should prevail, and in this case, the callsigns are not "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". I'd accept that for dead stations but not for current ones.

As for rebranding, they always go to the original articles, maybe except for when a station is sold to a new owner and the new owner reformats it. Like for example, when 99.5 RT (just look at the history, I'm betting it's redirected somewhere) was bought, it still stayed as RT until it was reformatted a year ago to Hit FM. Then this Sunday, Hit FM became Campus FM. I'd argue that RT should have a separate article but both Campus and Hit should remain in one article since they had one owner. In fact, that's what I did until the new user sprang up, and I would've dealt it on some other time. --Howard the Duck 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, normally, the specific overrides the general, so that if a child rule/guideline is in apparent conflict with the parent guideline, then the child guideline remains in effect. But that's neither here nor there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the general rule prevails over the specific rule? Since more than likely, the general rule has a green check mark while the specific rule has the blue one, and in Wikipedia, green check mark > blue check mark. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reasons whythe Radio Station Info should be put in its name (Ex: 95.9 Big FM info under the name 95.9 Big FM):

1. The real name of the Radio Station is more understanding than the Radio Station callsign.
2. People new or old to wikipedia will realize the real title of the Radio Station.
3. In the templates area (such as Template:Metro Manila Radio), the Radio Station callsign and the Radio Station frequency highlighted in black show the Radio Station Name (Ex: the callsign DWBG and the frequency 95.9 shows 95.9 Big FM).

Pinoybandwagon (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what I've been advocating; only a very few people know a callsign of an FM station unless it is a part of the brandname. I have no qualms on dead FM and AM stations since they're known by their callsigns but on-air FM stations are rarely called by their callsigns alone. At least on the introductory line the brand name should be named first, that's why I'm advocating for the removal of full protection. --Howard the Duck 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin should unprotect all of these station articles by March 27. Pinoybandwagon (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinoybandwagon, I now see why Orangemike did protect all of these articles. Please don't demand anything with a timeline (look at my statements above, no deadlines or anything). --Howard the Duck 10:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time, don't call me Pinoybandwagon. Just call me DARYL MARTINEZ or simply DM.Pinoybandwagon (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall we had the same problem in Australia a month or two ago when User:New World Man moved a heap of articles to their callsigns and one of our admins fixed them back. WP:NC#Broadcasting says: "In places with a mix of call signs and station names ... the station name should normally be used, except when the call sign is well-known". I am inclined to unprotect but would prefer to see more sources. If those are presented to demonstrate local use of the names rather than the callsigns, I'll do it this evening - there does seem to have been an abuse of the protection policy. Orderinchaos 07:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly not up on policies but, can't a compromise be reached by including both names and callsigns in the article titles. An "made up" example would be something like "99.5FM_WDXE_The_Hounddog" so it includes freq, callsign/letters, and nickname. Just an idea feel free to ignore it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Several brand names do include a part of the callsigns, such as Monster Radio RX 93.1 (I'm surprised this wasn't affected by the protect-moves). Here's one proof the callsign is rarely used: Magic 89.9 vs. DWTM-FM. In fact, several FM radio stations totally omit their callsigns in station IDs.

As for reformats, I'd say to put them under one article, if a station had two different owners, they should have 2 different articles. --Howard the Duck 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RADIO STATIONS ARE MOSTLY KNOWN FOR THE RADIO STATION NAME.Retired username (talk)19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) This message is actually left by User:Pinoybandwagon. --Howard the Duck 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not everywhere. That's why I'm invoking the more general rule instead of the specific American-centric naming convention for radio stations. --Howard the Duck 12:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Howard. If you wanna tell me something about Radio Stations (I focus sometimes at US Radio Stations, but I often focus on Philippine Radio Stations), just give me a comment! Radiosmasher (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Something's telling me this is a sock. Newbies don't ever come here, unless they're notified. Can an admin check this out? --Howard the Duck 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard that is why I thought reformating the names to include both/all options was a decent compromise. By using the nicknames, callsigns, and frequency people could find the stuff no matter which version of names they were looking for. I'm in no way an expert on anything but, thought maybe someone that was neutral may be able to help with a decent suggestion about compromise. Sorry if I did not come across that way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We could always use redirects, right? Although you could argue the same for the brand names, the article name must the name the most number of people know. --Howard the Duck 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippine FM Radio Stations
If the official call sign has a prefix (DW- and DZ- in Luzon, DY- in Visayas, DX- in Mindanao), a redirect or disambiguation should be added for the call sign without the prefix. For stations which do not have a prefix, place the broadcast years in parentheses; for example, "DWRT (1976-2006)". See Radiosmasher for more information on assignment practices.

Brand names such as "Net 25", "UNTV" or "99.5 Campus FM" are very often unique. Even though "Campus Radio Baguio" or "Wild FM Davao" are not appropriate article titles, a brand name may, however, be created as Radio Station and its Dial (Ex. 92.7 "Campus Radio" or "Dream 106.7") page where appropriate.

Radiosmasher (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which you had recently added just like minutes ago. I don't think we'd need another rule/guideline for this when we have a rule/guideline already. --Howard the Duck 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:David Shankbone/72.76

David's stalker is still going at it. He's moved to my user and talk page yesterday (both now semi-protected) and is leaving messages like this on the LGBT project talk page. Note the implied threat of physical violence, much like this towards Michael Lucas and this towards David. Is there a way a block can be placed on the range this guy is using or is it too broad of an area? This has gone way past stalking and harassment on this site and the police have been contacted by David. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, that's disturbing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added so many frickin IP's to that list. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please protect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies ASAP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, but please check me to make sure I did it properly. I set the protection for 10 days. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy's editing from Newark, New Jersey. Time for an abuse report at the very least ... I'll see about doing an anon-only range block. Blueboy96 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy, wow that is down-right frightening. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably for David and Michael — but have they called the police? I probably would. --Haemo (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

David has and I think Michael has as well. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<-Will someone in the US please contact Mike Godwin, preferably by phone? The level of detail is Not Good. If a CheckUser is about, can they gather the appropriate detail on this for him? This has just stepped beyond stalking and into the level of real-world threat. If we can act over every bloody anonymous suicide "threat" and use of the word "bomb" on a school talk page, we can certainly act immediately over this, at a Foundation level. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, I had an Edit Conflict, and was going to ask the same thing. This is way beyond a troll looking to get a laugh out of making people clean up their mis-deeds, this is terroristic threats and needs to be handled by the proper authorities. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He started harassing me because I've been adding the IP's to the list and placing sock templates on the accounts. The messages he left me were just trying to play with my head, but if there's even a hint of a physical threat I have no qualms with contacting the Washington, D.C. Police Department (where I live) or the Newark Police Department. I'm not going to put up with that and David certainly has not done anything to deserve this kind of psychotic harassment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this for a while, trying to help where I can. I agree with the above: real action is called for in this case. WP/the foundation needs to do whatever it can to protect its editors from this kind of abhorrent behavior. R. Baley (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ranges are 72.76.0.0/17, 71.127.224.0/20, and 72.68.112.0/20. These are dynamic Verizon addresses. Blocking them would cause some, but not an immense amount of, collateral damage. Black Kite 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We can take the hit, in the circumstances. Anybody good at range blocks want to apply one to those ranges (anon only? ACB?) for a week or two? Just to give us some space. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another one. He's quick with the IP's. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see many productive anon edits on 72.68.112.0/20, so I've blocked it for 72 hours. Mr.Z-man 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More of the same started at User talk:Moni3, so I went ahead and semi-protected for 5 days. Aleta ^Sing 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

All ranges blocked for two weeks, anon-only. Hopefully this will stem the tide. Blueboy96 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboy. Much appreciated. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem ... I noticed a few admins had hardblocked the ranges, but there's no reason to lock out constructive editors under the circumstances--especially considering that it's coming from the biggest city in New Jersey. Blueboy96 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Those ranges have very few constructive editors. A long-term anon/account creation block should pose no real problems. Thatcher 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a case for Mike Godwin. Newark to the address referenced would take about 45 minutes by NJT, far less than the time needed for most meds to really kick in, or a temper flareup to cool down. Get Mike on it, let him and the cops work together to prosecute the guy for assault (stating that a bullet hole will look nice in his head, then 'confirming' the address constitutes assault by Newark standards) and let him find out about 'fire island loving' in prison. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we know if anyone notified Godwin? Aleta ^Sing 01:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation is aware of the situation. I've exchanged emails with Cary about it. - Philippe | Talk 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Philippe! Aleta ^Sing 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we've used huge range blocks in the past to deal with this individual. It seemed to keep him at bay for a day or two. See this one, for reference: [55].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• First, thank you all for helping. I can assure everyone that this person is just another random, troll who attacks people who actually do things while they sit in Newark, New Jersey and do nothing. People like all of us who contribute to Wikipedia. I've never been to Fire Island - indeed, people who know I am more of an adventure traveler who has no use for gay resorts. All the innuendo, references to knowing me, "sweet, sweet revenge" for some unnamed crime against them--note they never say what that is, I'm sure to spare me embarrassment, yeah, right--are all just typical troll ploys. What's so sad is this person has been doing it for at least a year, He's really obsessed with gays. He's vandalized a gay Jewish rapper since November 2007 and is now trying to vandalize a Jewish article with a Gay Jew's photo. He's been obsessing over a gay porn star since April 2007. He hangs out on the Wikipedia LGBT project. He's gone after gay Wikipedians like WJBscribe, AgnosticPreachersKid and, of course, me. Whatever his personal issues and internal conflicts might be, he clearly wants attention ("Look at me! Look at me!") and thinks about gay people a lot by expressing his sexuality conflict on Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons. --David Shankbone 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hahaha. Applause for the sarcasm. ThuranX (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we get those edits oversighted ASAP? Several of them contain real addresses and contact info. Even if the contact info is not accurate, someone could use it to show up at said addresses and... (shudder to think). Seriously, we need those edits removed from the history ASAP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad; I actually mailed Lar for oversight on the diff on WJBscribe's talk page (the one with the address) about an hour ago but had to step away from the computer shortly after so I didn't get a chance to post here. Commons only has two oversight users; should we take it to a Steward instead? --jonny-mt 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a copy of the post with the address on the page whose name is the title of the thread. If we are oversighting, that should probably go too. Aleta ^Sing 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I emailed Verizon to let them know what was going on, and also stressed that we have contacted law enforcement. For whatever reason, it seems the big ISPs haven't been proactive in dealing with this sort of thing on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mmbabies for an example--we had to rangeblock a bunck of Houston-area IPs because AT&T didn't seem to want to do a damn thing), but mentioning that the police are involved will certainly get them moving. A pat on the back to everyone who was involved in handling this ... hopefully we can get this (looks at WP:NPA and disregards several sections) moron off the streets for a long, long time. Blueboy96 11:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support this relatively brief softblock. The dispute has escalated tot he point of serious privacy violations and has gone on way too long. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for moving on this. --David Shankbone 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In related news most likely, a valuable newer editor, AgnosticPreachersKid, has retired. Tis a shame really. Hope he comes back. See User:AgnosticPreachersKid. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User Triippe

User:Triippe seems to have done something a little strange. He/she has moved their talk page to another talk page at User:Tripaye. This follows the user blanking a page that was up for AfD and some other strange edits (including altering other users' comments at the AfD to change their opinions). I just wanted to post this here to get some opinions about what this user might be doing with the new account and talk page and if someone should reach out and make contact about the user's intentions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have history merged the new talk page back into its original and deleted the resultant redirect. I see that somebody has already approached him about the proper way to change names. Perhaps that's all he was trying to do. It's also possible that he was attempting to lose his talk page history, given that he reformatted his original talk page one minute after the move and then blanked the new location with a stated rationale of "non user"] within minutes. I suppose barring any other activity, the thing to do is wait to see what happens next. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any strange behavior since this, but I thought it was best to keep an eye out. I'm glad someone reached out to this editor. I wouldn't have batted an eye at it, but because of the behavior in AfD I thought the situation had the potential to be troubling.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:DbelangeB

Resolved

DbelangeB (talk · contribs) and I were discussing his sockpuppet case, when he makes the comment that "this discussion does not belong here", promising that he will continue it on my talk page [56]. Instead of posting a response, he launches an accusation of vandalism against me on the talk page [57], accusing me of "racial invective" (reversion of censorship vandalism to Magical negro), accuses me of having caused disruption in the community, etc. etc. It is to be noted that he has effectively admitted he owns sockpuppet accounts, under the pretense that he's saving them for if/when his main account is blocked, which does not seem to be one of the few valid reasons for owning alternative accounts. I'm just worried that this user won't stop trying to disrupt the project by adding useless and misleading information (see sockpuppet case for details.)
Note: this report was previously filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#DbelangeB attacks my talk page with baseless accusations, but received no response. nneonneo (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the SSP case page, all of the socks have been blocked, and the current DbelangeB (talk · contribs) account is on a 24-hour timeout for personal attacks. If the problems continue, I'm certain that further blocks will be forthcoming. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I executed a preventative 24 hour block for NPA violations per an AIV report by Nneonneo, but didn't want to compromise DbelangeB's ability to comment at the SSP case. The NPA block falls outside of the socking enquiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Offensive edit summaries

Resolved

Not prolific yet, but posted to nip it in the bud. Special:Contributions/99.243.54.249 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 16:44, March 27, 2008

I wouldn't really classify this as offensive, just odd. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I just left them a warning. Tiptoety ^talk 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec):I left a notice on the anon's talk page about the edit summaries. If this doesn't address the issue, then an admin may need to look deeper into the user's contributions in the future. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, beat you Tip. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks that way :D Tiptoety ^talk 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What's this, the admin 110m dash? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if it was done on purpose. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Racist, anti-Semitic editor

Resolved

 – There seems to be consensus for an indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read some offensive things on Wikipedia, most of it from vandals, but Confederate till Death (talk · contribs) is approaching some of the worst I've ever seen. This edit is so offensive (White Rhodesia? Jews running the US??? And 5.2 million killed in the holocaust, which must be some new numbering system that has never crossed my desk), I am beyond upset. I would spend time providing other diffs for your edification, but I don't want to read his rantings. Jagz (talk · contribs) is supporting some of those rantings in an odd passive-aggressive mode, but he hasn't made comments as overtly racist as Confed. We need help here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

...I'm always loathe to bring up usernames, but would his username fall under the usernames which "...make harmonious editing difficult or impossible" criterion of the username policy? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think about that. But I'm going to have to assume that African American editors would be reluctant to engage him civilly in any discourse. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A reference to Jews being "euthanized" as if they were stray dogs and cats at the pound is utterly hideous. He's going on a 24 hour vacation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I overlooked that because my brain just doesn't accept that any rational and intelligent person would write in those terms. This is the line which we cannot allow people to cross. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments like that are unacceptable in Wikipedia. No two ways about it. Good block Raymond. Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So: Confederate till Death (talk · contribs) is accusing an established editor of "wikistalking" him within 4 days of starting here ([58]). Interest in the Horst-Wessel-Lied? Check. Charming anti-Irish sentiments? Check. Placing an "interesting and relevant" quote, which happens to be from David Lane (white nationalist), on another user's talk page? Check. Unproductive to downright offensive soapboxing on race and intelligence? Check ([59], [60], [61]). I am getting a strong feeling that these contributions are the sort which do not better the encyclopedia nor the associated community. Raymond's too kind. I'm inclined to indefinitely block here. Other thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to up it to indef, I certainly won't wheel-war over it... Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the username says it all. I support indef. Tiptoety ^talk 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I see nothing wrong with an indef block. Guettarda (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any power here, but indef him. I cannot believe that I missed the word "euthanized." I am shaking with anger right now. I'll bet he's a sockpuppet for someone, but I don't usually run into these types of editors, so I can't point a finger at anyone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Between MastCell's diffs (I note that I reverted his contribution to the Titanic talk page, thought I'd seen him before) and the user name concern I support going to an indef block. --John (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have applied the indef block. —Kurykh 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the the old joke about the Jewish doctor living in Germany right in early 1939. One day his secretary sees that he is reading Der Stürmer. She is shocked "Herr Doctor Goldstein, how could a good Jew like you read such anti-semitic propaganda?" "Well" he replies "If I read the Jewish newspapers I find that our property has been confiscated, we're not allowed to travel without permission and we are no longer allowed to teach at universities. If I read the Nazi papers I find that the Jews are the richest people in the world and we are a step away of having a stranglehold of all world politics. It makes me feel much better".

Oh yeah, and indef block endorsed. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block Just because an editor wants to share some controversial political views, like for example the view that Jewish people should be drowned in sacks like unwanted kittens, that doesn't mean that he can't participate in the encyclopedia without bringing it into disrepute. Wait, it does mean that? Well, never mind, then. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fisher, you owe me a new sarcasm meter :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

*Nod*. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to retune my sarcasm meter, because I was nanoseconds from click on Fisher's talk page to leave some choice commentary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

His name makes me think of Corn-fed, which might be an apt allusion to a behavior which is highly correlated with the incidence of pellagra, a deficiency disease endemic in that part of the world at one time.--Filll (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the southeastern U.S., pellagra has been virtually non-existent there (as elsewhere in the U.S.) for at least 50 years or so... MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep.--Filll (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 7) See, this is why inappropriate usernames are sometimes useful.

About that odd figure, according to Yad Vashem its the original Hilberg figure before the Eichmann trial. I;m afraid I didn't realise that to begin with, and was only paralysed with shock when I read it because 5.2m is also the number of Jewish Americans according to the 2003 NJPS. That was a bad momemt. Even setting aside these comments, his editing is blatantly tendentious, so anyone concerned that he's being banned just for expressing repugnant views need not be. Relata refero (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch Relata. Incidentally, our article on National Jewish Population Survey needs a lot of work. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think we can file this under "people we can probably do without". Endorse bannination. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Jimbo has previously established a precedent in this kind of cases, I agree with his possition about these racist users and quote him in my feelings toward racist disruption: "ugh". - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Without going into the details, I should point out that the editor did not say the Jews were taking over the USA, he said they were "purportedly" doing so. In context, that's not at all offensive; all it means is that despite adversity they've succeeded to the point where you have people saying such things about them. The 5.2 million number is not objectionable either; 6 million has always been a very rough approximation, and nobody will ever know the exact number. How "euthanised" should be taken depends very much on tone and context; in this context it's possible that it wasn't meant in an offensive way. No comment about the rest of the stuff. -- Zsero (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding right? Euthanized can be taken in precisely one way--highly offensive.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not kidding at all. Here's a non-offensive way to take it: "Just 60 years ago, over 5 million of them were put down as if they were so many cats and dogs, and yet look what they've achieved since then." -- Zsero (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I see a lot of good coming from this line of conversation at the moment. The block was based on the fact that this editor's contributions were detrimental to the goal of building the encyclopedia and community. Do you disagree with the block? MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The context of that comment didn't actually say that Jewish people should be euthanized, and the racism in that comment is against black, not Jewish, people. Paraphrased: Black people are so much worse than Jewish people that the latter have achieved much more with a decimated population than the former did even when given control of a nation. Our banter may have distracted from the intent of the comment, and 'euthanized' was not a good word choice, but the people who should be taking offense at that comment, primarily, are black Rhodesians. And, of course, those eccentric editors who always take offense at racism, even when it isn't directed at their own race. Nevertheless, this editor's purpose was clearly to promote a point of view, and one that would necessarily bring the project into disrepute, so despite my previous comment, I don't have any problem with blocking him now rather than going through the formality of giving him multiple opportunities to become less offensive. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are giving this racist scum (quoting below) a sign of good faith that his comments about 5.2 million Jews being euthanized as not actually saying that Jews were murdered by Nazis? I'm not sure if you're attacking me about being sensitive to racism to my own "race" (and I'd contend that I'm not a member of a race, but whatever), when every single thing that nutjob wrote was offensive to my people. And since I stand firm that any racism is bad, I'm not sure your semantic interpretation matters that much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have no power here, but I think a good idea would be to give that racist scum a 6 month vacation. Whata you think bout that? Blue Laser (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He insulted both groups. Jews by his choice of words and Rhodesians by his implication of innate inferiority. Brusegadi (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, the indefinite block doesn't have to be because of the remarks or the personal attacks. I would extent an indefinite block to a user brandishing an offensive username that outright violates WP:UP. However, administrators (although I am not one) would, and should, never use another policy as a veil or guise for blocking simply because they are offended - in this case, for the use of racial slurs. At any rate, if multiple administrators agree here on a extension of the block, the right thing has been done. No one is undermined, no wheel wars, nothing. Knocking it back down to 6 months would bloat this discussion further, and inflame those who feel strongly about it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that an Indefinite block is, by definition, indefinite - not infinite. If, in six month's time, there is consensus from admins that the user intends to and is able to contribute in an acceptable manner, then an unblock (perhaps with some sort of civility parole) would be fine. If not, then the block remains. Endorse the extension, btw. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) FWIW, the username isn't just taken on its own but is combined with the views and edits of the editor, in this case really clarifying the meaning and intent of said editor...need to check, is it at the Username page yet? Oh..indef block so I guess this is a rhetorical question now anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good block, for once I'm going to comment on a contributor, by saying that the only thing we need to do with that kind of slime is wipe it off our shoes. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Very Very Good Block Indef blocks IMO should be used very sparingly but in this case or cases like it, it is the only way to deal with idiots like that. Swiftly and with no mercy.BigDunc (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• The sort of individual that makes me ashamed to be white, male, western and nominally Christian - to much time would needed to have been spent inspecting their edits for POV to be of any benefit even if the edits turned out okay. Endorse block/ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse BTW. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and by the way, bone length is not entirely genetic, ask any lower class kid who grew up during the British industrial revolution. Brusegadi (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I am amazed that it took THIS long for him to reach indefinite... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Solid block, I think there's always a question of "will he/can he improve the encyclopaedia". The answer in my mind is fairly resolved in one direction. With some others they are capable of editing productively but will lapse into bad behaviour, in which case shorter duration blocks are more appropriate. Orderinchaos 06:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

US Dept. of Justice account vandalizing

149.101.1.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly vandalizing the Seventh-Day Adventist Church article. The address resolves to the US Department of Justice. Corvus cornix_talk 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked.[62] Bummer, too, I was hoping to stick it to the man. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Kralizec!. I've mentioned on K's talk page that K should alert the Foundation since it resolves to a major government. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The committee has been notified on its Meta talk page. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I just levied a three hour block against the United States Department of Justice IP 149.101.1.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for continued vandalism on the Seventh-day Adventist Church article (see the AIV report). As per procedure, I also emailed the Communications committee. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the above thread. Tiptoety ^talk 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Corvus cornix beat me in reporting here because I was busy sending the required email to Communications committee.  :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your tax dollars at work... MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not my tax dollars, they go to vandalizing other articles. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to nominate which articles our tax dollars go towards vandalising? I nominate Tax. _GB^T/C 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And just think, when these people aren't doing the equivalent of throwing rocks through an article's windows they're enforcing the laws. Isn't irony beautiful? HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The down side is none of the incumbent politicos are likely to stay in office beyond the end of the year, so we can't turn it into a campaign issue. Do any of you think the Signpost might be interested anyway? John Carter (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't our job to play "gotcha!" with prominent vandals. It doesn't stop them and doesn't seriously discourage vandalism levels. And the press almost always plays this in a way that makes Wikipedia look bad. Look for example at how the block of Capitol Hill got framed as demonstrating how Wikipedia was easily manipulated not minding that it was a demonstration of how well we respond to concerted POV-pushing campaigns. Anyways, a single IP vandalizing isn't newsworthy even for signpost. For all we know, this could just be some kid who went to work with a parent today. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of Take Our Daughters And Sons To Work Day, the Department of Justice was having Take Our IP Vandals to Work Day. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I tend to think the press has been kinder to us more recently... And who's to say someone wouldn't resign over this? It would be fun. :-) Grandmasterka 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I worked in politics for years, and the one major lesson I carried away from it was "don't ever - EVER - enter a fight that involves the media unless the outcome is a foregone conclusion." There are too many unknowns. Walk away. - Philippe | Talk 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Legend12345

Resolved

This user has vandalized Cloverfield twice in a row. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Laser (talk • contribs) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV is thataway -> HalfShadow (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User has not been warned, I left a Level 2 Vandal warning on their page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. Blue Laser (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Graxx

Resolved

 – Pages deleted by me, account blocked by Theresa Knott. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This user very recently created an account and userpage at UESPWiki, which led us to his page here. This user has impersonated and made personal attacks against a UESPWiki administrator on both Wikipedia and UESPWiki, and we would appreciate it if the offensive content could be removed from his Wikipedia userpage. Thanks! --UESPEshe (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive comment removed, page watchlisted. I doubt this editor will be with us for very long. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted both pages as pure attack pages as they contain some pretty strong taunts ("Penis licker", "Fuck off you cunt", etc.). Advise other administrators to watch both pages. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 21:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks for your help! --UESPEshe (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Account blocked indef. We're done here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on MassResistance

I've issued 3RR warnings to both Wmdoti (talk · contribs) and BD.Harvest (talk · contribs), two new users, whose edits are almost solely associated with the MassResistance article. I've explained that they need to discuss their edits instead of just repeatedly reverting each other. Corvus cornix_talk 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is just the tip of an iceberg. MassWatch (talk · contribs) and Bcamenker (talk · contribs) are editing both this article and the Brian Camenker article, displaying an apparent conflict of interest. The Camenker article, in particular, is a mess. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reported now on the 3RR board for 10 reversions. I'm not sure Camenker is at all notable. Might make more sense to simply have him redirect to MassResistance. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Cobb

Could someone look into this Richard Cobb (talk · contribs · logs)? The account was just made tonight and somehow already knows about this. This one would be a single purpose user? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also has a likely sock: User:Larry Hanes of Raleigh Nakon 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can these two be blocked? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The sock was blocked and if the other account vandalizes, I'll take care of it. Nakon 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a first for me, what to do if an editor gives themselves a warning, like seen here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Procedure for making a block for abuse of the e-mail function?

Well, what is the correct procedure for blocking a user for abuse of the email-this-user function? Since e-mail isn't supposed to be posted here, what should I do, ArbCom? -MBK₀₀₄ 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have not performed this block yet, and I am waiting to find out the correct procedure before doing so, but what has been sent to me via e-mail would have garnered an indef block for personal attacks if they were posted on a talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can ignore them if they are only a handful of emails. Also, email is by nature considered to be more flexible. In general, admins are given wide discretion about when to block email but unless the person is seriously abusing it (say spamming you or others with many messages) there isn't much reason to do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just make sure not to reply to any of the emails or they'll get your email address. Mr.Z-man 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the user is trying to game the system by sending the abusive messages via e-mail after myself and other editors have left messages and warnings on their talk page regarding their editing (original research, incivility, not assuming good faith). I'm pretty sure I'm not the only editor that this user is sending e-mail to, but I'm the only admin the user has dealt with so-far. I've replied on their talk page, not via e-mail. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... shouldn't we have a special email account for abuse? So that if someone is abusing it (to harass another editor, for example) the target could change his wiki e-mail address to it, with the mails reaching the admin or the oversight lists for user blocking? Just a thought. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have used it remove e-mail right from blocked users that were abusing the tool. I really don't know how one could confidently use it when two outside parties are the sender and receiver, I don't think there is a to confirm currently. That gives me an idea. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My idea... Still a young idea. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For completeness, another user posted a thread here about the specific user I was referring to. It is at #User:Pigeon33. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Resolved

Looks like User:Jayron32 took care of it. - Philippe | Talk 05:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking for an unblock. As I blocked him, I cannot decline it (and so leave it to another admin), but I will note that a CU scored a direct hit on him. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 04:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Master Chief

Could someone help watchlist this page? There seems to be some meatpuppetry going on here. Either that or a known vandal is reverting blindly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eyes are on it at the moment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Twinkle Abuse by User:Diligent Terrier

Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) appears to be misusing the script. Ive left several messages on his talk page, which he somewhat avoided, and eventually archived, i was not satisfied with his response, so ive brought the issue here. My issues are as follows;

• According to WP:TWINKLE, the script is to be used to assist them [wikipedia users] in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism, I fail to see how this, this, or this falls into maintenance or vandalism. He was reverting a long-standing administrator, without prior discussion. The edit is not any form of maintenance. For further clarification of the revert by Orderinchaos, see here and here.

• He also reverted an IP (User:76.98.204.203) for his edit to the Goldfish article (diff), in his edit summary, he claimed the edit was Blaitant vandalism. It was not vandalism, the edit certainly didnt add anything to the article, but it was a good faith edit, trying to add content to the article. After his revert, he placed not one, but two user-warning templates on their talk page (see here), the IP has only ever made [one edit to wikipedia.

• Hes moved on to reverting a user who removed a warning by another user and added content to his user talk page (see here). According to WP:TALK, this user is free to delete comments from his talk page. After reverting this user, he slapped a user warning template for his edit (see here). It may be worth noting that after his warning on his talk page, the good-faith IP never returned.

Diligent Terrier is hardly a new editor, having been on wikipedia since October 2006, but seriously editing Since July 2007. see here for earliest contributions. Thanks. Twenty Years 05:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only looked at the first bullet point, but they were valid reverts (although should have been done with a proper edit summary). WP: redirects are not considered cross-namespace, and even then CSD:R2 only proscribes redirects to Talk:, User talk:, and User: namespaces. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Twenty Years has had it in for me ever since our disagreements regarding a WikiProject. After that, he has been closely monitoring my edits (which he has admitted), and looking for something wrong with them. I use Twinkle to revert vandalism very often, and if people decide to disable my use of it, I will not participate in serious vandalism reversion ever again. Twenty Years has also lied, saying that I didn't respond to his comments and archived him. Instead, I did respond to those comments, and they are not archived (you can see them on my talk). Furthermore, I have notified Twenty Years about his own habit of being uncivil and not assuming good faith. For someone who lies in order to say that people don't respond to his comments, you would think Twenty Years would respond to my comments. Instead, Twenty Years has ignored my comments, and said that he will not respond. Twenty Years originally posted this here, and he never even let me know after reporting me to both of these venues (WP:ANI and the page I just linked to). As you can see at that page, several people have noticed that if this is Twinkle abuse, then half of the Wikipedia comminity that uses Twinkle will also have to be blocked. Also, CSD R2 does say that the redirect must go from the article space, so it was wrong of Orderinchaos to speedy delete them without any valid speedy deletion criteria. After I notified Orderinchaos of what he was doing, he was somewhat speechless, as he was probably hoping I wouldn't notice. In the past Orderinchaos has called the cabals childish, which leads me to believe there is a possible conflict of interest which makes him want to delete the shortcuts. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think this misuse is worthy of removal yet, doing this after the person complains on your talk page about your use of Twinkle is, at the least, a pretty stupid idea. Mr.Z-man 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We had a discussion on my talk page, in which I cited some valid examples of uncivilness and not assuming good faith. I can find more if people still don't think those are good enough examples. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the problem was that a fairly established user accuses you of misusing Twinkle, so you go to his talk page and drop a "Welcome to Wikipedia ..." template warning using Twinkle! Giving a patronizing template warning like that to an established user is almost always considered rude, but doing it with Twinkle after they complained about your use of Twinkle?? If you really don't understand the problem with reverting non-vandalism with no explanation (and Orderinchaos did reply to your comment, so I don't see how he could be considered speechless) and why the template warning I mentioned was a tremendously bad idea, I might reconsider my initial comment. Mr.Z-man 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Twenty Years has recently quit WikiProject homeschooling (a project which Diligent Terrier founded) because of a rift between the two of them. From my perspective, TY has, had it in, if you will, for DT and quite frankly the rest of the members in the WikiProject. But that's just from my point of view. Also, that WP:DTTR you linked to is an essay, not a guideline. Kimu 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its called common sense and common courtesy. Someone who's been on Wikipedia for more than a year certainly doesn't need a "Welcome to Wikipedia..." message with a link to a welcome page. Was that (especially as it was done with Twinkle) supposed to help the situation? If I had to guess, I would say it probably had the opposite effect. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it also common courtesy to be civil on another user's talk page and to not speak ill of a WikiProject? Also, I believe that DT didn't do anything wrong, and that TY is just trying to get him trouble. Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sharing it and if people don't like it, then they can Put a helmet on. Kimu 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that Twenty Years has had it in for me all along even before I sent him the message about assuming good faith. I was actually at first thinking about dropping him a custom message asking him to assume good faith, but I figured the template message would say the same almost the same thing, so that is why I did that. By the time I noticed the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit, and went to remove it, Twenty Years was already at my talk page asking for citations. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the situation here is that Twenty Years was involved with an unrelated project, WikiProject Alternative education (not Homeschooling as Kimu asserts in 16:31 above). Diligent Terrier, after months of having it in his own userspace, started WikiProject Homeschooling about a month ago and immediately went to try and close down AE. Twenty Years and others objected to the way in which this was done, and DT persisted almost to the point where he had to be ordered off the chase after extreme levels of canvassing for "votes" on his going-nowhere proposals to have the thing shut down (the movement of which had ironically triggered activity on the normally quiet AE project). Naturally, when something like this occurs, one comes under significantly more scrutiny, and breaches of policy and issues with behaviour, not to mention a lot of WP:OWN stuff going on within the wikiproject itself (to the point of welcome messages telling new users who the "founder" was!) were found all over the place with relation to this project. I was asked for a third opinion relating to the AE stuff and have been following it, and have ended up in a range of bizarre arguments with the two lead characters in the Homeschooling project. As I keep telling them, things will be much better for them when they start developing the encyclopaedia and cease with the user talk/"cabals" stuff and making bad faith accusations against people. Additionally, I believe DT has misused Twinkle especially regarding warning of most-likely-good-faith newbies and IPs - Twinkle like the rollback function is in my view a "no big deal" thing and I would support its removal if his behaviour in that area continues. DT should be advised that all users are open to scrutiny - this is a wiki - and his complaints that TY is looking for him "doing something wrong" ring hollow given how much TY and others have found with relatively little investigative work. Orderinchaos 05:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, first of all, I was never trying to shut down the Alternative education project. All I was doing was proposing a possible merger. Second, what I did was not "canvassing". Instead, I simply left a message on the talk pages of the active members of the project, which told them that there was an ongoing discussion regarding the future of the project, and pointed them to the project talk page. Twenty Years did the same thing with some other members, and I can show you the diffs if you don't believe me. I also know that I never misused Twinkle, and I have an explanation for each of the diffs above. One, for example, was a mistake when I was dealing with two vandals simultaneously. In another instance, the user was editing others' comments, and not just making test edits. However, you have never address my comments about why you speedy deleted those shortcuts without any speedy deletion criteria. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue has been more than sorted out by the involved parties, and does not need administrator assistance. Thanks for your time. Twenty Years 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear this is over. This has already taken up enough of my time. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Allen Lee Remis

Allen Lee Remis (talk · contribs) looks like another sockpuppet of the users Soiled himself (talk · contribs), Bonny Eberndu (talk · contribs), etc. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland University Lecturers Watchdog (talk · contribs) is another, impersonating an administrator. Trip to Sunderland (talk · contribs) may be another. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another: Pope Barry George (talk · contribs), impersonating admin again. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just had to rollback an edit from Mr. Remis, might we just WP:RBI here and move on? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Userpage jokes about pedo alone are worth blocking. Trolling just makes it that much more obvious of a solution. --Onorem♠Dil 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, feel free to ignore. I'll delete the userpage. Acroterion _(talk) 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The other accounts mentioned above bear watching by those with a bit more time than I can spare at present, so I'm not yet calling this resolved. Acroterion _(talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• This matter has reactivated at Another sockpuppet disrupting AFD again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback rights getting silly

Resolved

 – marked by JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did bad, I got an informal wikiban, I done gone after. I personally think that rollback rights should be for all editors or confined to administrators. Rollback rights are prob here for good, but the system is a mess.

I have been trying TOOOOO hard for 3 months since the roll out. In my last attempt the editor before me passed with 71 edits and I am still living down a little confrontation from 11 jan. What will happen when flagged revisions start? Will any sysop grant me rollback just so that I can say I have grown up? This is really getting silly. BpEps - t@lk 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had rollback now would you still think it was silly? _(1 == 2)^Until 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally counldn't care for rollback rights but I believe it is akin to caste like flagged will be. BpEps - t@lk 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a class of user, it is a judgment on if one can use the tool responsibly. It conveys no special authority, only ability. That is the key difference. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If I believed that Rollback rights were being used as a caste system, I'd be the first to get involved. I've seen no evidence of that. Lacking evidence to the contrary, this is a straw man argument. - Philippe | Talk 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"I personally counldn't care for rollback rights but I believe it is akin to caste like flagged will be." is equivalent in meaning to "I don't want the tool because I will make use of it; I want it because I want to feel like I'm better than other people". Rollback is neither a badge of honour nor a most-improved award. Hesperian 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Its only a class of users if you choose to view it as such and put too much personal emphasis on it ("I have been trying TOOOOO hard for 3 months"). From what I've seen, most people requesting it use a reason like "To revert occasional vandalism on pages I watch" or "to assist in RC patrol," nothing to suggest that they were actively trying to get it. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Oy it's not a hissy fit - We have defined users of the mop on Wikipedia unfortunately Rollback is granted to people with 71 edits. Thats a real mop? Please just consider the proplems we will have with flagged revisions, I think this is going to be an ad hoc - he's good without consensus. BpEps - t@lk 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that, since flaggeds revs will be harder to monitor, there will be a bit tighter restrictions on it than there are for rollback, which is easy to spot when its being misused, and easy to revert. Anyway, i'm fairly sure that there have been very few cases of roll-back being taken away, it hasn't popped up on here many times, so the system would appear to be working--Jac16888 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the major problem is that you try for it just to have it. You've made many requests in the past few months. Just get twinkle. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)You do realize the nonsense in that comment right? "A real mop?" A mop is what one uses to clean up vomit on a hard surface. We give the rollback mop (the least effective of all the mops) to people that show they know how to clean up vomit and know not to try to mop the carpet. Mr.Z-man 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, which user with 71 edits got rollback rights? no offense but I am quite skeptic, that ammount of edits is covered by me in less than three days, one day if things are hectic. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is how rollback is given out. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Alcamari passed just check the contribs and count Swirlboy39 nows thats 71 edits ;-)

User account "Alcamari" is not registered. Nakon 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean User:Acalamari? If Swirlboy39 abuses the tool it will be taken away. While I would have refused that one, if the person does not abuse it they are welcome to it. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

C#::I agree we all do bad sometimes, rollback is probably here for good and it caused a great deal of debate. I wantto know why I can't have it and other people can apart from obtuse answers like you want it too much or its not a prize. If its useful surely every editor should have it. I haven't abused Wikipedia wot is the problem? BpEps - t@lk 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to give it to you now, so you'll stop wasting people's time with multiple requests and now this ANI thread (not sure what the incident is), but I'm hesitant since you seem to think it will make you better than other editors which is most certainly not the case. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason he's been denied rollback so many times. John Reaves 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ZMan that has never been my point - I want it because its given out like candy, but because of my objections nobody will give it to me. When I object to Flagged Revision will i be a candidate there, some guy will fell me before the first hurdle. WIKI? I don't think its the path we are going down. Sadly. BpEps - t@lk 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? We're not not giving it to you because you are objecting to the process or something, we are withholding it because you still fail to grasp the reason its being denied to you. Flagged revisions will be a totally different system, but there will still be no class system and if you still fail to grasp that the rights to flag revisions are not some sort of status symbol or something that will make you better than others, then yes you can expect to be denied for that as well. Mr.Z-man 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves - oy that aint nice WP:AGF, that bypassed you? BpEps - t@lk 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just today, I denied his request at WP:RFR. Now he is just forum shopping. Tiptoety ^talk 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

lol its not forum shopping Tipptoety - its like my 6th refusal since January, people get blocked and come good - I do good and still get refused. You gave me and took away like the first time its not fair. BpEps - t@lk 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You ever wonder why it is your 6th refusal? It has been denied, execpt it and stop trying to work around the system. Tiptoety ^talk 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just install Twinkle and use it wisely. You can have that, it will have all the ability except without the "status". "I want it because its given out like candy" really says it all, that is not really a good reason to want it. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this he's had Twinkle since New Year's. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've considered asking for the rollback rights that I got without asking for them to be removed because they get in the way of twinkle. I seriously don't understand any of the obsession with this whole rollback thing. Do what you can with the tools that you have, and don't worry about whatever status you think a tool gains for you. Your worth comes from what you do, not what tools you have access to. --Onorem♠Dil 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats not the point - My continual refusal is surely the point. Yes I have tools. But surely tools shouldn't be given away on the basis of "you did this on 11th January". I have never vandalised. I have never disrupted. What on earth is the point in denying me something that somebody with 71 edits can have? I can't understand the reasoning? BpEps - t@lk 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not consider multipile RfR requests in a few days period and this thread disruption? Tiptoety ^talk 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason you were denied was because you gave no indication that you improved from your mistakes. The hypothetical person with 71 edits who was accorded rollback (evidence of this person is still missing) may not suffer from such a problem. —Kurykh 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter? You have twinkle, you use twinkle, twinkle is 100x better than average rollback, so I don't see your need, just want. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I say just use Twinkle and stop worrying about getting something pretty much an equivalent.   jj137 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bpeps, you are under two false assumptions. First, and foremost, the rollback tool does not confer any special status. It only gives you a tool. Second thing, you are not entitled to rollback. All the tools here are privileges, not entitlements, and it has been determined that at this juncture the privilege of the rollback tool cannot be accorded. If you're asking for my honest advice, this thread sounds like sour grapes. And this is something that's coming from someone who's about your age, give or take a year. Your efforts are better spent improving the encyclopedia (that's the point of this whole thing) rather than pining about a privilege many feel you do not deserve. —Kurykh 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I wan't something that keeps on getting taken off me before I can ever use it. I am an Bur on a wikia site, never used rollback there (well only to test) but I did one thing wrong and I seem to be castigated for it. everytime i apply they say come back in two weeks and i still get refused its really driving me mad. BpEps - t@lk 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The implicit meaning behind the "come back in two weeks" advice is that you would show that you have learned from the mistake and, in the course of vandal patrol, did not perform that mistake, not for you to wait out two weeks and expect it to be handed out to you. —Kurykh 02:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All in favor of closing, say aye. *Aye!* Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye.   jj137 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

*Raises hand* Aye! Tiptoety ^talk 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Aye* I'll write an essay on no consensus priviledges BpEps - t@lk 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is not a privilege, it's a tool. Corvus cornix_talk 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a privilege, however, to use the tool. —Kurykh 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)