Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregAsche (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 29 January 2006 (→Block of [[User:Kmac1036]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by GregAsche in topic Block of User:Kmac1036
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Revealing personal information

    Latest comment: 19 years ago18 comments11 people in discussion

    About a month ago, Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) revealed personal information (name, workplace and position held at that workplace) about another user, a registered wikipedian, as discussed above. This obviously needs to be deleted from the archives of wikipedia, and I have given her the chance to report it here. She hasn't done that in the few hours since I posted the {{Pinfo4}} template on her talk page, which couldn't be expected from her in such short notice. However, I don't want to wait any longer. She also claims to have told the other wikipedian's employer that he is using the company's computer and internet connection to edit wikipedia. What needs to be done about her? A block might be in order, although I'm not sure it still is an option a month after the offence. But if she needs to be blocked, for how long? 24 hours? 1 week? 1 month? Indefinitely? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    What's the point in blocking a month after the fact? Blocks are remedial, not punitive. However, WP:BP#Personal attacks which place users in danger is clear enough that a block may be imposed immediately such an attack is discovered; I rather suppose the policy has in mind that the block still be pertinent to the fact. -Splashtalk 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I don't understand; What remediation is ever provided by imposing a block after personal information has been posted? Surley blocks in these circumstances are, if not "punitive," at least meant to discourage the behavior. Tom Harrison Talk 23:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    A block will prevent the editor from adding the information again. The editor having not apparently done so, a block wouldn't be stopping anything. There is a case, sometimes, for 'electric fence' blocks, but there's really no case for much at all a month after the fact. -Splashtalk 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) has edited wikipedia since I posted the warning on her talk page, so she must have seen the "You've got a new message" box. I presume she has and I presume she has viewed her talk page and seen the template. She has not requested the deletion of the edit from the archives, as instructed by the template ("If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia."), so I will do it on her behalf. The edit concerned is this one, the comment can currently be found here. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I believe I have now become a bit too involved, so I won't do it myself, but I think that what Tina has said on that talk page ("... his superiors are being informed about his Vandalism! I highly doubt that he is going to consider this very funny after his system is inspected!") is consistent with {{threatban}}: "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or work-related, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
    I emailed the victim of the attack, after I posted here, and he advised that T. Barber did indeed contact his superiors and also posted his name/work info on her own personal forums requesting those participants also contact his employer.
    At the time she did this, a number of Wiki editors posted on the talk page asking T. Barber why she did this and telling her it was against Wiki policy and that an apology was in order, but she didn't offer one or remove her post.
    Us being new users to Wikipedia, we didn't know what/if further action could be taken. It took a little time before I found this site to ask about this.
    This caused considerable grief for the editor she "outed", but since the administrators didn't take any further action, he thought acts like that must be allowed by Wiki, so he hasn't posted since.
    Will there be any further action taken? Once the person gets the Pino4 template, is there follow-up or does it just become inert if she doesn't respond to that template?
    Because someone also tracked my IP address (again, being new, I sometimes was forgetting to "sign in" to Wiki)and posted my name on the page also, after that one. I don't know if that were her also or not. They used the name "Aslan" (shows IP address 70.35.67.56 03:33 before name), but I've since learned about "sock puppets", so maybe it was her and she figured nobody stopped her before so why not do it again. When it happened to me, that moderator didn't say anything about it, so again, I figured it was alright with Wiki too. I don't know if they have been able to track my employer yet.
    I hope somebody can help us with these incidents because if this continues, editors are going to be pretty worried that their personal info is vulnerable if they post here.

    MilesD. 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have wondered if maybe a technical solution might help. It seems that right now when these incidents happen there is a tension between on the one hand keeping the edit history as intact as possible for a number of reasons, not least of which is to preserve evidence that the offending editor did this thing, and on the other hand to preserve the privacy and thus the safety of the victim.
    I wonder, what would be the practicality of the following procedure: when there is a reported attempt to "out" personal information, the page in question is temporarily pulled; the portions which represent the sensitive information are processed with one of the common hashing/checksum algorithms, and replaced with a template expression giving the length and checksum of the redacted personal information? This would preserve as much evidence as possible but still preserve the editor's privacy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have now requested a sock check to see if Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) is 70.35.67.56 (talk · contribs). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Well, it's happening again. Another post today, with just an IP address, showing a link to Tina Barber's personal website listing the personal names and information of people who may not even be on Wiki or are on Wiki but not using their "real" names. The post is as follows:
    "In response to the "others" statement that over 50% of the existing ISSR breeders left in '97-98, at Tina's request, I have reviewed the database and put it into a live web page that can be shared with the entire Shiloh fancy. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm.
    "I am also preparing other documented data pages that will clearly dispell the objections that have been raised by the "other" "editors".
    207.200.116.133 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)"
    Also, if possible, could you please check these potential sock puppet IP addresses 70.35.67.56 (as already noted by Aecis) and 207.200.116.133 (yesterday's poster) and name "Aslan" (the "name" of the poster who revealed my personal info) to both Tina Barber and also poster "TrillHill", as I do think there is a chance one or the other, or both are using these IPs and/or names to reveal personal information, as TrillHill will sometimes place posts saying Tina Barber has asked her to post (I don't know if maybe Tina Barber was blocked during those times). I'm sorry for this obvious hassle in trying to stop this, but I don't know where else to turn and it's getting really bad. Thank you very much for helping. MilesD. 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I have added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser, so that those with m:CheckUser privileges can check on these users. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, again, this poster, T. Barber (who also signs as MaShiloh and who knows how many sockpuppets), has placed 3 new posts today on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog page, revealing two personal names.
    Here is the link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog#Reply_to_New_Draft
    The two posts are as follows:
    "I have put a lot of time into preparing a reply page that would clarify a LOT of the BS that has been presented via the "objections" proposed by <name snip> I certainly hope that the editors here will take the time to visit this link & read the FACTS!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)"
    More BS ... <name snip>, you were there when Gary announced his *new* registry ... do I have to get others to sign statements to that effect?? That's when I brought the SSDCA, Inc. back into the picture ... not after the Grand Island standoff when I left *his* club .. but after I found out that he was starting a registry!! Granted, he didn't publish it till Feb .. but I have proof that the plan was in the works as of Nov. 97!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    "Oh <name snip>, give it up!! If everyone that walks on this earth, joins a club, visits a show, or even joins a school is called a *breeder* then everyone's stat's are way off!! I have 1087 members on our forum .. should I call all of *them* "breeders"??? I think that if you check the Wiki .. some place it's got to clearly show that only a person that BRED a litter --is a *breeder* What about the folks that go to a car lot to test drive a new car?? How many of them buy it?? Can you call all of them "buyers"?? Some are just "potential" buyers!!! Same with our LB's .. some may never breed a litter ... but they signed up to get licensed & will stay there till they leave ... period!!!! MaShiloh 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but this is ridiculous and something more immediate needs to be done. These numerous personal names are all sitting out there on these Wiki pages, this poster has ignored the warning to remove them, has contacted at least one person's employer, has encouraged others to contact an employer, our administrator(s) haven't stopped it, and frankly, we want our personal info off these pages and for this person to be stopped from using them freely and obviously, without any concern that they will be stopped. Please, I am asking for someone to please take some definitive action ....enough is enough, already.

    Thank you. MilesD. 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


    :Wikipedia Admin,Please Read Today, January 25th on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog discussion page, Under "Original Research vs. third party":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog
    In a post that ShenandoahShilohs wrote, a "Tina M. Barber" not only broke up the article but referred to the poster twice by their personal name.


    Revision as of 22:23, January 25, 2006 Tina M. Barber (Talk | contribs) New history draft

    "Oh <name snip>, give it up!! I....."

    "More BS ... <name snip>, you were there....."

    This has become a common practice for Tina M. Barber in multiple replies and no one is taking action. It seems that there have been warnings issued on December 28, 2005 and December 30, 2005, followed by a serious warning of an unknown date. It would appear that the protection of other editors continues to be threatened as she continues to disregard Wikipedia admin. warnings and continues to use personal names in her posts and threaten editors work arena by contacting editors places of work.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tina_M._Barber
    Tina M. Barber is getting more and more hostile and the continued use of personal names is extremely disturbing. She has crossed serious Wikipedia rules by doing this and contacting editors work arenas in attempts to get editors fired from their jobs. Are the policies truly considered serious if people can continue to break them on Wikipedia over and over and over again? If these are truly serious breeches of the Wikipedia rules and policies, can someone tell me and the other editors, why she has not been banned?
    Concerned Editor,

    --iamgateway 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Also see topic: Am I missing something? ShenandoahShilohs 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


    :I implore you to take action - a 3rd person's name revealed

    Please, please, can any of you help immediately? I'm one of the editors in the ISSDC registries working on the Shiloh Shepherd article. Editor Tina Barber just posted another message on the discussion page, revealing a third person's actual name.

    Please – why hasn’t anything been done about her giving personal info prior to today’s incident, other than posting to her user page? Why hasn’t anything been done about her tracing an editor’s IP address to his work, contacting his work to get him in trouble, and posting his personal information on her chat lists, telling her supporters to contact his work? Again, she got a warning on her page, asking her to delete the info. It’s my understanding that she hasn’t done it.

    :If Wiki policies aren’t enforced, or if they aren't going to be enforced with editor Barber, please just tell us that, so we can make an informed decision about future participation.

    Just posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=36826258 "And regarding the numbers and LMX on the new link above, if you search the Orthopedic Foundation For Animals database for German Shepherds born between 1970 and 1990 you get 23,613 records. There are less than *12* that have Shiloh in their name and out of those twelve, I think half might be from TB. *12* out of the twenty-some thousand that is claimed to have gone into the LMX program is pretty un-verifiable. WindsongKennels 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"Reply

    "[person's 1st name], you know that the OFA didn't record preliminary (under 2 yr) x-rays back then! If I had you subpoenaed into court, and you were asked (under perjury of law) if you saw the STACKS of x-rays on my dogs ... what would you have to say?? MaShiloh 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"Reply

    Editor Barber has a long history of contacting people’s employers, threatening physical harm and even worse, improbable as it may seem, threatening lawsuits, losing control and having to be physically restrained, etc., when people cross her. The risk is real.

    Right now, this feels nuts – to read about Wiki’s strict policies and then see no enforcement when people are put at risk.

    Sincerely, S Scott 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Note on the last "reveal" (X-ray post) -- in the user's first post to Wikipedia, she used her full name and affiliation.--SarekOfVulcan 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Update Thanks for the update on Windsong using her real name earlier. That's one less person's info revealed. It's also been clarified that editor Barber appears to be the only person using people's real names when those people haven't posted their real names on the discussion page. S Scott 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:Hisroyalhighness_721 and User:213.130.122.51

    Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

    These two users seem to be the same user. If you look at their contributions (12), they are all juvenille attempts to hurt what seems to be a school classmate. The user has vandalized many articles over many months. The user has been warned. I consider Hisroyalhighness_721 and 213.130.122.51 to be the same user due to having the same target and using the same article (Qatar).

    I suggest a temporary block. It seems like a middle schooler who needs to learn that people pay attention and Wikipedia isn't the forum for insulting a peer. --Matt 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Agreed, but they haven't posted since your last warning. I'll keep an eye out and block at the next inappropriate edit. Though my gut feeling is that they're most likely cheerfully abusing away from a different sock account by now... Somebody remind me again why we ever bother to block anybody? Bishonen | talk 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC).Reply
    Update: User:Hisroyalhighness 721 hasn't stirred since the warning, in fact from beginning to end he has only done two edits. User:213.130.122.51 has done a silly edit to Wassily Kandinsky but reverted her/himself eight minutes later. That's all, so there's not a blocking situation so far. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC).Reply
    More vandalism, this time to Brad Pitt's article. Weird pattern though. --Matt 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah... no, I don't think I'll block this user, as yet. It's so small-scale ATM. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC).Reply

    User:Gmaxwell

    Latest comment: 19 years ago101 comments40 people in discussion

    (Copied from WP:AN/3RR, because there were edits that amounted to vandalism, as well as excessive reverting)

    He has reverted Template:User freedom seven times despite repeated calls to stop from multiple editors. The version he is reverting to is far different from what the creators and users intended it for. I consider these edits to be an act of vandalism.--God of War 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    • 05:38, January 22, 2006 Sean Black blocked "User:Gmaxwell" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Lots of reverts at Template:User freedom-needs to cool off) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Note that I have protected the template. The then-standing version was Gmaxwell's, on which I protected without endorsement. However, since Gmaxwell is blocked, some other admin may wish to revert to before the whole 22nd Jan silliness. -Splashtalk 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • I've reverted to the version from before the vandalism, and added noinclude tags to fix it on userpages. Mark1 12:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • Looking over this page, it appears that a 3 hours block is slightly on the short side for edit warring? Noting of course, that we usually unblock if the person agrees to quit the behavior anyway. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
          • Yes it is on the short side but you have to remember that blocks are not meant to be punitive. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
            • I think you'll find that I am in fact the person who added that into the blocking policy. I do not see anything on either User talk:Gmaxwell or User talk:Sean Black that indicates that any discussion took place where Greg indicated that he would lay off. If we keep giving shorter blocks to cabal members (Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, and now Gmaxwell) we should at least be honest and edit blocking policy to say "24 hours if for the little people". These are guys we should hold to a higher standard than normal. Giving them a slap on the wrist when they violate one of the siplest and most straight-forward policy we've got is very poor form. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
              • I'm also surprised by the length of the block, because he was engaged in vandalism, not just edit warring. I'd block him myself but I was involved in a dispute with him over an image recently. Three examples of the edits I see as vandalism: he changed a box supporting the American military to one supporting the Iraqi insurgents. [9] He inserted an image of a woman "hogtied" and gagged into a box opposing fox hunting, and changed the fox hunting link to BDSM. [10] On Template:Wikiproject Terrorism, he replaced the image of a terrorist with one of a nuclear explosion. [11] SlimVirgin (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    (start comments not pasted from 3rr)

    This is not a 3RR or vandalism, although its fair to say it is disruptive. It is however incredibly notable that Wikipedia policy in no way implies freedom of speech, and that Jimbo has left us all a polite message exhorting us to keep our political views off the project, as keeping them on the project may cause it harm. Any of you who think good faith is an adequate reason not to block someone should take note.--Tznkai 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    If I can chime in here- Greg was upset. He needed to calm down, and I thought he would be able to do so after 3 hours. I was evidently wrong (see the header below), but I did what I thought was best.--Sean|Black 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    You did just fine. 3 hours stops the current problem and is probably long enough to give time to discuss the need to extend it. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Alert to all admins. Gmaxwell is going around to every user page that displays any kind of thumbnail or flag from Wikipedia Commons and declaring them "copyright violation". He is then blanking the user page and putting up a copyright violation notice. Is there any justification for this? It seems to me there should be nothing wrong with displaying a picture on a user page so long as the picture itself is not a copyright violation. -Husnock 18:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I reverted Gmaxwell's blanking of User:Karol Langner, which did not even have any fair use images on it. I don't understand the rationale here.--Alhutch 19:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I recall that there's an official policy somewheres (I think at WP:FU) that says fair-use images are not to be used in the user: namespace. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    This is the policy from WP:FU: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)."--Alhutch 19:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    (After edit conflict)
    Yes, I inadvertently fell foul of that a while ago. On that occasion, though, the person who alerted me merely removed the image and left me a polite note in explanation. Gmaxwell has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively with regard to image violations (real or occasionally imagined). Here, he's misapplying a rule about fair-use images to the use of public-___domain images, and doing so in a heavy-handed manner. Judging by the comments on his Talk page, he's heading for an RfC. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The heavy-handedness is totally unncecessary. I agree with Mel Etitis, all you have to do is be polite and notify people if they have done something wrong, not go around unilaterally blanking people's user pages.--Alhutch 19:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I've spoken to him several times about his aggression, since a dispute I had with him recently about an image (in which he called me "hysterical" and accused me of vandalism because I dared to revert his removal of it). What with this today and his behavior last night (see above), I'm unsure of the best way is to proceed, but something needs to happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    His behaviour is outrageous. Firstly, where fairuse images are wrongly on user pages it is invariably due to a misunderstanding, not an attempt to break the law. All he had to do was leave a message, not post a massive notice all but accusing the user of being a lawbreaker. Secondly, he is not removing the offending image, but all images, even those that can be displayed. Thirdly, blanking a user's page is grossly disrespectful to other users. Frankly, he is out of control at this stage. This bullying behavour of his has to stop. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I am confused, the original poster (Husnock) says Gmaxwell is declaring user pages using Wikipedia Commons images copyvios, surely Husnock meant fair use images rather than Commons? The commons doesnt accept fair use images and Wikipedia Commons images can be used freely. Martin 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I move that all his edits be reverted and considered petty vandalism, and that the said user be blocked for a period of one week. We don't have time to entertain him or his dubious edits. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    OK, his contribs list is beyond the pale. It's vandalism, pretty clearly. You just need to remove the image and leave a talk page message, and you don't need to blank others' userpages. It's behaviour I'd expect from an editor on a rampage, which, frankly, Gmaxwell is. Note in particular User:Carnildo/Unusual Files, which is merely a list of links to images, and contains no images at all. Evidently, Gmaxwell has blindly been applying his new policy without any thought. I've reverted all his edits (yes, with rollback), and yes, I know that exposes fair use images in userspace. Gmaxwell can jolly well go and remove them as appropriate by hand+talk page if he's that concerned about it. Further, he's been doing ridiculous things with userboxes very recently, and calling people assholes. He's now taking a 24 hour Wikibreak to reconsider his general behaviour. -Splashtalk 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I agree with this course of action, as Gmaxwell definitely needs to cool down.--Alhutch 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you, Splash, but I'd have given him 72 hours at least. :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Start out with short blocks to get the message across and to have the block be remedial (now he can't continue his various crusades for a little while) rather than punitive. Imo, anyway. -Splashtalk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The speed, systematic and indescriminate way this is being approached (Special:Contributions/Gmaxwell) really suggests to me that he is using at least a precompiled list, if not a bot, to do this. While it is in the interest of existing policy, the handling is clearly unnecessarily rough. Dragons flight 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It is probably something like User:Gmaxwell/user fairuse. Do note the blind manner in which he has been carrying this out, as per the example in my previous post. -Splashtalk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, I note the fact that they all have identical edit summarries and content, are all marked as minor (the pywikipedia default) and are occurring at 30-60 second intervals (the pywikipedia default throttle). Also Gmaxwell is responsible for the Roomba bot. I am prepared to assert with near certainty that these edits were made by a pywikipedia bot. Dragons flight 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    He blanked User:Karol Langner, which has an image which is not fair use, but rather public ___domain needing a tag update.--Alhutch 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Hey DF, long time no see! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Some of these edits seem a little odd. I see clear evidence of good faith efforts made by the blocking administrator and others to raise these edits with the user on his talk page, but no response.

    In particular I thought the blanking of User:Carnildo/Unusual Files looked odd because at first sight it contained no inlines. However on investigating I discovered that it contained "Image" links with no preceding colon--it's possible that Greg is interpreting these as inlines, although in practise the ogg files in question are presented as links. I interpret this as a good faith error, or at least an alternative interpretation of a borderline case, by Gmaxwell.

    On the blanking of the fair use pages, I think that's a very laudable objective, but the lack of interaction here is worrying. If one performs a lot of quite provocative edits--even if as here they're clearly reasonable and defensible, it's important to be responsive and available to discuss and defend them and to help repair damage caused by errors. Notices on talk pages explaining the issue and asking for the user in question to remove disputed fair use material would have been wise; I am looking but as yet see no evidence that this mass blanking was preceded by such efforts.

    I want to stress again that I regard the objective here as laudable, and I'm certain that "fair use" claims on inline uses of image file on user pages will one pretty soon become a thing of the past on Wikipedia; the legal exposure to the site is too great to ignore for long. This was not the way to advance towards that objective, however. The block was necessary to stop the user continuing his ongoing actions without discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Note: User:Majorityrule is going around doing the same thing now. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Blocked --pgk(talk) 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Would it not be much more sensible to post a templated message on user's talk pages notifying them that they have fair use images on their user pages which they should remove? Arniep 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    it certainly would.--Alhutch 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Wouldn't it be better to just address the fellow in English instead of templatese? This might promote a dialog in which the user could be educated about the liability issue with respect to use of images to which there is no free licence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    In the past when Greg has left notes he has been very confrontational, which causes the situation to flare up. In his case, using a template would be a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    On the evidence, it seems that Majorityrule was a sockpuppet of Gmaxwell. I have extended Maxwell's block to one week. Given his behaviour, if they are an admin perhaps a move should be made to have them desysoped. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Wow! Look what I started! As to my own userpage, are flags a violation of these strange rules and regulations? Displaying a country or city flag on a user page should not be a problem, but some of the flag images come up as fair use. As far as the original user blanking all these pages, it is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. Not the right way to do it. Back to the flags, if there is a problem with displaying them on user pages then we have an even bigger problem since hundreds of user pages probbaly display a flag or two. -Husnock 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The flag image issues is explained in detail at User_talk:Husnock#Flag_images_question. Brief version: the flags were tagged as a PD template, which I moved in late 2005 to one that makes flag images fair use/maybe PD. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    What evidence is there that this was a sock of Gmaxwell? How sure are you that an extension of the Gmaxwell block is justified? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    He isn't an admin and supeficially performing exactly the same set of edits does suggest a sock puppet (my initial reaction), though of course it's possible that it is someone up to mischief. --pgk(talk) 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, the original block is justified but the extension is not, I am going to reduce back to the original block time. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Both Маjоrіtуrulе (talk · contribs) (cyrillic letter substitutes) and Minorityrule (talk · contribs) were recently created and blocked before editting on the presumption of being additional sockpuppets. Dragons flight 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Checkuser says: These appear not to be Gmaxwell at all, but a troll stirring up shit. They also created FіrеFох (talk · contribs) and Vаndаlbоt (talk · contribs) (both Cyrillic substitutions) and previously used Wikipedia is not evil. (talk · contribs) - all impersonation or near enough. Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg, however. This appears to be Greg wanting to go out with a bang because he's sick of Wikipedia. Argh. - David Gerard 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Well that proves me right then in my choice to reduce the block back to original length. It's also a very bad idea to block for sockpuppetry without checking into whether they're actual sockpuppets or not. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not enitrely sure it does, reread "Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg", that's the one which caused the block extension. --pgk(talk) 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    That proves that Gmaxwell did engage in sockpuppetry which means it was right to extend the block.--Alhutch 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Greg obviously wants an indefinite block and I'm in favor of denying it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It should be noted, blocks on Greg have very high collateral damage. Specifically, they block Mindspillage. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Not a big worry. If Mindspillage needs the editing priveleges returned every time Gmaxwell decides to be a jerk, she can always unblock the autoblocked IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Something positive

    There's a lot of angry guys around, and talk of an RfC on Greg's talk page. I'm afraid to look at the RfC page, because I might see that it already exists, but surely that's the last thing that this situation calls for? There are a two possibilities: This user intends to return, or is trying to "go out with a bang".

    If it's the second, we should save ourselves the time and energy of a pointless and almost certainly damaging RfC where lots of people would probably say regrettable things. If it's the first and they've just gone nuts, surely something more along the lines of an intervention would be a better way to return him to the fold? Has anyone been able to just chat to him?

    brenneman(t)(c) 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I suggest that talk of an RfC has been overtaken by events. He obviously wanted out and required some assistance in making the break. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Recent discussion on his talk page suggests that he doesn't want to leave after all. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I strongly agree with brenneman's conclusions. Although I think Greg was very much out of line here, there's been enough of a pile-on regarding that. Greg should be given time to cool off, and any blocks (if they prove to be necessary) should be preventive, not punitive. Let's give him time to cool off. I don't think he's recovered from the Roomba image problem of last month, which appeared to upset him considerably. Johnleemk | Talk 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Recent statements on User:Gmaxwell's talk page

    All that being said, I'm still concerned about the edits he's making to his user page. If any other user said words to the effect of "you want to see damage to the encyclopedia, I can show you damage," we wouldnt be holding back. I ask again, is there anyone who's had a (real-time) chat with him? - brenneman(t)(c) 06:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Greg still has his tool server account, he's still a talented developer with a fairly good knowledge about how the site works, and he states quite honestly that if he truly had evil intent he could do a lot more damage than a few silly page blankings. I don't think there's serious cause for concern in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    We don't, under normal circumstances, care if a person can actually follow through on their threats to "DESTORY WIKIP{EDIA!1!!", we care about the mindset behind those threats. My concern is for the future of an editor who had apparently made large contributions, when he'll regain his composure, and how much damage he's doing to himself as a Wikipedian in the meantime. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see any evidence of malice here. He sounds bitter and disillusioned but really that is very well founded. As he sees it, some Wikipedia editors are jeopardising Wikipedia for reasons of selfishness and ignorance and his reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation have been rebutted by people whose support he expected. Some of us are very buoyant and thickskinned, and that kind of nonsense is like so much water off a duck's back, while some of us are easily hurt and may sometimes overreact. Greg is of the latter persuaion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree. He's not known for making "reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation," unfortunately, but for acts of aggression that have led other users to leave the project. I'm concerned that, in his most recent statements, he has announced his intention to continue being disruptive, and has said he'll evade any blocks that are applied. That's a direct threat to the project, not an attempt to protect it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I feel the block on Gmaxwell ought to be extended so that he has a chance to reflect on whether he's able to edit within our policies. His behavior is frequently disruptive; this is far from being the first example of it. After being blocked yesterday for three hours for what was arguably vandalism, then for 24 hours for mass blanking of user pages and unapproved use of a bot, he carried on blanking pages using a sock puppet, User:Majorityrule, which check user confirmed was him. He frequently makes mistakes (e.g. wanting to delete supposedly orphaned images that are in fact being used in articles) leading to lots of time-consuming arguments during which he is very rude, with users having to undo his work, and people even leaving the project because of him. He also deletes posts from his talk page so that it's hard to keep track of all the disputes he's causing (says he's archiving, but then doesn't). [12]

    Today he seemed to indicate he has no intention of following our policies:

    • "Like I give a crap about being blocked, it doesn't even inhibit me from editing." [13]
    • "Man. You think I've stopped because I'm blocked? Please! Blocking doesn't actually stop anyone but twits!" [14]
    • "You're still wrong about me being blocked accomplishing *anything*, since I can still edit whenever I please... in fact, being blocked gives me far less incentive to be nice about it, in so far as there can be far less than nearly none at all." [15]
    • "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people." [16]

    That's not even to mention the personal attacks. Users are frequently blocked for long periods for less than this. I think we need to show some consistency. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Exactly! After this latest episode everyone should know now that claiming "fair use" for copyrighted images on one's userpage is against Foundation policy and increases the legal exposure of the project. So block everyone who restored their pictures or won't take them down. Pilatus 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Those comments are very troubling. Anyone else making them would likely be facing a substantial block for that alone. There's only so much goodwill the community affords each of us, and GMaxwell was using up his prodigiously prior to making these comments. I'm concerned about someone making comments like that and still having access to the tool server. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Unfortunately if we block Gmaxwell, a side-effect is that Mindspillage is also prevented from contributing. What do people suggest? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    No, that's not correct. We can do a user-account block without blocking the IP address (block the account, then unblock the IP). SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    kinda. You could block the account but not the internet, but then he might just come back as a sockpuppet so yeah (although there's a possiblity that he might not do that also arguably you'd be better off knowing who is actually him) =| --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Wow. That's... awkward. android79 22:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The comments by Gmaxwell show disrespect to the project and its participants ("rude jerks"). Gmaxwell's actions appear to have been disruptive and rude. This is seriously inappropriate behavior, and deserves a strong response from the community. -Will Beback 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Ignoring the strong reek of double standards emanating from some contributors here, it's odd that anyone should hesitate at the notion that Gmaxwell be blocked for any other than practical reasons, given the pile of evidence against him. Those reasons are also fairly minor, though, surely; just about anyone could edit through sockpuppets, and some do — our response isn't to agonise over whether blocking is a good idea, but to block the sockpuppets as and when they appear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I agree with Mel. Moreover, many WP policies are intended to protect the project from disruption. Editors feel insecure and unsure how to respond to problems when these policies aren't followed evenly (never mind they aren't, and would go far in stabilizing things around here if they were). Wyss 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    If I could make a comment here -- It seems to me that Gmaxwell's head has gotten extremely big. It's extremely frustrating to see him make so many rude comments and vandalous edits without reproach. "Double standard" is exactly what comes to mind. Anyone else who would've acted as he has would've been dealt with much more vigorously. As an administrator-hopeful, I find it absolutely disgraceful that someone such as Gmaxwell has been permitted to continue on as he has. Wikipedians agree to edit by consensus, and with his recent actions, he seems to think he is above policy. ~MDD4696 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I hope that some recent contributors to this discussion will reconsider their harsh, intemperate and accusatory words in the wake of this incident. This user has currently been unblocked for over thirty hours and has engaged in no further problematic behavior. I find it incredible that editors are seriously suggesting that "more vigorous" action would have been taken against other editors engaging in the blanking of pages containing unlicensed images. It simply isn't true of me, and I find it hard to imagine that Jimbo Wales would regard this as problematic behavior--upsetting though it may be for the copyright infringer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    With all due respect, that isn't the point. The point is that some (or many) or the users who are using these images have no idea what they're doing wrong, or may have some rationale for the image's status as something other than fair use. The issues here are someone being overly aggressive and unnecessarily rude.--Sean|Black 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Oh up to a point, I agree with you. But let's not pussyfoot, here. All of the images in question are clearly marked as unlicensed, nobody has any business using them anywhere on Wikipedia without a very, very good reason. We should be taking this a lot more seriously, and believing that you have a good excuse to put an unlicensed picture on your userpage is not a good excuse to risk jeopardising the Foundation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    What's pussyfoot? Like the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? El_C 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, I understand. But you don't have to be a dick about it, is all.--Sean Black 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    You're actually right for a change Tony - oh and ignore Sean Black, we all know that this is personal for him due to his close friendship with SlimVirgin and previous protectiveness of SlimVirgin's blatant disrespect of the rules about using fair use images on user pages - If people won't remove fair use images themselves someone else does need to do it.
    However I don't agree with his blanking of user pages, he should have simply remove the fair use images from them and left a talk page message. While Kelly Martin is against him, there are some very large parallels in his behaviour of destructively deleting things just because they have fair use images in them than constructively just simply removing them or replacing them with a free use/GFDL/public ___domain image. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Possible response to User:Gmaxwell

    Greg is obviously hurt and angry, and blocking him further now will deepen any feelings he has that Wikipedia has "turned against him", despite it looking like that's what he wants. I'm more worried about getting him to continue doing positive things in the future than I am about stopping him doing negative things right now.

    But something needs to be "seen to be done", or alienate people who are not in the cabal. This is the third example of high-profile violations getting a short block in the last few weeks. Last time, I looked over the previous 5000 or so blocks and only found four 3RR blocks of less than 24 hours, for example. Do we expect that we'll have happy Morlocks slaving away forever with this inequity?

    A possible (non-punative) measure is having ArbCom issue an injunction stating that Greg is on 0 revert, 0 attack, 0 bot (?) parole, etc etc, with a statement that he's welcome to continue contributing in a positive manner but that damage to Wikipedia won't be allowed. Sadly, this should be paired with an indefinite block of the IP until he promises not to blow shit up, as is standard. If his promise is by IRC, e-mail, or voice, a statement that it has been received should be placed somewhere public. No need for an apology or any of that nonsense, but a clear message that blocks will be applied, and an injunction means that no one has to hesitate to perform them.

    brenneman(t)(c) 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    An indefinite block of Greg's IP would also be an indefinite block of an Arbitrator just elected to a three year term. Are you quite certain this would be a good idea? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It should not be difficult to help Mindspillage find a proxy that he can use for editing. True, Gmaxwell might be able to take advantage of that too, but that doesn't mean we should be paralyzed with fear. Nandesuka 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Kelly, the block of the IP can be undone, leaving only the block of the user account. A block of Gmaxwell will not affect Mindspillage. 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)SlimVirgin (talk)
    There's no need to block the IP. Any sockpuppet causing trouble of the kind Greg has caused will be recognized pretty quickly and blocked. It's the Gmaxwell account that needs to be blocked for longer than 24 hours. I wouldn't say indefinitely, but I think the week-long block ought to be restored, to give him a chance to consider whether he wants to be part of the project, with all the frustrations that necessarily entails, and which he currently seems unable to handle. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm operating on the assumption that we'd treat this independant of whom it is that's acting up. I find it hard to credit that if a static IP has run a destructive bot from a username and again from a sockpuppet that we'd think for more than five seconds before we'd block the address until that person foreswore more bad behavior.
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I'm reminded of Wik. He was hardbanned for the same kind of thing. I appreciate Greg's concerns about copyright but I'm not sure that the right response to not getting your own way on day one is to start vandalising the place on day two. As he's noted on his talkpage, he's technically adept enough that banning him would not be sufficient to prevent him from carrying out further vandalism but it sure would give him a message.

    I think you have to separate the user -- bad -- from the agenda -- good -- and give him the message: you're banned until you turn the dial down and try to achieve your goals a bit more patiently. Grace Note 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think there's anything more than we can or should do at present. Greg has developer rights on the toolserver, and his investment in the project as a whole is not in doubt. I think we should just wait for him to cool down as very little damage has been done except for hurt feelings.
    And honestly if anybody brings up "morlocks" and "little people" again I shall vomit. Greg is precisely that, not an administrator or an arbitrator, and by his hard work and talent he has made himself a great asset to the project. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    LOL. You read my mind! You know damned well that if someone you didn't like was doing this, you'd be leading the charge, Tony. It has nothing to do with "investment in the project". Lir made many good edits. So did Wik. Grace Note 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    To be frank: While Greg is indeed neither an adminstrator nor an arbitrator, one needs only to scroll up a bit to discussions of "collateral damage" to see that he is politburo at the least. If we continue to give senior contributors free ride to wheel war, vandalise, run bad bots, and generally do whatever the hell they want, let's not be suprised that the peasants are revolting. I suppose we could just quote the ArbCom and tell them to fork off, but good luck maintaining 934,826 atricles without them.
    brenneman(t)(c) 05:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Could you please tone it down? "Wheel war", "run bad bots", "vandalise", "peasant" and did I see somewhere in there a reference to the Cabal and the politburo? Aaron, you yourself must know from your own treatment that respected contributors (whether I regard them as personal friends or not--there is no issue with that) tend to attract more good faith and that the evaluation of a situation is not so blindly evenhanded as to, for instance, block a respected contributor who makes a gross misjudgement but does not seem to present an active risk. I think there is underlying this a suggestion of double standards, which I steadfastly refute. I do regularly (check my block log) reset and remove blocks where good faith can be inferred from email conversations, talk pages, or from reading this forum, and I have no doubt that this is a normal and regular operation carried out by all other conscientious administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    As much respect as I have for Greg, I have to agree with Brenneman. We can't tolerate this shit. It's one thing to gawk at punitive blocking. It's another to gawk at preventive blocking to prevent further crap from occurring. The practical problem, of course, is how to get Mindspillage to edit. Presumably she will have to use a proxy, or we'll have to disable the autoblocker for Greg's account, as the autoblocker will automatically block any IPs he has been using. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    John, he is a technically adept user. He can easily circumvent any block. So it's pointless seeing a block as a way of actually preventing him from editing. But if his ID is blocked and his IP left untouched, he is given a message. Or we could just all purse our lips some more and tell ourselves how much we "respect" a user who respects other users by blanking their userpages rather than talk to them. Grace Note 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    What are you getting at? I've already said I want him blocked as long as he continues to damage the encyclopedia. You're talking to the wrong person here. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Specifics of this case aside, getting Mindspillage to edit is a total non-issue, since she's an admin and can easily unblock her IP herself as per the "collateral damage" rule. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    And who pretends to be an admin, threatening to block people who disagree with him, [17] regularly makes personal attacks, tells people they're using Wikipedia as free webhosting because they don't want their user pages to be edited by others (nothing to do with images, mind you), [18] and asks good editors to stop editing outside the main namespace because he doesn't like the way they voted in an RfA. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] The people defending him have to realize that they've weakened their own positions regarding the next time they call for a troublemaker to be blocked. If they're prepared to take that on board, good luck to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I think he asked people to stop editing outside the main namespace. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, Sjakkalle. Fixed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    If he's been doing that, you need to take it to dispute resolution. WP:AN/I is mainly for assessing urgent problems that may require administrator action. There doesn't seem to be any cause for that here, so far. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    As I said above, Tony, those defending him will have to be consistent, so if you're willing never to put a query on this page about a non-urgent issue, never to block someone for doing less than Gmaxwell did, and to seek dispute resolution from now on when dealing with disruptive editors, instead of blocking, there'll be no problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It would be as inappropriate for me to defend Greg here as it is for you to use it as a forum to attack him. This is for assessment of risk in potentially urgent incidents. Please take your complaints against Greg Maxwell to dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I've been larely away from Wp for a couple of days and have just read Maxwell's page. Frankly his comments are outrageous. Freom threats to bypass blocks to verbal bullying his comments there are outrageous and would not be tolerated from a newbie. Then there's this. He seems to be out of control. (BTW so is this page. Every time I hit the edit box I'd find myself in the wrong part of the page. I had to type this by opening the entire page. The text then appeared letter by letter with each letter taking 4 seconds to appear. It took 7 minutes of typing, waiting and correcting to add this paragraph in. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Post-Block

    I think Aaron's comment of him being "hurt and upset" is still there after the block, but at least he seems less aggressive now(to an extent)[27] .Just figured i'd give a heads up. Karmafist 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    My opinion of this user is that he is a very dangerous individual whose edits speak for themselves. Full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults, impersonations of an admin, not to mention massive disprect of other users and blanking of user pages. I'm all about forgiving, but this is banable behavior. If further incidents occur, a ban would be warranted. -Husnock 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Dispute between Pamento and Pickelbarrel

    Latest comment: 19 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

    This is a rather nasty quarrel. I have to admit that I am finding it rather difficult to spot where it all began, but at the moment this much is clear (or not as the case may be!). I was contacted by a somewhat distressed User:Pamento yesterday regarding this matter on my talk page. He asked me to give him advice about how to stop User:Pickelbarrel harrassing him. I then told him that he should avoid anything confrontational and to report Pickelbarrel to an Admin for harrassing him if he kept on.

    Pickelbarrel's response to this was to start harassing me on my talk page and to ask User:Cenestrad how best to get rid of me.

    Right. Now as far as I can see, on the 14th of January Pamento made a perfectly reasonable comment on User:Uncle G's talk page asking about his opinions on WP:NOT dictionary policy. Then Pickelbarrel makes an unsigned comment on Pamento's talk page telling him not to harass UncleG (around 5:00 UTC), for no other reason, in my opinion, than newbie jealousy. Pamento then, stupidly, rises to this making an unsigned vandalistic comment on Pickelbarrel's talk page. This then begins a chain of events which lead to Pickelbarrel blowing this out of all proportion, attacking Pamento at every opportunity, using Uncle G's name in vain, Pamento getting nasty with Uncle G as a result... well you can see for yourselves really, all the pages I have found which link to this 'dispute' are linked above. To write it all down here would make for a dissertation.

    I just hope that you Admins can make out of this a good and lasting peace! Dan 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I will add that although this probably doesn't fit the page guidelines, I was sent here by an Admin... so don't blame me! :-D Dan 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    • I've already asked both editors to stop, and I've twice told Pickelbarrel that we should be civil to everyone here. I don't want to become embroiled in this dispute, which really has nothing to do with me. I'm rather busy working on WikiSaurus at the moment. Support from other people, reinforcing my requests to desist and to be civil, would be welcome. Uncle G 09:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Move along, nothing to see here. Really folk, just leave these guys to it if they so desire - it's not really doing any harm (only their talk pages) and they're both much the same. They'll get bored at some point. See also: User talk:Wangi#Asking for possible help re an uncivil Wikipedian. Thanks/wangi 09:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I've looked and as I just told Sam Korn, I don't see an actual dispute (you know, like content, spelling, article naming, etc.), I just see two people kicking and spitting at each other--in such similar styles and levels of hmmm "contributions", in fact, that I'm considering the possibility that they're actually both the same person. They/he/she really needs to take a time out. Tomertalk 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • It would be interesting to see the IPs of all involved in this! ;) T/wangi 09:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Well, my problem seems to be that I seem to be the only person who has a problem with this. However... it appears to me to be a very bad thing that we let this sort of madness continue, and also if these two are separate entities then we are giving Pamento especially (as a newbie) a very raw deal. He is clearly being harrassed by Pickelbarrel, whose behaviour (as well as his spelling) is atrocious. But that's just my opinion. Dan 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • I happen to think they're both in need of a time out. Forced, if necessary. Tomertalk 22:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • Dan, his only contributions are to his own, Pickelbarrel's and some of our talkpages: Special:Contributions/Pamento... oh, and one real edit. If these guys are making a mess of your talk pages then just clear it up - that's your choice to do on your own talk page. However I don't think there's anything much here to get excited, or waste time, about. Pickelbarrel has made a number of edits, and at least one new article, and he seems most excitable, but lets not piss on the parade of two (if they are two :) potential new editors. By taking this to this platform we're stooping to much the same level level that they are operating at - pointlessness! Lets try to encourage rather than ban, after all these guys are not vandalising the encyclopedia. Thanks/wangi 23:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • It would seem Pamento has turned to vandalism on Panty waste[28] and using his talk page as an attack page[29]... Thanks/wangi 23:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • I am slightly worried by this on Pickelbarrel's talk page:

    "If Dan is not interested in working with you I suggest that you look on his User Contributions page to find an article he is already working on and begin helping him with it. That way you can still work as a team --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 04:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    I think you should go to your prefrences and under nickname rename yourself "pickelbarrel the asshole" and then go to pamentos page and talk about what an asshole you are. That should piss him off good. Also let Uncle G & Wangi know that way they can speak with Pamento or maybe block him. As for working with Dan go to his user page and click on User Contributions on the left hand side of the screen in your toolbox (it's right under related changes) that will give you a list off what he is working on. Then all you have to do is pick an article and start editing. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)" That appears to me to be Cenestrad egging Pickelbarrel on to vandalise pages that I have edited... Dan 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

      • Also- I did not tell Pamento that he could use his talk page as an attack page, however if what I said ("it's your talk page" or something like that) gave him that idea I'm very sorry. Dan 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Harassment and wiki-stalking by malber

    Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

    malber (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was previous blocked for making personal attacks on me including saying that autism is a "social construct to hide behaviour" and that people with it should "just accept the fact that she's a jerk", comparing me to some pig thing from star trek and so on

    I'm posting this here because now he is going around trolling and wiki-stalking me - reverting any change I make, presumably because I pointed out his previous nastiness (I have quotes and diffs in a comment on my talk page for reference, near the top)

    His first follow-on was to the template Template:User Aspie, where he placed the template on his page (he does not nor has claimed to have AS (form of autism) and said it's a "social construct for hiding bad behaviour") and then used that as an argument for provocatively hanging the template from it's design that many people were using and had been agreed with on the talk page to an ugly-looking bright purple and green one (he also tried to claim that the userbox and category should be deleted, given his clear bias against the group of people in general you can see why, really)

    An admin caught this but now he is doing more of the same behaviour as you can see looking at his contributions. He has been following around reverting edits I make on purpose just to harass me.

    some links:

    I don't think anything can really be done at this point, I dunno, but it'd be nice if someone could at least watch him (I wouldn't be surprised if via his contributions-stalking he appears here and comments soon) as he's clearly just trying to troll against/harass me. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    He also left a message replying to MSK on my talk page, here. - FrancisTyers 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Just keep us posted here, and if it escalates, appropriate actions will be taken. Can you give diffs of when you've warned him about this stuff, and whether anyone else has too? Thanks. Harro5 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Sounds like User:Antaeus Feldspar. Are they friends? 203.122.221.73 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Dunno. I don't know Feldspar but he doesn't look that bad. Who are you? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    203.122.221.73 (talk · contribs) is the banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs), as shown here. Zordrac, of course, is really the banned Internodeuser (talk · contribs). He's dodging his ban again to make yet more personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    In reply to Harro5: Yes I did a while after I saw your message here: [34] - he was warned about the vandalism of the Asperger syndrome template previously here: [35]
    In his recent edits he has been doing nothing but trolling me, either reverting changes I make, deleting content or vandalizing: Just now he vandalized the clean fuels userbox (diff) (users the edit affects) to offensively try make a point.
    ALL his recent edits have been to articles I've edited and he seems to be here for no other reason than to harass me: I think he might even be a sockpuppet of some other user wanting to harass me under a different name. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Indefinite block, User:Tommstein

    Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

    At 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I placed an indefinite block on User:Tommstein, because frankly I have had enough of his obnoxious behaviour towards myself and other Wikipedians. In particular, his post on my talk page accusing me of "fruity-cult-standing-up-for-fruity-cult bias" [36], and his reply to my request to leave me alone where he states "... I'm about to get banned because of being painted as a bad guy and the only bad guy by your bias for a fellow cult" [37]. This stems from his view of my Scientology background, which he reiterated (along with misc. other ad hominem) in what was essentially a spurious RfC against me, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NicholasTurnbull. He's been repeatedly warned by many people, including myself, and continues in this pattern of horrid behaviour; his contribs show this is a consistent pattern. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Good show.--Sean|Black 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There's an AC case in the queue or accepted, but anyone in a case can email the AC, and doesn't actually have to be unblocked to participate. Just so's y'all know - David Gerard 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    You shouldn't block people you are involved in disputes with. Secretlondon 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    This is of course correct. If Nicholas cares to unblock, I'll certainly reblock - David Gerard 12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Someone with tact needed

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    User:Mike Nobody/II needs to have the fair use images removed. Needs delicate handerling. User appears to be a little anoyed about haveing to remove fair use images from his userspace.Geni 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Is there anyone who has volunteered for this kind of thing? Jkelly 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I just left another message at User talk:Mike Nobody. Jkelly 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:Timecop - block removed following IRC discussion

    Latest comment: 19 years ago30 comments18 people in discussion

    I have (provisionally) removed the block that User:Alkivar placed on Timecop (talk · contribs) on the basis of having had a mediation discussion with this user via an IRC conversation; Timecop has stated that he is willing to be civil. I will be keeping an eye out regarding proceedings. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Given that GNAA have launched a campaign of harrassment at Alkivar and other Wikipedia users, I've gotta say I find it exceedingly unlikely that Timecop's learned his lesson. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Civil my ass ... i've been getting threatening phone calls at home.  ALKIVAR™  03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Which is too much. I've reblocked, though if you wish to revert me, Nicholas, I will not wheel war - I just think there are limits to what we can allow, and getting to harrassing phone calls is about 20 steps over the line. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    No kidding...harrassing phone calls? He should be gone for good. Period. Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Sigh. I know for sure timecop has done no such thing as harassing phone calls. Alkivar, you have largely implied that timecop did the phone calls, so please clarify your accusations. Sam Hocevar 09:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Alkivar, it's unfortunate that you got those phone calls. However, that's beyond the scope of wikipedia conduct, and (most importantly) we have zero evidence that timecop has anything to do with it. Furthermore, timecop lives in Japan and has stated he does not make international phone calls. Even if this was done by GNAA members in say, North America, timecop cannot be held accountable for their actions. All I can say is change your phone number. He has proven himself a legitimate user and I see nothing in his contributions tying him to DickyRobert either. I strongly recommend he be unblocked. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, Jan. 25, 2006
    Furthermore, timecop lives in Japan and has stated he does not make international phone calls. That's the strangest logic I've heard all week. The first half means nothing whatsover if the second half is untrue: which means that boiled down, you're taking him at his word. I'd say there's very little reason to do that, gievn his track record. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yet if I called your house and said I was timecop, I'm sure you'd take my word. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006
    Okay, we have now left the realm of bad logic and have entered the territory of complete non sequitor. Also, since his user page proclaims "This user thinks Osama bin Laden is the greatest man on Earth" and "This user eats dog", you can talk to him about politics sometime and maybe pick up a few recipes while you're at it. I'm sure you take his word on those, too. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It's not a non sequitur, it was intended as a question, but I couldn't find an interrobang on my keyboard. Please answer it. Alkivar thinks it's timecop, timecop says it's not him, I doubt anybody would dial overseas to make a prank call, nobody has any evidence that it was timecop, and it has nothing to do with wikipedia anyway. Do you consider these to be non sequiturs as well? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006
    It's a non sequitor (i.e., a sentence logically untethered from what it precedes) regardless of what punctuation you stick on the end. A question mark merely converts it into a non sequitor rhetorical question, since you can't honestly expect me to believe that you're looking for information of any kind. And your doubts that anybody would dial overseas to make a prank call merely shows your lack of imagination -- or, indeed, lack of knowledge of the ease in making such international calls (assuming, of course, Timecop really DOES live in Japan to begin with). --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It's part of a GNAA/Bantown campaign. Ask Linuxbeak about these charming fellows. They're not just trolls and hackers, they're loons as well. I have no reason to believe anything any of them says to me at any time whatsoever, and I hope others would be as smart - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I just noticed: "He has proven himself a legitimate user" - what the fucking fuck? - David Gerard 10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, he's been the key force in keeping our encyclopedia clean of vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs, which I think is excellent work. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:07, Jan. 25, 2006
    No, his is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Can you name any deleted blog articles that were worth keeping? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:31, Jan. 25, 2006
    Irrelevant. His is a "War on Blogs" period/full stop, not a "War on vanity quasi-articles about individual blogs" or "War on articles that I, personally, want deleted", or hadn't you noticed? --Calton | Talk 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It would be slightly less dishonest to judge it by what it is, not by what it is called. This "War on Blogs" is exactly what was needed to counter the systemic bias caused by the massive proportion of bloggers on Wikipedia. Sam Hocevar 11:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Someone's even been attacking Alkivar with diffs on Uncyclopedia. Presumably on other wikis as well. If Timecop said the sky was blue, I'd look out the window - David Gerard 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    David's right. Whether Timecop is doing this stuff personally, or his friends are the actual culprits, there is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in allowing him or them back. More than that, there is no ethical reason either -- sannse (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I find it rather sickening that we're not seeing the bigger picture here: Timecop's organization is now criminally harassing one of our users because he blocked their "fearless leader". Whether timecop did this or not, are we so spineless that we're going to give into this sort of internet gang war? Should our admins be afraid to take action against GNAA members if they act like retarded clowns? When I was harassed by bantown, it wasn't their leader who did most of the harassment. In fact, it was the low-level trolls who were trying to prove themselves. No, I'm sorry. This is a picture perfect example of why we should not allow GNAA to abuse our good faith, trust, and resources. Screw them, and screw anyone who thinks otherwise. If GNAA members want to actually help Wikipedia, then why the hell do they harass our members, both in cyberspace and real life? This "war on blogs" bullshit is not justification for their presence. If they want to truely help Wikipedia, they can do alone, not in the name of GNAA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. Rx StrangeLove 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Who do you call criminal? Im sorry but i have a work, family and more, and im no criminal like you claim all GNAA members are. I've been trying to understand you but its not possible at all, maybe its time for you to learn from people who's actually willing to read and decide, like silsor. As for your problems with bantown, dont try to mix them with GNAA, because its not related. Cheers --blackman 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Sadly, I've also had enough. I've been very patient so far, his harassment of members off Wiki is going too far. I'm permablocking. I'll send a message to Jimbo and the ArbCom about this, I'll let them overturn my permablock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    IIRC, there was a user that was sanctioned for sending threatening emails to Wikipedians about Wikipedia related stuff, and I do not see that this is any different from that. If someone is making threatening phone calls over stuff happening at Wikipedia, then we should be able to do something here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    WTF?

    I love how a discussion about unbanning a troll turns into trolling the person that banned the troll. Is this what our community has degenerated to? --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It's now with Jimbo - David Gerard 16:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    More precisely, TBSDY has perma-blocked TimeCop (presumably for all of the above) and left a note with Jimbo and the ArbCom. TBSDY doesn't have authority to make binding decisions for all admins, not being an Arb (or a Jimbo), so I thought I'd note it here. Not that I have any problem with the permablock, but it's at the very least customary to tell the other admins about such things, in case they disagree. -Splashtalk 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Note that TBSDY said this above as well. Ral315 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    WTF indeed! We have a guy that turns up here saying 'I'm the fearless leader of a bunch of international trolls, who disrupt websites for kicks' - and what so we do? We assume good faith. Bad enough, but even when our trusted admins get abuse, we still 'assume good faith', and demand the admin 'proves it'. Get a grip! AGF - does not mean we have to have our heads up our asses. I say call time on all these trolls. --Doc ask? 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Well, yeah. The only reason they're put up with at all is because it's not worth it in terms of soft security - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Of course, and noting it was correct. I'm just noting that it's got higher attention - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    According to Alkivar, the GNAA isn't involved in any of this. He's talking to them right now, and they say that anyone who harrasses him gets banned. They said it is just someone who claims to be affiliated with them. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-25 23:47

    Just out of curiosity, where has Alkivar said this? Because his talk page still refers to GNAA harassment at home by phone, and he hasn't updated it. I've taken a look at his contrbutions and I can't see anything saying the harassment has stopped. —Phil | Talk 08:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thats because i'm a lazy fuck apparently... Yes the calls have stopped, timecop was apparently not responsible. I have unblocked him after a conference with Linuxbeak, myself (duh), Timecop, and another GNAA member. For the moment simply treat him as a normal user, the threats were made in GNAA's name but are completely disavowed as a rogue non-member claiming to be GNAA. For what its worth, I'm willing to give Timecop another chance, consider him on probation if you will.  ALKIVAR™  17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Multiple Accounts / Admin Abuse 2

    Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

    It has come to my attention that the admin Jayjq is responsible for the asumed sock check of this incident and spreading the news. The evidence is here: User_talk:Jayjg#What do you make of this? and here: User_talk:Eliezer/archive2#Sockpuppet check.

    This looks like several severe violations of Wikipedia:CheckUser to me. --Scandum 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Nope, looks like Jayjg did everything by the book. What would be a violation of CheckUser (let alone a severe violation) would be if he told everyone what your IP was. All he did was say that you are a sockpuppet of ZimZum (or the other way around). There's nothing wrong with that. Thanks for letting us know here, now I (or another admin) will look into your contributions and block one of your sockpuppet accounts if you abused either of the sockpuppet accounts. --Deathphoenix 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Please ignore Deathpoenix. I've been quite civil despite the rather hostile attitudes of several users. Also, this is not what this issue is about and it looks like Deathphoenix is trying to obstruct the current discussion.
    I've been told [CheckUser Policy] is a more up to date guideline for the check user tool. The actions by Jayjg still seem a clear violation of the CheckUser usage guideline. Especially the part stating that check user shouldn't be used for political control.
    Taking into account that Jayjg is deeply involved with the highly controversial Circumcision article and seems unable to keep his role as an admin and editor seperated I suggest that the Removal of Access guildeline is followed before check user violations become the norm. --Scandum 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not obstructing the situation. I just came into this situation from reading WP:ANI. My actions have been reversed and I have promised to wash my hands of the matter. I was a complete outsider with no interest in either argument. If you think I am deliberately obstructing you because I have some vendetta against you, I invite you to check my contributions: I have never heard of you prior to reading this section. --Deathphoenix 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Looking over the guidelines, I don't see which of them you think he violated. It looks like he looked it up after being asked in relation to suspicions of vandalism and sockpuppetry. I don't see any evidence that he released private information. --Fastfission 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    First check user should never be used for no good reason. There was never any valid reason to use check user on either Scandum or ZimZum. Secondly nobody ever asked if ZimZum was a sockpuppet of Scandum, and since there was no wiki sockpuppet violation I think it was way beyond Jayjc to reveal that information. Doing so was likely motivated by political reasons, making it a clear abuse of power. --Scandum 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    You mean, you were caught? - David Gerard 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    How come we don't get to have cool templates like that? Guettarda 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    We don't, and I should stop using it even when grossly tempted ;-) - David Gerard 12:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Indefinitely blocking ZimZum as a sockpuppet of Scandum

    Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

    I am definitely very uninvolved, having never seen either user nor posted (or even recently read) any of the articles in question.

    This shows that ZimZum/Scandum created a new account because the old one was "traceable"; however, both ZimZum and Scandum are still very active. According to this post, Scandum = ZimZum. Scandum's first contribution is 4 March 2005, while ZimZum's first contribution is 17 January 2006. Therefore, ZimZum is the sockpuppet account and Scandum is the sockpuppeteer (unless Scandum itself is a sockpuppet of another account).

    Therefore, as a completely uninvolved and neutral admin, I am going to block ZimZum indefintely as a sockpuppet. Scandum, you should only post using one account. If there are any admins that disagree with this action, feel free to unblock. --Deathphoenix 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I don't understand, Deathphoenix. What's the abuse? There is no rule against using two accounts, as such. See the CheckUser policy: "As a reminder, sockpuppets are not generally forbidden (editors may edit wikipedia under several accounts). It is the abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon." Bishonen | talk 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC).Reply
    (edit conflict) He's been posting to RFCs and being quite incivil. I would not have blocked if ZimZum is active while Scandum is not (since the stated intention of creating the new account was because of the stigma of the old account), but both accounts are active and very incivil. Overall, I've been taking fairly uncontroversial admin actions as a newbie admin. I suppose this is my first potentially controversial action, which I decided to take because I've seen a fair number of incivil sockpuppets like this become quite abusive, and this sockpuppet shows signs of being a potentially abuse account. If this were a normal and unique account, I wouldn't have done anything. However, I believe we should keep sockpuppet accounts on a much shorter leash. If you wish to unblock, go right ahead. I took one action and will wash my hands of the whole affair. I don't intend to get myself involved in this case any further. --Deathphoenix 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, I forgot to mention, both accounts have been used to post to circumcision/genital cutting-related articles, but nothing else that I can see. They weren't used to simultaneously "vote" on any matters. ZimZum's posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh, but Scandum has not. That's about it. --Deathphoenix 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, they've both edited Circumcision. And I suppose it does make sense to set high standards of good behaviour for extra accounts. - Haukur 15:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    You mean only people editing in a way 6 admins endorse have their privacy respected. --Scandum 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    *sigh* I don't know what to think. I can understand your frustration but I can also understand the case for revealing your puppet. On one hand we can say: "OMG!! Jay outed an alternative account of user he had been in a dispute with even though he did not violate WP:SOCK!!!!11" But on the other hand we can say: "The account looked like an abusive sockpuppet so Jay was asked to check if it was a sock. Turned out it was and Jay said so." It's a judgment call. Maybe Jay should have got a second opinion on whether to reveal the connection. (And maybe he did.) But I'd say he was within his rights and did not violate the checkuser policy as written. Maybe that policy needs to address cases like this more explicitly. - Haukur 01:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The account got checked for being suspicious cause it voted negatively for an RfC Jayjq himself was directly involved in. The votes were also highly unequal, so there was no way my vote was in any way affecting the RfC's outcome. I understand your opinion of me is as an annoying whiny abusive user due to the dirt throwing that has started right after the start of the conflict.
    I'm not sure how exactly you are reading WP:SOCK but if you look beyond the counter accusations you might see there were no sock puppet violations making what happend highly inappropriate. A similar case would be where you asked if Jimbo and Lola are sock puppets, and the admin with user checking answers no, but since Jimbo hasn't been giving him pressies for Christmas you should know that Puff Pusher is a sock puppet of Jimbo. So much for not giving pressies! Enjoy--Scandum 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    If the extra account was being used abusively (e.g. by commenting on the same talk pages as the other account with the same views) then the block is justified. If it was not being used abusively then the block is unjustified and Jay should probably not have released the information to begin with. Now, let's find out which is the case :) - Haukur 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Both ZimZum and Scandum are abusive. A cursory glance at their contribs makes this painfully obvious. Tomertalk 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    OK, my understanding is that you only block a sock if it's being used for sockpuppet abuse, such as voting twice, or for a user to "support" himself while pretending to be someone else. Blocking it for general incivility of a kind you would not have blocked a unique account for, as Deathphoenix did, isn't right. I'm unblocking, for now, but invite Haukurth or anybody else to reblock if they find evidence of sockpuppet abuse as such. (If there is none, incidentally, Jay shouldn't even have looked.) And of course either or both of the accounts can be blocked for general abusiveness. I wouldn't object, I just don't think DP's block, with the reason as given, ought to stand. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC).Reply
    That's fine. I'll take that as a lesson and go back to just blocking vandals and such. I was hoping my actions would prevent wasting time, as my personal opinion is that ZimZum will, in the future, create a lot of headaches and waste the time of a lot of Wikipedians. But since such preemptive actions aren't allowed, I'll just stop right now after having done it once. --Deathphoenix 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Such preemptive actions are indeed not allowed. I can assure you that I haven't been anywhere near the same article with the two accounts since I created ZimZum to edit controversial articles. The accusations of me being abusive should be taken with a grain of salt since they have been suddenly popping up the minute the conflict of the check user tool began, not before that. --Scandum 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    That's not quite correct, Scandum. I distinctly remember Benami complaining about personal attacks you and Dabljuh were making. Jakew 17:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Unlike Deathphoenix, I am remotely involved in this nonsense—far more so than I want to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ZimZum was invented as a vehicle for Scandum to be abusive. This persona was invented 17 January, 2006, for the obvious specific purpose of endorsing Dabljuh's bizarre and incivil response to his RfC. Since then, ZimZum has taken on a life of his own, which has been, like Scandum, occasionally incivil and, where Jakew is concerned, clearly assumes bad faith, although overall productive. My suspicion is that the user felt freër to use the ZimZum persona for incivility, in the belief that it would be OK to do so since he could always just create another sock in order to continue to be abusive, rather like how foreign tourists are widely perceived as rude: precisely because many tourists don't feel a great deal of accountability for their actions, they leave their civility at the border. ZimZum's record has been far more abusive over a far shorter period of time than has Scandum's, hence my supposition. For whatever reason, Scandum/ZimZum has developed a chummy relationship with Dabljuh on circumcision-related articles, which is where (along with related discussion) all of ZimZum's incivility and assumptions of bad faith are to be found. It's on this observation, in concert with their identical interests and writing styles, that my original supposition that they're the same person is based. Everywhere else I've seen S/Z operating (eugenics/racism/online gaming (which is where I assume he first ran into Dabljuh)), he is, in fact, a civil defender of WP:NPOV and an otherwise good editor.

    Scandum: (incivility) [38][39][40]characterizes his reinsertion of Dabljuh's assininity as "rvv"

    (assumption of bad faith) [41]

    Scandum also displays occasional mild antagonism toward User:Zen-master: [42][43]

    As far as I can see (and this is my attempt at humor which S/Z hopefully gets), Scandum's biggest problem is that he's an insane egomaniac; ZimZum's is that he's drunk. (go read their user pages for support of this assertion)


    ZimZum: (incivility) [44][45][46]

    (failure to assume good faith) [47]

    As for the protestations of harassment in "exposing" him, he does that himself, at the very least, admitting that he's someone else, and issuing a challenge to figure out who. Tomertalk 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Interesting, but I think your accusations are highly POV since I don't see the relavancy. Why don't you spend a fraction of that time investigating an admin abusing his powers? Or is it considered uncivil since he's your buddy?
    I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that this is some kind of diversion from the topic above this one. --Scandum 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Because you don't see relevancy in my comments you consider them to be POV? That doesn't make sense, but whatever. I don't see any abuse of imagined power or I'd be commenting on it. What's incivil is your accusation of cronyism. I'm getting the slightly odd feeling here that you think I'm advocating blocking you. I'm not, so enhance your calm. All I've done is demonstrate that you're not as blameless as you try to make yourself out to be. You can't expect people to come to your defense when you come to court with soiled hands. Tomertalk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Anittas again

    Latest comment: 19 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

    Anittas continues on as before despite his RFC, the recent discussion of his harassing others here and the 24 hr block that arose out of it, and his recent warning from Jimbo [48]. He's started up again, fanning the flames of others and inciting disputes with personal attacks and generally being disruptive [49]. I've warned him once and removed the personal attack. He's responded by deleting the former [50] and restoring the latter [51]. Someone else may want to want to look into his antics and have a word with him or something. FeloniousMonk 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I wanted to warn User:Turkmen for Monk. I strongly believe that Monk uses his tools in the wrong way and I wanted to let Turk know this. Monk calls this for a personal attack and threatened to have me banned. In addition to this, another admin was very rude to Turkmen, telling him to "shut up". --Candide, or Optimism 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I see neither rudeness nor a "shut up" in the link you provided. I do, however, suggest you learn how to deal with others, or else suffer a block. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The "shut up" is there. I double-checked. Allow me to post his comment in full:

    :He did exactly what he should do. You were rude and wrongly accusatory. Within the bounds of civil behaviour and respect for other members of the community you could follow the correct course of action and apologise for your unacceptable behaviour, or you could just shut up about your mistake, and I'm sure people would let it slide based on the fact that you are a new user. Since you chose to continue your rude behaviour, you should apologise and make an effort to learn something about community etiquette. Guettarda 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    --Candide, or Optimism 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    That comment seems very fair to me. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    And if a non-admin would make that comment, you would be flooding his talkpage with warnings. He can tell people to shut up, but I can't warn Turk for an admin whom I believe is using his tools in the wrong way? Why is that? Are admins above regular editors? --Candide, or Optimism 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    No. Don't put words into my mouth. If a non-admin said that I would not comment on it. It is a perfectly reasonable statement. Perhaps it was a little harshly worded, but not excessively so. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    In that case, I want Monk to shut up, too. --Candide, or Optimism 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Stop disrupting Wikipedia and you'll have nothing to complain about. FeloniousMonk 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Anyone who reads Swedish care to translate his recent missive [52]? FeloniousMonk 07:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    "check out/watch/look at this here guy, look at this exchange on blahblah talk page, he's blocked me for 24 hours,..." miscellaneous other whining. Tomertalk 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    About removing warnings

    Latest comment: 19 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

    User:Sebastiankessel said that removing warnings from one's talkpage is considered vandalism. He told me to check WP:Vandalism, and so I did, but I'm having a problem finding the info where it says that one is not allowed to remove a warning on his own talkpage. What is says is "Removing vandalism warnings from one's talk page is also considered vandalism", but I was not warned for vandalism. Can someone help me out? Can I remove a warning that doesn't pertain to vandalism? --Candide, or Optimism 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Actually, Anittas is right. I interpreted the message left as a warning and reacted accordingly. I'd like somebody to correct me if I was wrong in the way I read the page. Thanks.
    My apologies in advance to Anittas if I misinterpreted the policy. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It's cool. --Candide, or Optimism 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, though I concede that that is the wording of the policy, the intent is actually slightly different. The intent of that comment is to avoid anonymous vandals removing warnings. I think it's permissible to allow a wide latitude in behaviour here. Nevertheless, Anittas does correctly state what the policy page says. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    A loophole in one policy is not carte blanche to violate another. When removing warnings Anittas misused the edit summary to make personal attacks and discount genuine warnings as mere harassment [53], [54]. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I did not misuse the edit summary because it's my talkpage and I should feel free to remove any comments that I want. Your policy say that a user is not allowed to remove warnings about vandalism. I disagree with that one also, but it has nothing to do with my case. Where did I make personal attacks when I reverted back? I want you to back up this claim of yours. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    As has been said many times, policy is what we do, and the written version of it always lags behind. The page should be updated to reflect what is actually meant (which Sam Korn stated quite concisely, so I won't bother repeating). Having not read through the events of this situation, I can't speak to the issues FeloniousMonk has raised, but certainly WP:VAND needs to be updated. I'll go and do that now. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Can an admin change, update, or reform a policy? I thought that the entire community decided on these things, with a reserve from Jimbo who can at any time dismiss any changes. Also, it doesn't matter if you change that particular policy because that particular policy - that is, the Vandalism policy - doesn't apply to me. I have nothing to do with vandalism. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Policy pages only document policy; they aren't policy in themselves. Where what happens is obvious, it is not unreasonable to update the policy page to reflect this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure I understand. The policy pages reflect the official policy if Wiki, right? Then, I'm thinking that one user can't just decide that the policy is to be changed or even reworded without authority from the community, or whoever. --Candide, or Optimism 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The answer to your question, as far as I can tell, is no. The policy pages do not reflect the official policy of the Wiki; they reflect, for reference, in a slightly out-of-date way, what we actually do. -- SCZenz 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Quite so. There are one or two "official" policies, which must be obeyed: NPOV, Copyrights, Civility. Other than that, written policies are more like guidelines that should almost always be followed. The primary policy, though, has always been "use common sense", and updating policies to fit in with sensible practice makes good sense. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    How can you then enforce things that are not a part of the policy? Say that I was a vandal and I would remove warnings about my vandalism on my talkpage. Why would I then risk to be blocked for removing the warning? In fact, how can you define that as vandalism at all? You said above that the wording was wrong and that it would apply to anonymous users that would make the revert. Obviosuly, these admins wouldn't interpret it this way. You guys aren't even on the same page. It seems that there are no requirements on who can add new rules to the policy, as we have seen here. Some dude thought it was good to update the so-called policy and so he did, without anyone objecting it. It makes no sense. Who is shaping this policy? Who decides these things? --Candide, or Optimism 07:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    As I told you on wikien-l, Wikipedia is not a game of rules. It is a project with a purpose. You seem to be confused about this, given your constant attempts to find a way around the wording of policy. You see, the wording of policy isn't what gets enforced, in actual fact. It's the spirit. Granted, we sometimes disagree on the spirit, and that's to be expected. But there is no way to get away with things on technicalities here, so please do yourself a favor and understand that. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Now I've restored Essjay's wording, because it's obviously sensible. This being a minor and blatantly obvious fix to the policy, this is the appropriate way to build a consensus--it's a wiki, remember? -- SCZenz 23:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I'm curious...why, if civility is a policy instead of a simple guideline (like WP:NOR, WP:EDSUM, etc.), are we not permitted to block unrepentant violators? Tomertalk 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:Lamington-Child

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Quite possibly the most obvious WP:POINT vio ever, Lamington-Child's user page says that his/her goal on WP is to see how many articles they can vandalize before getting banned; my guess is 3(currently at 2 right now.) Also has an assload of userboxes, likely as a straw man against the Userboxen issue a few weeks ago. Karmafist 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Seems to have been blocked already. Ral315 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yep, six minutes before your edit there[55]. Beautiful. Thanks. Karmafist 04:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS Spirit Mountain Ranch Vandalism, Commercial Advertisement and POV of White buffalo

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Someone (most likely these people from Spirit Mountain Ranch) have been vandalizing Ma-hi-ya-sqa and placing advertising, WP:POV WP:V and other content which fails and is not in compliance with factual writing. Some of the statements are nonsense and POV. Please monitor this article and **BLOCK** these people from putting advertising banners and disrepecting Native beliefs. They make statements that Albinoism is a "birth defect". Being born an "Albino" is not a birth defect any more than being born a Negro or Indian is a "birth defect". These people are simply using Wikipedia for adverstisement and reverting edits, posting POV, and vandalizing other pages about other White Buffulo considered sacred. Please monitor this article. 67.177.11.129 06:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC) [edit]Reply

    I believe that 67.177.11.129 (talk · contribs) is Jeff Merkey, a.k.a Gadugi (talk · contribs · block log), a permanently blocked user. He was blocked for continueing legal threats, personal attacks, and harassment. See the IP contributions for proof of this allegation. In effect, Jeff is evading his block to continue his usually non-WP:NPOV edits on subjects he feels deeply about. Please view his comments in that light. --MJ(☎|@|C) 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC).Reply
    I also suspect that this is Jeff Merkey because of the nature of the IP's edits to the Jeff Merkey article and the pattern of articles edited.--Alhutch 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Spam protection filter

    Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Current SPF settings are preventing editors from editing any number of pages. See also: [56]. Please, can someone look into this? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Johnski

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    If someone can help us out I'd appreciate it. There has been a despite that has been ongoing for sometime now. He has been reverting and whitewashing articles having to do with Dominion of Melchizedek.

    There is an arbitration case against him and others, but it has been slow to move throught the process because of arbitration elections. Essentially, due to those factors, he has been able to come in an reaking havoc on the article any time his wishes without facing consequences.

    Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks.. Davidpdx 11:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have indefinitely blocked User:Johnski. If someone thinks that was wrong, please let me know. Tom Harrison Talk 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    He appealed the block to me in email. My reply email to his account failed for some reason so I have placed the reply on his talk page. To summarise, I advise him that if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia he should start a new account and edit one of the hundreds of thousands of articles on subjects other than the Dominion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Udham Singh and NPOV

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Over the past few days, an anonymous contributor with a roving IP (66.81.184.xxx and 66.81.185.xxx) has made a host of POV edits to the article Udham Singh. Here's a relatively minor example of the kind of thing I'm talking about with POV terms italicized:

    Whilst living in England in 1940, Singh Shot dead Sir Michael O'Dwyer, former Governor of the Punjab. This was in revenge for the heinous criminal massacre, which General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer had perpetrated on innocent Indians under Michael O'Dwyer's rule, and which O'Dwyer had, unfortunately defended.

    The article has been POV from its inception, and I added the {{npov}} template to it a couple of weeks ago. However, this anonymous editor continues to remove the template. I'm not sure what to do here; is semi-protection warranted? I'd like to clean up the article, but I fear this person will simply revert any edits I make. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Given the PoV nature of the edits and the repeated nature of the editing, I feel that semi-protection is warranted. Done. Physchim62 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. I've reinstated the {{npov}} template. — BrianSmithson 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:Snk 444

    Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I seem to have a comunication disorder with User:Snk 444, I'm afraid. Recently, on the King article, I've had a little revert war with him in which I continually removed his nonsensical images from the article. I told him on his page why they weren't needed for the improvement of the article, and to please explain his concensus for them being present. ([57]), and shortly after, Naconkantari did the same ([58]). The user in question then decides to violate WP:NPA and disregard our commments ([59]), after which, then decides to blank them ([60]). Meanwhile, on the article in question, Snk 444 decides to ignore concensus yet again and let loose another personal attack in his revision ([61]). This continued process of edit-warring then continues ([62]), until I once again pay another visit to his talkpage in an attempt to discuss the issue in hopes of reaching an concensus ([63]). He promptly responds by utilizing a sockpuppet to revert yet again:([64])

    Im afraid this user has little respect for civilty and concensus, and he has violated WP:NPA on several occasions. I recomend a short block to garner his attention as he doesn't seem to want to invoke any discussion regarding his actions, and he seems to think that there is an established ownership of the articles : ([65])-ZeroTalk 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    (Not so) sneaky vandal

    Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    We have a sneaky vandal, 141.43.210.4 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), who is up to no good if this edit is to be believed. I expect it is just bluster, but thought I'd report it anyway. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I originally gave the user a short (3 hr) block, but it might make sense to increase it considering that talk page message. Rx StrangeLove 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I have gone through the anon's contributions (both 13th Jan and today) and couldn't find one that stood up to scrutiny (which is not to say they were all necessarily untrue). Given that this IP's edits spanned two short periods, nearly a fortnight apart, I'm not sure a longer block would really serve much purpose - a block for a fortnight seems too long for an IP. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Robert, In the future please dont remove an anonymous user threatening vandalism from his talk page... Leaving it there for us to read allows us to see that this is in fact a dedicated vandal who should be reverted on sight.  ALKIVAR™  18:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Revert anonymous contributions "on sight"? That doesn't seem quite right. I assumed that it is a shared IP address since one contribution was effectively "I have access to loads of computers here", and it seems inappropriate to me to leave a promise to vandalise on an anon IP page. Still, I bow to your experience. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC) - and it's a first - I don't think I've ever been rolled back before! Thanks. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Anon making legal threats - on talk page and in edit history

    Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    12.77.95.37 contribs talk has made legal threats against myself and on User talk:Sabalon. See the user's contributions. Legal threats are his response to us removing his linkspam from Clayton State University. In his own words: "Legal Notice Posted to Sabalon, Mreta, and Others" Mrtea (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I left a note for him to read WP:NLT, and reverted changes to the article, your user page, and Sabalon's user page. See if he persists after reading NLT. Antandrus (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, I was just going to leave you a comment thanking you for that and to direct you here- Looks like the anon's beaten me to your talk page though. Mrtea (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I responded to him on my own talk page; hopefully he will "get it" now. (Usual disclaimer: IANAL). Imagine if everyone had an absolute right for everything they ever added to any article to stay right where they put it. Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I've posted a WP:3RR warning on him, too. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC).Reply
    Oh, how delightful, my warning seems to have made the person hop over to 12.77.131.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) before reverting again. I've blocked both the IP's for 24 hours, and put a note on the talkpages explaining that the person is now blocked and is advised not to play any more games. Antandrus, I don't know if you might want to add an even terser reply to him on your talkpage, encouraging him to create an account etc? Bishonen | talk 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC).Reply

    Admin eval of sockpuppet NSA eavesdrop edit, please

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    While nobody was watching NSA warrantless surveillance controversy a suspected sock placed an inaccurate Original Research lead on top of the article. What I did was to label the article NPOV & needs verification, rather than reverting it. I noted this at the bottom of the NPOV section of the talk page. I did not leave the sock a note. Go look, please. Metarhyme 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    PoV and unencyclopedic language, yes, but why do you call it original research? Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It was like User:65.80.1.124's more recent edit - a statement not backed up by sources. Except that at least sources were submitted. Metarhyme 00:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:Eeriesmeister

    Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

    I've indefinitely blocked this user on two counts, one it appears to be too close to User:Irismeister, two it was restoring material on that blocked users page with the edit summary: "DO NOT WIPE IRISMEISTER'S PAGE! THIS IS LEGAL EVIDENCE FOR LIBEL IN WIKIPEDIA. YOU TAKE PERSONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU DELETE EVIDENCE!" which appears to be a legal threat. Subsequent to that block 85.195.123.29 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) did the same with edit summary "IN DELETING INCONVENIENT USER PAGES YOU TAKE PERSONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBEL AND CENSORSHIP!". And also left similar message on my talk page (and edit summary). I have blocked that IP for 1 month also. --pgk(talk) 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Ok having looked a bit closer I would guess that this is just a sockpuppet of User:Irismeister since there seems to have been an effort to restore this userpage which has resulted in the 1 year block being reset. I can't tell much more about the IP address, so it could be dynamic or shared. --pgk(talk) 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I've had a message from User:Rishimeister making reference to my blocking of Irismeister. Another sock. Secretlondon 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Also seems to be using User:85.195.123.29 - seems to be a German anonymising proxy. Secretlondon 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I received the same message on my talk page that Pgk did, but this time from 216.37.184.147. Nlu has already blocked it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There's been User:Sirianmeister too. Secretlondon 19:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    And User:203.177.50.98. I've blocked for 24 hours but I'm worried about collateral damage as well as having better things to do than fight someone who clearly wants to be life banned. Secretlondon 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Am I missing something?

    Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

    I have started a new topic thread as I am hoping the only reason the admins are not responding to this previous topic is they are not seeing it.

    This is a continuation of the thread: Revealing personal information.

    user Tina M. Barber (AKA MaShiloh) is continually and repeatedly revealing peoples personal names rather than using their screen names. see above topic for all the past infractions. Today, yet again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog

    Current page under Reply To New Draft

    Editor Windsongkennels left a post and this followed by Tina M. Barber:

    (name snip), you know that the OFA didn't record preliminary (under 2 yr) x-rays back then! If I had you subpoenaed into court, and you were asked (under perjury of law) if you saw the STACKS of x-rays on my dogs ... what would you have to say?? MaShiloh 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    The discussion pages are filled with her revealing personal info still left unchecked from mid Dec forward, it is filled with violations to NPA, and she is filling it with link after link to her private web site and using it to slander all people not affiliated with her.

    There are warnings issued, but it appears no follow up. If this is not the place to report these violations could someone please at least point those of us reporting them to the correct place or format? I have to say, I am in shock that with all the requests for assistance that not only does it appear that nothing has happened to this user, but everyone's personal information including where they work is still on those discussion pages. This last post seems to be a threat of taking the other editor to court. ShenandoahShilohs 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have blocked for 48 hours for attacking other users and revealing personal information of other editors. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    This feels like an offsite dispute that is continuing here. Our article says that Tina M. Barber is the original breeder of these dogs. She clearly knows the people she is arguing with (and is referring to them by their first names). However I don't consider the above quote to be a legal threat. We can't fix your off Wikipedia community and we're not the article police. You need to sort this out between you. Secretlondon 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm sorry but I disagree. Please see WP:Harrassment (template Pinfo4) "Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia." Whether she may know who some of the editors are personally or not, is not the point per Wiki policy.
    Also, please see other personal names/info she has posted (see above on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Revealing_personal_information)
    Tina M. Barber (aka MaShiloh) has repeatedly published other first names, including a first and last name (mine, which she tracked through an IP address and I have never met her) and has tracked another's poster's IP address and contacted his employer. We don't expect you to "police" and we would be happy to "sort this out", but we are not administrators and we do not have the capability of blocking users who disregard and ignore (she has done both) requests that she desist from flaunting policies, nor do we have the capability to remove these names from Wiki entirely (they are all still sitting out there for viewing, including one editor's place of employment). In that sense, you are the "police", because you have the authority to do something about it. Thank you. MilesD. 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Secertlondon, I am sorry you feel like a plea for help is an offshoot to a dispute. I am also sorry to hear that you feel just because one person knows who they are talking to that it is ok for them to reveal that info on Wiki. Was it also ok for her to track an editors Wiki IP to his employment? Contact his employer and attempt to get him fired? Post his employment info on the talk pages, and to take this info gained from Wiki and post his name and employment info on other forums encouraging people to call his employer? This information is still on the talk pages, and the way I understand, it should be removed. These actions threatened a persons livelihood, is that ok too since she may or may not know them?
    Yes there is an ongoing dispute on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog, but I cannot see how that justifies breaking Wiki policy repeatedly after being warned. We are human, and we can all make mistakes, but this editor has shown a total disregard for Wiki policy. ShenandoahShilohs 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have to agree with ShenandoahShilohs and MilesD. on this. If the (first) names of contributors are to be released to the public, it should only ever be released by the contributors themselves. This should never be done by others, whether they know each other or not, whether the information is harmless or not. Disrespecting and infringing on the privacy of other users is a serious offense, and Tina M. Barber has continued to do so, despite having been warned not to. Some time ago, I requested the removal of personal information (name, job, employer) of one user. I don't know how to do this, so I'm not able to remove it myself. Another problem is that the talk page has seen many edits since the information was revealed, which means that even if the edit itself is removed, it will continue to be visible in other edits. I don't know what can be done about this. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I too agree with ShenandoahShilohs and MilesD. We don't have a reason to take sides in the original dispute but we have a responsibility to act when the dispute is conducted on Wikipedia and the manner in which a side conducts it violates key Wikipedia principles -- not the least of which is WP:CIVIL. This isn't about policing someone else's dispute that started off Wikipedia; this is about stopping people who are using Wikipedia's resources to victimize others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Aecis said: "Another problem is that the talk page has seen many edits since the information was revealed, which means that even if the edit itself is removed, it (editor's name, place of employment [S Scott]) will continue to be visible in other edits. I don't know what can be done about this."

    Does Wiki have the technology to delete this person's personal info? If so, can it be done immediately? If not, what other options do we have to protect this person, even if it's several weeks later? S Scott 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS ScottReply

    Anon editor vandelizing my user page

    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    [66] - can he be blocked ? Zeq 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    He only did it once - I don't think a block would be necessary. I'll warn him. Latinus 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Speedy delete requested

    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Please could someone delete G4 Off Topic Forum and block User:FledglingZombie. The page, apparently about nothing whatsoever, has been suggested for speedy deletion in the conventional way by myself and User:ErikNY, who also AfD'd it. Each time, the notice has been removed. See history. Jakew 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I have deleted and protected it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Spam for a pretender

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    User:82.43.157.203 has been slowly but persistently re-adding links to a vanity website, "imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com", detailing imaginary claims to the Holy Roman Empire (see [67] for a newspaper article detailing the hoax/fraud/whatever). He continues to do so after being asked to stop. When would a block be appropriate? Choess 00:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It looks like he's only added his link a couple times. There are {{spam}} templates to warn users adding linkspam. He shouldn't be blocked yet. I've warned him, let's see if he continues. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam for more info. Mrtea (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. There were previous incidents of this link being spammed, possibly by the same person; see Special:Contributions/86.131.21.107, Special:Contributions/86.131.10.200, Special:Contributions/86.134.218.24, Special:Contributions/86.140.64.32 and Special:Contributions/86.131.15.13. Choess 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:Yuber

    Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

    I see Tznkai has banned Yuber (talk · contribs) from editing Islamic extremist terrorism for disruptive editing in violation of the arbcom ruling against him. I don't know the details, but I see Queeran (talk · contribs) is somehow involved, and it might be relevant to know that there's a suspicion Queeran is banned user Enviroknot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's been after Yuber for months. I've advised Yuber to request a user check. If Queeran is directly involved in Yuber being banned from editing this article, I wonder if Tznkai might reconsider? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    (edit conflict)if Queeran is Enviroknot, I'll just ban him too. Its a one week suspension from an article, not punative, but prevnative so he'll cool down. Yuber seems to have taken it pretty well. Where the hell is that template by the way?--Tznkai 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I was never able to find a template, so I just wrote it up myself when I last did it. [68] SlimVirgin (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm fine with a ban since I wish to remove myself from this dispute for a while. Yuber(talk) 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    For those of you concerned the applicable remedy is qualified as "Disprutive edits" and repeated reverting is by its nature, disruptive. I am planning on lifting this ban in one week barring objection, and willing to lift it earlier if any three adminstrators ask me too.--Tznkai 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I absolutely protest this outrageous accusation by the admin Slimvirgin, and note that she is entirely too protective of Yuber. Queeran (strikeout added by Tznkai. El_C 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)) Reply

    Take it outside.--Tznkai 04:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Tznkai, if you're going to strike out another user's comment, you must clearly denote this. El_C 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Tznkai, as Yuber doesn't seem to mind, I see no problem, though someone should request a check user tomorrow to see whether Queeran is editing from Houston, Texas, or using open proxies. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    There's no need. I can tell you right now, yes, I live in Houston. It's no crime. I don't use open proxies. As for the rest, I suppose I really shouldn't care, your behavior in this has proven to me that there's absolutely no point bothering with Wikipedia. Queeran
    Oh, if only I could believe that - David Gerard 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    General Comment about new Checkuser system

    Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    Isn't this inherrently flawed? It seems like by making a public announcment of all checkuser attempts, you're making the whole thing a bit pointless, I mean if someone sees themselves listed on the checkuser page, and they do indeed have a sockpuppet, the first thing they're going to do is log in with the user name in question under a different ip, or proxy, or hell, even AOL, there by thrawting the checkuser process, and giving a false negative?? All but the dumbest sockpuppets will be able to figure this out quite easily--205.188.116.65 03:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    It's not just blindly comparing IP addresses and seeing who has what. If it were that simple, we'd be using bots to perform Checkuser. --Deathphoenix 04:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Where are these being displayed? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I assume the poster means WP:RFCU. Which isn't a list of all checkuser attempts, but it does sound like what s/he has in mind. FreplySpang (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Still another Zephram Stark Sockpuppet?

    Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    Check out Legal Tender (talk · contribs). Notice this edit voting to keep an image uploaded by his earlier sockpuppet Doctor Nicetan (talk · contribs). Funny how a someone claiming to be a novice user (see [69]) is suddenly voting on IfD (for an image that isn't linked to any page). Also note that he is editing Terrorism, the main reason he was banned in the first place.--JW1805 (Talk) 06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I'd tend to agree, this is a lot like when I was dealing with User:EddieSegoura's sockpuppets, which all immediately voted to keep an article, and started wrking on the same articles (only Eddie wasn't blocked, and still hasn't as he's imrpoved). However, the signs are there and I'd agree it's a big possibility. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    This is Zephram without a doubt. He tends to stalk my edits, even non-controversial ones. See this diff on the rarely edited G.I. Joe: The Movie. I've blocked him and will wait until the next sockpuppet arises. Carbonite | Talk 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    My question is, (and perhaps someone can point me in the right direction if it has already been asked and answered) with all of this sock activity, does Zephram's ban get lifted at the scheduled time, or is it lenghtened to include these offenses? (I saw Carbonite already lengthened it once. [70] Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The ban will be lifted six months after "Zephram" (the person behind the accounts, not just User:Zephram Stark) stops editing. If he never creates a another sockpuppet, the ban would be lifted six months from today (27 July 2006). If he keeps evading the ban by editing with sockpuppets, the date will keep moving back. If there comes a time when he hasn't created a sockpuppet for a few weeks, I may adjust the block expire date. Right now, it's not worth the effort to adjust the expire date every few days. Carbonite | Talk 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, Carbonite. Just curious. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Being harassed on Talk:Intelligent design

    Latest comment: 19 years ago18 comments12 people in discussion

    FeloniousMonk is harassing me on Talk:Intelligent design by constantly and for absolutely no reason bringing up the RFC he brang against me in the midst of a discussion I am having with another editor. He is clearly doing it to disrupt the discussion and it is clearly in completely bad faith. I have done absolutely nothing to warrant this attack. [71] ,[72], [73] I have removed his attacks but he will probably revert them. Please someone help. --Ben 06:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Also, please pay attention to what FeloniousMonk is DOING, not saying. I don't want to start defending myself against his attacks. They are distortions. What he is DOING though, is clearly inappropriate regardless of any merit he claims his attacks have. He is even claiming, based on a completely bad faith assumption, that I am changing the word "ruling" to "concluding" in the article because I find the "ruling" (he again calls it this) "unfavorable." First, I actually find the ruling favorable. Second, I am right because he clearly doesn't know the difference between what a judge orders and what a judge says. This is very very frustrating and I can't believe that I feel the need to defend myself for what is obviously malicious attacks.--Ben 06:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, that sounds like Monk - bringing out the worst of you, then reminding you of past incidents in order to lower your credibility. There's nothing you can do, Ben. All the admins stand behind him. Those who might disagree with him don't have the guts to speak out. --Candide, or Optimism 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yet another sad chapter in Benapgar's long history of disruption. Starting with POV pushing at Talk:Intelligent design he's descended into further disruption with an established history of deleting the comments of other's there and making religious-based personal attacks when his pov fails to gain consensus; something it has yet to do in his 3+ months on the article. A quick look at his user conduct RFC, his talk page, and his Admin bullying petition illustrates that Ben is the constant recipient of admin warnings, something he's taken to deleting [74] [75] instead of to heart. FeloniousMonk 07:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    removed personal attack by Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked. --Duk 07:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Ben seems to miss the point that Wikipedia works by consensus, and that by consistently acting against consensus he creates his own problems. All FM did in reverting Ben's changes was to ensure that what had already been decided upon as accurate was not improperly edited. Jim62sch 10:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I extended his block to 1 month. Ben is a serial NPA violator and needs a long break. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I reccomend these blocks should be done by the arbitration committee, not individual admins. They're way too long! Kim Bruning 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    What are you doing here Kim? Aren't you supposed to be blocked for your dissertation? Tomertalk 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Not atm. Too long a story for this margin. Kim Bruning 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    If you want Arbcom to do these blocks, ask Arbcom to do them. In the mean time, personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, and Ben is not welcome here until he figures that out. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    My suggestion is throw it up to ArbCom for review if another say, two admins request it.--Tznkai 17:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    What with all the mud flying around, I'm not sure where your clarity comes from :-P Kim Bruning 17:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Ben's been at this for months, unfortunately, and has already been blocked for a week for personal attacks, plus a few times for 24 hours or 48 hours. A longer block seems justified to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I do see. I would still like to see the arbitration committee look into this. They can also ban for longer, or look into mitigating circumstances (like if ben was being provoked) Kim Bruning 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Edits like this [76] if made repeatedly, don't require an arbitration case. Fred Bauder 17:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    That edit is indeed very interesting. Kim Bruning 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Mistress Selina

    Latest comment: 19 years ago28 comments19 people in discussion

    Having tried to AGF for quite some time, I feel this is no longer warranted and I've blocked Mistress Selina indefinitely. Her recent actions, especially this edit and the subsequent discussion on her talk page, look too much like the work of a troll. I don't think this can be explained away as a case of ignorance, or being new around here. In fact, after some consideration I don't see that there can be any explanation that would convince me that the linked edit above was made in good faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Is this a blockable offence? Maybe. Indefinetely? No. But for me, it is the case of straws and camels backs. Somoen pushes it, and pushes it and eventually we either stop AGF - or we become dolts. Perhaps reduce this to three months, but I'm minded to let the block stand as is. --Doc ask? 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, because the best way is to just block people so the POV pushers they oppose can get away with bullshit.
    Wikiadmins are fucking cowards, this is just more abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.120.29 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not a sock, but I agree to 99-percent on the statement made above. You guys are cowards. You come here just to block people and play your role-playing game by hiding behind the Wiki policy. Go and work on articles, instead. If someone thinks that Wiki is a fascist site, then let them. What the hell do you block them for? In fact, I happen to agree with that statement to 50-percent. So what? Shouldn't I have the right to think that Wiki is a fascist site and say it? --Candide, or Optimism 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    You may think whatever you want of Wikipedia. But when you write on a proeminent page explaining what Wikipdia is about that Wikipedia is fascism, I don't see how to distinguish that from vandalism. And yeah, if that were the only instance, that would not warrant a block. However, look at her blocklog. She's been a nuisance ever since she is around. Such an editor makes life hard for people around, and must go. With the current state of affairs, it requires an exhausting and long arbitration process to get somebody out. This case is obvious enough to bypass that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    IP blocked as probably sock and certainly abusive. --Doc ask? 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Did it really have to take this long? WP:AGF is a great policy, but it's not a suicide pact. --malber 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree 100% with Malber. She literally hasn't gone a week without being blocked for something. We've tolerated her for too long. Raul654 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Yay! However, Selina will come back with another username, I believe this is not her first username, nor the last. And the story will start again..... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I am somewhat inclined to reduce this block. Despite being blocked and unblocked many times, she has never actually had a block stand for more than 30 hours. I'm uncomfortable jumping straight from 24 hours for childish behavior to an indefinite block with nothing in between. Sit her down for a month or two, perhaps, but I'd still offer her another chance. Dragons flight 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Three cheers. It's about time. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Ditto. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Stop being so anti-Jewish, already! !תצאי בחוץ El_C 22:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, old habits die hard. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Hey, my cabal calendar says it's Slim's week to be the anti-Palestinian, and Tomer's week to be anti-Jewish. C'mon guys, stick to the schedual! - brenneman(t)(c) 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    And who gave you a cabal calendar?--Doc ask? 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry Doc, that was me. Wasn't thinking :). And good job, Mark. I hope it sticks this time (*cough, cough*).--Sean Black 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    "bonk the trolls on the head before they get too socially involved with the site" (source)
    --JWSchmidt 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Yeah. I'm tired of her. I want to say something about process, and ArbCom, etc, but hell with it. She's a pain and the project is best without her.--Tznkai 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Fuck process. Block timewasting trolls. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Careful what you ask for Tony. You might see the administrative staff halved. Honestly, what can possibly justify such an excessive and pointless ban? MSK, as noted above, has been blocked, but never has a block stood for much more than a day. Indefban is totally out of line considering the fact that MSK is apparently acting in good faith, and doing her best to help wikipedia. I suggest that this block be removed - and that those of you jumping on the chance to hang MSK out to dry try some serious self-reflection. --Dschor 07:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Nobody is perfectly good, and nobody is perfectly bad either. However, Selina has been too much trouble for whatever gain she has been bringing to the project. I believe the block must stay.
    But Tony's wording was poor indeed. Following process is the only sane way most of the time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Some users may be of the opinion that Selina has been more trouble than she is worth, but it is clear that she has become an easy target, and that admins are taking the opportunity to silence one of their more effective critics. Her edits in this instance were hardly worthy of a warning, and certainly not of the caliber demanded for an indefban to be placed on her account. Tony's "Fuck process" comment is an indicator of the level of discourse at which the administrative staff has chosen to engage MSK. Abusive blocks simply exacerbate the problem. Why give her more to complain about? What damage has she done to override WP:AGF? --Dschor 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, come now. Her edit was trollish and totally unacceptable. What's worse is the spray she gave when warned for it. And it's not as if her behaviour has been isolated – she's been a continual nuisance. This block is clearly warranted.--cj | talk 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Does anyone see the irony? Post in good humor that wikipedia may be turning fascist... and then get proved correct as admins swoop in to block with no regard for proportion. I could see 24 hours as the max for such an edit. Indefban? You must be kidding me. The block is more trollish than the edit was. --Dschor 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I'm afraid you seem to be taking an exceptionally narrow view of the reasons for this block. It wasn't solely her edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that justified the indefinate block, but her manner before and after it. It was, as they say, the final straw.--cj | talk 10:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    She has indeed been a nuisance from the start. Here's a wikified version of three posts I made on Wikipedia Review a couple of weeks ago, describing her history up to that date.

    She has been blocked several times since then, mainly for disruption and vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The user seems to be in a permanent state of war with the wiki. I support the indefinite block here. -- SCZenz 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Telectronics

    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

    This page has a long standing content dispute occurring with very little, make that no, discussion on the talk page. The IP party to the dispute emailed the help desk on Dec. 14 with:
    I am complaining about the entry under Telectronics in you dictionary. I am the son of the founder of the company and the reference to Keith Jeffcoat’s alleged contribution has no published citation. He did not work at the company until 1969 6 years after commencement in ME development and was employed as a salesman not an engineer. Also my late after was an engineer at Kreisler and worked in Radar during the War he was not simply a financier of Telectronics. I have a very concerned view of the material you are publishing as it may damage me and my business that is still today in the pacemaker field. I thought that you had to have published source material to publish material in your entries?
    I don't feel comfortable getting involved directly in the dispute as the 203.* IP editor has made direct contact with and I don't feel that my involvement would be seen as unbiased. The edit summaries of "unsourced material" refer to a suggestion that I made to the editor that information that is unsourced and factually untrue could be summarily deleted. He has since deleted sources and content witht he summary "unsourced material." I would really like someone else to deal with for the reason stated above, as well as the fact that I am trying to limit my involvement in Wikipedia altogether as I have extremely limited time IRL. If nothing has been done by next weekend I may try to work on it, although I also have a much heavier courseload in school this semester. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL•18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

    I do realize that content disputes aren't supposed to be brought here, but as an uninterested party I thought that someone sympathetic might be found here. As I said, this doesn't specifically require an admin, just someone level-headed with some time to spend on the wiki. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL•18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Revert/Edit War Going on 10 Reverts

    Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    The Washington University in St. Louis article has an on-going revert war about the Chancellor's salary. Sourced and cited information about it was arrived at using the talk page, and factual errors were corrected. The user CLyerla began to remove the information without explanation. I and another user have been restoring it every few days, while posting in the University's talk page and on the user's talk page requesting that (s)he participate in the discussion and offer some reason for the removal of the information. We have offered suggestions for compromise on the information, such as moving it to another article, with no response from CLyerla. Once we began to edit his/her talk page, the reverts of that same information have started to be done by an anonymous IP, again with no discussion. I and another user have left comments on the anon IP's talk page with no results so far (the anonymous IP is a machine at Washington University). The user has since removed the salary information again without any discussion or explanation.

    I applied a 24-hour block to the IP address for violating 3RR. Technically, the four reverts happened over a period greater than 24 hours, but considering it's most likely the same as User:CLyerla IMHO it's justified. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Wikipedia presently claims that Prince Georg of Bavaria had a bastard son and has articles that feature that supposed son's supposed descendants, including one actor who is asserted to have appeared, uncredited, in Amadeus, and who gave away his 10 million Euro trust fund to charity. I've asked on the article's talk page for sources for this assertion, and received protestations that the assertions are true, but no actual sources. But the reason this is on the noticeboard is that in the process the contributor has now asserted that his contribution is a copyright violation of itself(!) despite having been submitted under the GFDL, and has stated that "the descendants of Prince Georg" (by which he means the putative descendants)... "may be forced to file a libel lawsuit against Wikipedia". I would be happy if others would look in and assess the situation. - Nunh-huh 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I pointed User:Weissundblau to WP:NLT. At this point, it's just an empty threat, but if you can't verify any of the claims in there, I would send it to WP:AFD. howcheng {chat} 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Freespeechstore

    Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Richard Scoville, subject of this article, has sent a legal threat to the Help Desk mailing list. Since the article was created by User:Rscoville, and since the real Scoville is furious and has already put up a page on his site attacking not only Wikipedia, but Maru, who discussed the problem with him on the mailing list, it's obvious that the User who created the article is not him. As a result, I will be blocking User:Rscoville as an imposter. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Please unblock FFF

    Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

    He is a person I met at the VFW hospital, and I dont think his conduct should be blocked, he was only exersising his freedom of speech. Just because you dont agree with him doesnt mean you can silence him. Additionally, his sister is mentally retarded, I know that because I met her. FFF has diabetes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.74.74.202 (talk • contribs) .

    Who are you talking about? I don't see a User:FFF here. --Deathphoenix 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Im talking about Fighter For Freedom Republican91 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    there is no article at Fighter For Freedom and I'm not seeing any deleted articles either? Checked Fighter for Freedom too. --W.marsh 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Or a User:Fighter for Freedom or anything in the logs for them [77]. --W.marsh 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Uhhh... See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_me for more details on this. It's pretty much been decided. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I'm sorry, user:Fighterforfreedom, and by the way, you read too much Harry Potter

    The top message was posted on my talkpage too, by Republican91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ; I'll reply here once and for all. The privilege of editing Wikipedia has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why don't you try going to the Encyclopedia Britannica and insist on your constitutional right to insert "flaming communist homo" and "fucking bitch truckstop whore" in it? Everybody is invited to edit here, but the invitation is withdrawn if somebody is a mere drain on the project. I'm sorry Fighterforfreedom feels bad, and I'm even sorrier his sister (who is apparently not too retarded to navigate this site, something many healthy adult new users find quite challenging) talks exactly like he does. Please don't post on my page under any name again, it will only be removed. If you continue spamming this noticeboard with your unreasonable complaints, now that the case has already been fully discussed here, they will be removed on sight, too. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC).Reply

    Consider this edit by Republican91, the most recent sock puppet of Fighter For Freedom. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I've indef. blocked all the sockpuppets of Fighterforfreedom including Republican91. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:Roitr

    Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

    Adding note I put on Vandalism in progress, as I'll probably get something quicker if I come here:

    Oh, I feel that I should say some more anyway: all the rank article vandalism to Russia and China seemed to be adding two gold bars under the US category, along with the rank order: Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant, and First Lieutanant, neither of which exist, of course. He also came up with some rank on his own called Podpraporschik (which, as a vandal article, was deleted - that's why that is a red link and not a blue one). This user should have been dealt with a long time ago, and I am sick of this silly "He'll go away" attitude by adminstrators I have confronted. He hasn't went away: It is time to do something, NOW
    I also hope I can trust somebody will add more evidence against Roitr/Tt1 - note that all the IP addresses start with "80" something and according to this tracking service they all come out of Israel. (Open proxies, by the way, are illegal on Wikipedia) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Wow, this attracted as much attention as Vanilla Ice's music career (that is, recently :) ). Seems like no one cares, but remember, I warned y'all about this guy. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    A question about AOL autoblocks(copied from User_talk:Curps)

    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    I know that when you want to block an entire AOL range you sometimes use commands like 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of...' to take out the entire range for 15 minutes,
    the question is, could you use the same method to clear AOL autoblocks? as in 'unblocked User:64.23.132.13/22'? Or even better,
    how about 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of 0 minutes',
    then just do the same thing for each of the three major AOL ranges, 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x, maybe add it as a daily function for your bot, to clear any autoblocks that might pile up during the course of the day?--64.12.117.5 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    To my knowledge, that won't work. I use an ISP that is owned by AOL, and I've been hit by the autoblocker because of some of the AOL trolls, and unblocking has been darned impossible. Unblocking other autoblocked AOL IP's has not cleared mine, so I would tend to think there aren't ways of doing that. Geogre 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User:KDRGibby

    Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

    I'm attempting to keep blatant violations of WP:NPOV and WP:CITE out of the Debates over Wal-Mart article. Unfortunately, I'm currently up against the electric fence and have no reverts left. Here's an example of KDRGibby using the article as a POV essay: [85]. Note that Mallaby's arguments are endorsed in the encyclopedic voice, and that there isn't even a citation for the blatant POV under "Wal-Mart and Product Controversy". There are areas where reasonable Wikipedians disagree on POV issues, but this blatantly crosses the line. Note that this kind of behavior has gotten KDRGibby brought in front of Arbcom. I need some assistance in keeping the article in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Also, could someone please remind KDRGibby of WP:CIVIL - see [86], [87], [88] et. al. I try to avoid getting sucked into edit wars, but the alternative here is to allow the use of Wikipedia as a POV soapbox. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    This recent edit appears okay to me. Thanks for the alert -- I'll get started on adding this evidence to the arbcom case. Johnleemk | Talk 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Just an observation here, is his user page breaking the rules or no? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    At the very least, both his user and user talk pages should be removed from the article-space categories they're in. —Cleared as filed. 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I have previously asked him to do so when he decided to copy his POV version of communism (IIRC) onto his talk page, but he refused. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财! 06:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Vandalism, threats, harassment, personal attacks by User:211.30.206.11/other IPs/User:PatCheng

    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Having two ANI posts ignored over the past couple months, his misbehavior has unsurprisingly not subsided. He continues to daily follow my edits and revert them, such as this revert of Wild Swans (a sore subject for him), in which I did little more than restate what was already written in a more sensible fashion. He deleted the picture, which amounts to simple vandalism. So does, I believe, the removal of others' comments on talk pages which don't belong to the user. [89]

    He started his career here by vandalizing user pages such as mine (but others' as well), and he continues to make personal attacks, in edit summaries, in article talk pages, and in user talk pages. [90] [91] [92]

    More details found on my user page, which leads to the other ANI reports and other edits. Any action this time? Maybe a token response? --TJive 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I understand your frustration, as 211.30.206.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) does seem to be of negative value to the project. Going by the contribs, they could do with a block, and I would block, if they'd been adequately warned. That doesn't seem to be the case, though: I only see one, mildish and very recent, warning on his/her page. I can't slam them with a block on the strength of that, especially since they haven't edited after the warning. There's no warning of any import on the page of PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) either, and I can't find the other IPs you refer to. Hmmm, I see 211.30.205.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) from one of your links, is that the same person? That IP stopped editing in September, though. Could you please supply any other IPs that have been abusive, and preferably also give links to your previous complaints, as I'm having trouble locating them on your talkpage? Diffs to your original complaints would be fine. Or else just a renewed explanation of what they did and why you assume all the accounts to be the same user, if that's simpler. This is not a token response, I'll do what I can if you supply the info I request. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC).Reply

    Article Clint Cranford

    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Needs to be deleted under {{db-bio}}/{{db-band}}, but everytime I place the notice there it gets taken down (by the creators of the page). Google searches for names of people and albums mentioned in the article return few if any results.--216.165.33.63 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I don't see that it's a speedy, but I've listed it on AfD to give the community a chance to make a call on it. Essjay Talk • Contact 11:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


    Whale.to breaches of WP rules unabated by admin criticism

    Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    See Talk:Anti-vaccinationists. Assume good faith, no ad-hominem, a single-minded appraoch to making WP into yet another copy of propoganda on a single subject, whereas the man presumably has some actually useful material somewhere. May he (probably called John Whale) be blocked please, for a while or forever, I don't think he'll learn but some work can get done. Midgley 13:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Anomaly

    Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    What is wrong with the page Mackenzie Crook? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.142.245 (talk • contribs) .

    Persistent disruption on Talk:Jack Abramoff

    Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    Please note, an anonymous user from IP 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been causing significant disruption and posting threats to the community in general at Talk:Jack Abramoff. This same user was perviously operating from IP 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and managed to earn a block there. I'm not sure of the individual's actions at the new address has risen to the level of warranting a block yet, but it must be getting close. --StuffOfInterest 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I've blocked the most recent IP for 48 hours. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, all. When he pops up on his next IP I'll probably drop another note here. It appears he has a semi-static IP address as he keeps posting from one until it is blocked and then switches to a new one. --StuffOfInterest 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I have blocked User:85.250.217.240 for one week for posting a threatening message on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    He's back.. Now working from IP 62.0.142.114 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Obviously switching addresses to avoid blocks. Any appropriate action appreciated. --StuffOfInterest 00:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    User removing British

    Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

    A user has been systematically attempting to replace British as a nationality with English on a huge number of articles with no prior discussion or consensus and has continued to do it despite my messages on their talk page to stop. The user has an account Special:Contributions/Layla12275 but also uses Special:Contributions/82.4.86.73 and Special:Contributions/82.110.217.226 in order to evade a block for 3RR (although the user denies this). There has been some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#User_replacing_British_with_English. I would appreciate an admin asking the user to revert their edits as there has been no discussion let alone consensus on removing British nationality on WP. Arniep 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    All three have been warned. It appears that one of those IP's is from our old friends at Vandal High School and carries many warnings already. Nevertheless, let's hope that this is a single person with strong feelings who will respect our practices and not anyone with a wild hair or wild idea. Geogre 22:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    It's very common in the UK to refer to people as Scottish/English/Irish/Welsh rather than British. Referring to people as "British" is considered highly unusual. So, while it is inappropriate behaviour to make these changes unilaterally, the end result isn't inappropriate, or an example of controversy. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry I'd totally disagree with that. In general people from England are described as British in any other major reference work, and most people I know (in England) also regard themselves as British. Arniep 23:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Having lived in England, Wales and Ireland I recollect only one time that someone described themselves as British, and that was a friend of mine in the Navy whose mother was English and father was Scottish. Everyone else uses either their one nationality or a combination. English people calling themselves British is very rare, at least where I come from (East Midlands), perhaps it varies depending on region? - FrancisTyers 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Legally, English, Welsh and Scots are all British (British Nationality Act 1981), but really I don't care which way it is described as long as it's consistent: On Ian McKellen there's people reverting English to British, and on Robert Carlyle reverting British to Scottish. It makes my head hurt --TimPope 23:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Well, that isn't surprising. Generally it is accepted in reference works that Scottish and Welsh people are not described as British, but every person from England that I checked is described as British. Arniep 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I just check two reference works at random: Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary - Siegfried Sasson, English. Hutchinson Factfinder - William Wordsworth, English. --TimPope 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Well they are both people I would think of as very English. The point is I don't think that everyone identifies as English, especially ethnic minorities and people of close descent from Irish, Welsh or Scottish people for example. Britannica also lists Wordsworth and Sassoon as English, but Ian McKellen (who has close Scottish ancestry) as British. So really noone should just assume anyone from England should be identified as English. Arniep 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    The same goes for people from any country. Ideally we should go on what they think. How does Ian describe himself? If a reference for that can't be found then no mention of his ethnicity need to be made. We just say that he is an actor from the United Kingdom born in Lancashire. - FrancisTyers 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The problem is simple. Internationally many, particularly in the US, use English when they mean British (ie, from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, eg, saying Queen of England when legally there has not been a queen of England, or indeed a kingdom of England, since 1707). However certainly in the last decade since home rule was granted, British is not used to refer to people in the United Kingdom outside England (and Unionists in Northern Ireland). People from Wales and Scotland take high offence if called British, firstly because they want to be referred to by their own nationality (as far as they are concerned, Scotland and Wales are nations and should be referred to as such, irrespective of legal technicalities) and secondly because given the international tendency to equate British and English, they believe that saying that someone from Scotland is British can be interpreted as meaning they are from England. Calling someone from Scotland and Wales british is seen as POV, offensive and politically incorrect. The only issue is how to categorise people from England. Most English people have no problem with being called British. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Largely agree aside from Most English people have no problem with being called British.. I personally equate being called British with ignorance. Depending on who the ignorance is coming from I may or may not take offence, for example an American might not know better so it would be ridiculous to take offense, if someone from the UK called me British, I might not take offense but I'd certainly look at them funny - can they not tell from my accent? I wouldn't be offended (but I'd correct them), hell, I'd be more offended if someone thought I was from the South rather than from the Midlands ;) but I would be suspicious. I can only think of one occasion when someone has specifically described themselves as British and that guy had a Scottish dad and an English mum. - FrancisTyers 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Not everyone from England should be tagged English. Many people who are of close descent from Scottish, Welsh, or Irish or ethnic minorities might actually find it offensive. Arniep 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, see above for my suggestion. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


    My 1992 UPI stylebook (it may be a bit dated by now, I don't know if a new version has been published) has this entry:

    British, Briton(s) The people of Great Britain: The English, Scottish and Welsh. Do not use Brits except in direct quotations.

    It has not entry for English. (I don't know if that helps but it was interesting to look up.) RJFJR 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Dang it, folks! Let's not hash this out here, eh? The warnings I put on the pages was true: it doesn't matter which one is right or true. The fact is that the category folks have argued this for over a year, and they've got some consensus. For myself, I tend to call folks like Wordsworth "English," too. That's because the next word from my pen is "poet," and Wordsworth is an English-poet, and so is Robert Burns, even though the latter was a Scottish person (i.e. English language poet). Again, it sort of doesn't matter whether we can subdivide or not: we settle on the tag that is most inclusive and accurate. Would one want to tag Alfred the Great as a Wessex king and not an English king (I mean in terms of category)? I understand if people want to use an historical designation (English if they were from the time when the kingdoms were separate, British if before they were kingdoms or before union), but I think we've got to distinguish between profession, ethnicity, and nationality. This tag is only the latter. Maybe I'm wrong, but, if I am, let's hash it out at a more appropriate place -- the category talk, the bio MoS talk, etc., and not AN/I, because any way you slice it making a unilateral change on dozens of articles without discussion is blockable. Geogre 02:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I am an ignorant American but I thought in one traditional sense British was sometimes used to refer to the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of the island of Britain, especially the Welsh, Scots and non-Danelaw areas of England, as in the context of Arthur as the quintessential Briton. Is this not a recognized inclusive usage? alteripse 03:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Block of User:Kmac1036

    Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Greetings. User:Kmac1036 left a note on my talk page here complaining about his ban. The block log here shows that Tony Sidaway blocked him indefinitely with a reason of "(Role account, no article edits, "I created this account to stand up to the establishment")". I have no idea whether this was an appropriate action or not, but I thought I would ask for more information. Anybody know what this is about? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    I put this block up for review shortly after performing it. See the relevant thread on WP:AN. In the interests of avoiding unnecessary duplication, I ask for further comments on this block to be made on the relevant section in WP:AN.

    I'm certainly against this block. As the user points out, there is nothing in the BP about inactive accounts. While the 1st amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia, blocking someone for "challenging the establishment" (dissent), reeks of censorship. I've unblocked, but if another admin re-blocks, I won't wheel war. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    user:Pyro-tom

    Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    The account user:Pyro-tom is only used to include slander to the article Loughborough Endowed Schools, see my comment on the talk page. --Walter 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Help with an abusive user?

    Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

    There doesn't seem to be a specific process to deal with an abusive user once an RfC has been filed, so I'm going to try and ask here. To the point:

    Help? McNeight 22:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    You should take a look at Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes :) --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    I did. 2 months ago. I got as far as RfC, which still hasn't been acted upon, and then he disappeared for a while. I was willing to let bygones be bygones, until he showed back up on the RfC page taunting me and flouting the process. (I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic or not... my sarcasm filter is just plain busted from all of this). McNeight 23:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    No sarcasm intended, my apologies for the ambiguity. If the user in question ignores the RfC, you should request mediation or, if you think it's important enough and the user will ignore mediation, consider filing a request for arbitration, in which case the issue will be ruled upon by the Arbitration Committee, who can impose warnings, probation, blocks, or even bans. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    OK, thanks. Next step, mediation. McNeight 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    Son Gohan and 69.231.85.34

    Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    The Son Gohan article is contuinally edited, not so much vandalized because the info is partially correct, by a consistently changing IP (with 69.231.85.34 being it's latest) but it's obviously the same person. At the article's talk page, I have asked twice for the person to stop, but he/she just won't quit. Maybe protection of the article would be best... Kusonaga 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

    The IP's edits seem to be spaced out far enough that protection doesn't seem reasonable (the last instance before today's was 3 days ago). If we are going to protect it should be semi. BrokenSegue 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=37161903"