Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. Lefty (talk | contribs) at 01:59, 29 August 2006 (→M7 MBA / User:Opeman: not according to the deletion log...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    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


    User:Cute 1 4 u

    This user is part of a complex blocking web and is currently requesting an unblock. I'm passing on it and am curious what the consensus of other admins is on this situation and the block. More information is here[1]. Yanksox 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an admin myself, but I hope my opinion is still valid. :) I wasn't aware that one had to be a certain age to edit Wikipedia, so I think blocking for that is rather odd. A checkuser filed came back inconclusive, so she's probably not the same person as S-man, as was speculated. However, she was in cahoots with S-man and his project to vandalize other Wikimedia projects. So I think that as long as S-man retains his block, Cute 1 4 u should, too, since they were blocked for the same thing. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the block was based upon speculation, but in some manners she has exhausted some of our patience with certain actions. I'm not sure if this has to do with age or the possibility of trolling(?). The whole we'll vandalise other projects was the icing on the cake for me, maybe she needs mentorship in order to better understand the project. Yanksox 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She claimed on her talk page that she didn't vandalize, and from what I can tell on Simple Wikipedia, she's telling the truth. Maybe we should reconsider...? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She has impersonated celebrities (see User:Raven Symone), and from what I've seen, she is exhausting the patience of a lot of people. While I do support the indefinite block, the user is just young, so a shorter, several month block may also work. I wouldn't say unblock, but lessen the block? Perhaps. Cowman109Talk 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be opposed to lessening the block, but we would also have to consider the other younger users which all seem to be connected to each other. I've been curious about how all of these different users met each other, was it through here, a colberation? I'm not sure, there has been some exhaustion of community patience. Yanksox 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a shorter (that is, a definite) block. We should also remember that assuming this person really is the age claimed, it seems to take longer for time to pass when you are young. That said, I'd fully support a permanent ban if there's any further problem behaviour from this user and furthermore, I explicitly agree with what Yanksox says immediately above this. We should also remind the user that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It's also worth noting that I am probably functioning as a hopeless optimist. --Yamla 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (De-indenting) (edit conflict) Perhaps the Wikipedia Youth Foundation had something to do with them meeting up? They're not the same person, according to CheckUser. But I do agree, their use of Wikipedia as a social networking site was inappropriate. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser was inconculsive, not definitive, we don't know wheter or not they are related. Yanksox 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you suppose a checkuser should be filed with just S-man and Cute 1 4 u? The others in the first one may have thrown it off... --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You can try it, I'm don't know how any checkuser will respond. Yanksox 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ((edit conflict)) Here I go again, butting in even though I'm not an admin. I saw all the ruckus on Cute's talk page and have to voice my opinion. From what I can gather, she never vandalized or intended to vandalize an article, project, category, template, etc., on Wikipedia. In light of this, and being WP:BOLD, my suggestion is: block for a short period of time (1 week, perhaps), indefblock her from the other project that she intended to vandalize, and set her up with a mentor (I'll volunteer). Srose (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually not a bad idea. I don't think she has bad intentions, but merely age-related ignorance. I think mentorship would be a very good alternative to an indefblock - it's worked in the past. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me!<;/sub> 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully support this, it's a much better idea than the block alone in my opinion. I also support this for any other user blocked under these terms provided a mentor volunteers (please don't look at me, I'm not good at this sort of thing, though I'll chip in from time to time). I doubt we need anything particularly official set up. We probably need to run this past the original blocking admin, mind you. --Yamla 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified The Anome. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly recommend that no one set themselves up as "internet mentors" for eleven year old children named "Cute 1 4 u" without discussing the matter privately with the WF. Jkelly 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Whilst well-intentioned, this would be worse that the original problem. Children should only be supervised by their parents or other legal guardians, not random strangers from the Internet, no matter how well-intentioned. I also agree that this issue should referred to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- The Anome 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on my part as well. I hadn't thought of the unpleasant legal circumstances. Srose (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note. Aren't the servers in the US and under US law? Aren't all users required to be 13 years old unless they provide signed consent from their parents? I know Maxis requires anyone who signs up for the BBS that are under 13 years old to have their parents fax in the consent. Anyone found to be under 13 and without consent is banned.--Crossmr 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We should get an answer from the Foundation once and for all about how old you have to be to edit Wikipedia, and therefore interact with other users. I do not think mentorship has to be anything other than communicating through talk pages, so I do not see why anything special would have to be done for it. Some people want all those under 18 or 21 excluded (from comments on the Village Pump), but I doubt that is going to happen. Blocking those that admit to be under 13 would be the most extreme thing I see the Foundation doing. Although, there is the problem of a person who is too young editing through a shared IP with lots of people on it, a dynamic IP or ultradynamic IP (an IP that changes with every page load). Also, there are school IPs that have people with a wide range of ages editing on them, from elementary students, to high school students and faculty. -- Kjkolb 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of what the foundation says, if there is law in place wikipedia will need to comply with it at a minimum so working from that is a starting spot. I'm not an American but I often see mention of it on sites hosted in the US, but I don't know the specifics of the law, if anyone has them handy it would be a launching point for a decision.--Crossmr 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I mean. We would ask the Foundation and they would ask their legal counsel. -- Kjkolb 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the world's leading expert on this but I believe this 13-years-old thing only applies if the site wishes to collect personal information from the user (name, age, location, etc). Wikipedia asks for none of that so there's no problem. -- Steel 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I found it here [2]. Personally I'm not sure how wikipedia falls under this. We don't necessarily demand personal info to use the site, but on the other hand, we're aware that we do have it (especially if this user can be e-mailed, than we do indeed have their e-mail and fall under coppa).--Crossmr 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Age question aside, blocks should be preventative rather than punitive. If she's learned her lesson about sockpuppets, then I think she should get another chance. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The age question is sort of central here. If I interpret coppa one way, she should be blocked indef until we have consent on hand from her parents that she's allowed to edit here.--Crossmr 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, shouldn't she only be blocked until she's 18? =) Powers T 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Till she's 13 actually, so 2 years. Which would probably end up being indef as its unlikely they'd return to that account after 2 years.--Crossmr 23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned this discussion to User:BradPatrick. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we should be clear on the law so our policy is consistent with it. In the future, we may also want to post some suggestions to all young users when we notice them (Don't post your name, address, and other personal information. Don't upload personal pictures, etc...), sometimes the user is just not thinking of the potential consequences of being too open. NoSeptember 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps a template is in order? Template:Younguser or something like that?--Crossmr 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just be careful with the templates; make sure they're not too obvious... I don't think Wikipedia is pedophile-free. (No site on the Internet is anymore.) Srose (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer a more general securityreminder welcome which mentions this. There are three benefits: First, it would be flexible enough to be used with people who just post a lot of personal info regardless of age. Second, it would not work as a flag to pedophiles. Third, users given the template will be less likely to be offended by it. JoshuaZ 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good, we can work with that regardless of what happens in this situation. I still think we need to address the issue of Coppa though.--Crossmr 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    removed unhelpful speculation Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that User:BradPatrick has been informed of this issue, we can wait for direction from the Foundation, and publishing further speculation here is unlikely to be helpful. Jkelly 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, folks, could some explain what is meant by "coppa" here? It seems to be a central issue, yet no explanation is given, no links provided, and there is no WP:COPPA. It seems to be related to underage children registering on websites with parental consent, but I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia policy on this issue. This is an important issue at en:Wikiquote, where q:User:Cute 1 4 u is an active editor and has even requested adminship (which I can say rather certainly will not happen). But I apparently need some pointers to critical info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC), en:Wikiquote admin[reply]

    COPA is the Child Online Protection Act - a law in the United States that forbids the collection of information online from minors under the age of 13. — Werdna talk criticism 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Child Online Protection Act --kingboyk 09:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), not Child Online Protection Act (COPA). —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:02Z
    Thanks! Do you have any links to any policy or discussions within the Wikimedia Foundation or its projects that pertain to how to protect both underage editors and the Foundation itself? For example, how are we supposed to confirm parental consent, when our editors are anonymous, even if they claim to be so-and-so? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in the article or the FTC external link "How to Comply With The Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule" that covers Wikimedia's situation. We don't collect, let alone distribute, any personal information other than an optional email. The real problem is that children (and quite a few adults, too, but they're on their own) are often unwise enough to post all sorts of personal information about themselves. (I could write a few paragraphs of bio about "Cute 1 4 u" based on the info she's provided on WP, WQ, and linked sites, which would scare the hell out of me if I were her parent.) This is not information we collect, so it doesn't seem to be covered. Nor is it clear how Wikipedia could obtain "verifiable parental consent" when we don't even really know who the editors in question are. (All that bio info could be made up; "Cute" could be a 35-year-old male, for all we know.) Surely somewhere in Wikidom there is a discussion going on about how we address, or are planning to address, this issue? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the point I made above and COPPA it doesn't require that you intentionally collect the information, but if you know that it has been provided i.e. someone admits to being under 13 and they've entered their e-mail address in their account, then you've violated COPPA. A site could be COPPA compliant and then 5 minutes later not be because an under age individual has shown up and entered their e-mail without parental consent. In order to remain compliant you have to either remove the individual's account or get parental permission.--Crossmr 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I'm a Wikiquote admin. I have reason to believe Cute is 11. Does Wikiquote have her email address? I can't query the database to find out. I could try to email her, but I will only know if she has one if she responds. If she doesn't, I still don't know. Assuming that Wikiquote is violating COPPA by allowing her personal information (unrequested, but on her user page) to be displayed, who do I contact to get permission? Do I become a stalker to track down her last name and address, then write a letter to her parents? Or do I remove this information, ask her not to repost it, and block her from editing if she doesn't provide a means to confirm consent? If she does this last, how do I know it's legit? We're probably not talking about kids scrawling poorly forged signatures from their parents about being unable to do their homework. These and many other questions and their consequences must be addressed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Where is this discussion taking place? As an active admin on a WMF project, with this likely underage editor currently causing concern on WP, WQ, and possibly other projects, I would like to join this discussion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an admin, but I am really concerned about the situation now. Maybe we should create a new policy that prohibits displaying personal info on a userpage. As said somewhere above, no website is safe. There could be a pedophile anywhere in Wikimedia.--Edtalk c E 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Practical suggestion

    Have a policy that "No one identifiable as under-18 may have a user id on Wikipedia". This doesn't mean no under-18s can edit, or even have user pages, just that if it is possible to identify them as youngsters - what a paedophile will be looking for - then the account is immediately blocked. This is one occasion when opening another account would be perfectly OK - as long as again there is no way to determine the age of the user.

    The "identifiable as under-18" criterion could be very broad: photos, mention of school, link to MySpace site with info... Anything. And it should be made clear that these measures are not punitive to the user - they are entirely protective.

    There is still the issue of potential abusers sending out speculative emails to users hoping are young. But some of these emails will end up going to older folk, which will then be an indicator of who might be dodgy.

    Will require policing, but may be lightweight in comparison to other solutions. Dunno how any of this will interact with the legal requirements: as said above, let's wait on what Brad says. JackyR | Talk 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I the only one who thinks this should be a matter for the Foundation and it's lawyers? Sometimes guidance has to come from up above. We're just unpaid volunteers and not (in the main) legal experts. --kingboyk 15:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This is up to the Foundation. We must be secure and protective to all young Wikipedians. But maybe we shouldn't be too harsh yet. If we make this new policy, all userpages, including subpages, will be reviewed by an admin. If there is info that could pinpoint the exact location of a user, the content in question will be blanked. If the user puts it back, then we tell the user it is for their own protection. If it happens again, the user will be blocked.
    I don't see the need of under-18, under 13 is what the law requires. By sticking to that we're not placing any subjective criteria on a user that would require judgement. Anyone under 13 who identifies themselves as such should be blocked until they turn 13 (without asking for birthdays, if they identify as 11, block for 2 years). --Crossmr 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I also recommend that we have a special page for dealing with harassment. That way, if a young user is contacted by a pedophile, then we can take immediate action. Also, having a centralized page for complaints and reports could make it easier for local police to view all of the incidents and take action. Note: I am not an admin.--Edtalk c E 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we have an opportunity here to deal with two problems at the same time. The second problem I'm seeing is the increasing usage of this site as a social network, especially by under 18s. They have a few minor edits here and there to fairly trivial articles, but mostly a stack of userboxes and a talk page bursting with chat from other under 18s. Why don't we simply:

    • Delete and prohibit all user boxes which state the user's age or year of birth (birthdays are fine, just no year)
    • Delete all Wikipedians by age categories
    • Automatically block anyone who states their age if it's under x, and block them until birthday x, per Crossmr.
    • Strongly discourage users from revealing their age if under 18, because it detracts from our encyclopedic purpose (and will lead some people to discriminate against them too, I might add).

    If these ideas, or a variation thereof, are thought workable perhaps we could put up a policy proposal page somewhere. --kingboyk 09:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a policy proposal already at WP:CHILD. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Publicgirluk

    Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate

    Please edit the draft of Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifyable models including changing the name to something better than I could think of. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jakov.miljak

    This user is behaving very, very interesting. He used to be Croatian nationalist, now he is Serbian nationalist, he vandalises his own user page and is insulting himself. This edit by anonimous user states that Jakov has problems loging onto his own account so his acc seems to be hijacked. Should be block the acc? --Dijxtra 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reverted some vandalism by this user. It was kind of trollish. E Asterion u talking to me? 11:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is querying my reverts, denying any knowledge and suggesting that his account may have been hacked. See this. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Self taken Provocative Photos:

    If the User:Publicgirluk stops uploading sexually charged photos of herself to Wikipedia, I have volunteered to start doing so myself. My boyfriend and I love to take sexy pics! We are thinking about making one to complement the Anal Sex article.

    Also, User:Anchoress has also expressed interest in making photos for Wikipedia along those lines.

    Thanks :)Courtney Akins 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You are hopefully aware that you might be tripping up WP:POINT. Hbdragon88 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say, WP:TROLL. Blocked indefinitely for disruption. El_C 04:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say that her edits have been wise... but is an indefinite block really appropriate? Based on the user's contribution history, she seems interested in a) decreasing the Myspace-ness of the Wiki (using a few measures that have been proposed by others, a few not) and b) increasing Wikipedia's coverage of sexuality, particularly borderline practices. For that matter, the behavior you've mentioned hardly seems to come close to WP:BLOCK's description of disruption, and an indefinite block of a user with a couple hundred edits (many of which have been productive) without a community ban is highly irregular. As an admin of long standing, you've earned community trust... but is there something that I'm not seeing here? Would it not have been more productive to raise your concerns with the editor before blocking? Captainktainer * Talk 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree entirely - this block seems very irregular. El C, please reconsider it. -- ChrisO 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to clarify something - I think the editor was in the wrong with her proposal, and I think she was a little haughty and arrogant. But I don't feel that haughtiness and arrogance merit a complete and unilateral ban from the community. I think it might be helpful to talk to the user in question, warn her to spend more time in the community before making policy proposals - a very brief block to cool things off, if there was considerable disruption, I think might have been appropriate. She clearly has a lot to learn about Wikipedia policies. But, barring information that El_C has that I don't, I have to question the proportionality of the response. Captainktainer * Talk 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have tried to mentor the above user, I feel that El C's block is pretty much in order. There were things that El C explained to me, via email, that gave me enough reason to believe the block was just. Sure, I tried to help Courtney out and gave her pointers and all of that stuff. But even with my advice, she is doing this, so I am not sure if in the long run if she will be a good contributor or I will be burned at the stake at some random RFAr. However, if this user is unblocked, I would still like to mentor her, but I need something with teeth, because I can admit that Courtney is a wild gal, I just need something to tame her. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay... I think there's something to be said for trust and respecting the long history of established admins in this matter. Perhaps ArbCom would be willing to place a temporary injunction on her, enjoining her not to make policy proposals until they can review her case? That way she can continue to edit while they consider her case. Alternatively, if she's willing to accept mediation, perhaps she could be talked into accepting that sort of remedy voluntarily. Maybe these ideas are farfetched... I just think that there might be ways to handle this situation that don't end in a block. Captainktainer * Talk 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There were things that El C explained to me, via email - how about it's explained to the rest of us - here? Wikipedia cannot have it both ways, yes THIS editor MIGHT be trying to make WP:POINT but as a general principle, if we don't have censorship here - then within the context set-up in the previous dicussions I have seen about this issue of people uploading pornography pictures of themselves, it seems entirely straightforward and reasonable for members to say "I see the scat article does not have a picture, do you want a picture of my girlfriend shitting on my face?". (I'm actually against pornography images on wikipedia but I bow to the community on the matter). --Charlesknight 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and by the way, real pictures are highly controversial. Even drawings of anal sex and other sexual poses have been somewhat contentious; real photos would be even more controversial. Wikipedia is not officially censored, but consensus dictates what goes into an article or not (like, for instance, whether the drawing in Missionary position should have the teddy bear or not). Hbdragon88 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is talking about what they might do. How is that "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? Not finding the word "troll" on WP:BP I am guessing this block is warranted under "exhausting the communitiy's patience" and I must admit to not being familiar with this editor's past but with only one block (this one) to her name I don't really see how the community's patience block applies here. Could someone spell out specifically which section of the blocking policy this block falls under? Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The commonsense part? Tyrenius 09:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't a "common sense" clause in WP:BLOCK, for good reason; the blocking tool is powerful and can potentially cause great havoc, so all blocks should be done with care and forethought. The closest that comes is "Disruption," which has a 24-hour max for the first block. Captainktainer * Talk 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's get everyone to look through all of this user's edits and then go for exhausting the community's patience. Tyrenius 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am so glad someone's had the initiative to indef block this blatant troll. A few hours ago I went through all of this user's edits, and it was unmistakable. This is not a novice. This person knows their way round all the nooks and crannies of wikipedia. Within the first two days they had not only created their first article on "Throat gaggers" oral sex porn film, but had proposed it as a featured article, describing it as a work of "pure genius". That is just such a wind-up. Then as a new user in their first two days they put up a bit of Florida for AfD.[3]. Also in this meteoric career, also in the first two days, they found their way to Categories for deletion on the Rouge Admins template. Day 3 sees our newbie placing a NPOV template on an article on Human rights in Brazil, saying it is "99% negative" and "not sourced" (sources are given), and then, before the day is out, nominating Gay rights in Brazil as an AfD. Need I go on? An extra worry is that this person was not female at all, and was not the subject in the photo. Seems par for the course. It would also be interesting to run Checkuser on this editor and the IP vandal that posted the sexual photos on the user page. Zscout370, I emailed you about this, but didn't get a reply. Did you get my email, or does the Foundation eat them or something? Tyrenius 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not recieve such email, go ahead and send again. If that doesn't work, my WP talk page should be fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at some of the poster's track record, and I can see why someone might conclude that she is mainly here to take the piss engage in satire and merry japes. That said, she still has a way to go before it's a question of community patience being exhausted. I suggest she be unblocked soon on the basis that it's been long enough on this occasion. Metamagician3000 09:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do you explain that this so-called newbie finds "her" way around with a competence that takes most people weeks or months to develop, and yet, despite this obvious sophistication, manages to come out with actions that use all the right words to purport to help wikipedia and yet are all perfectly inappropriate. I've looked at every one of the edits. I suggest you do the same. It's actually highly amusing, but I don't think wikipedia's purpose is to cater for that kind of amusement. Tyrenius 09:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And if her edits continue to be mainly attempts (some moderately amusing, some not) at satirising Wikipedia, with attendant disruption, I'll probably support an indefinite block "next time". This is sort of like an RfA oppose in reverse. Metamagician3000 09:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to user Tyrenius' post, if this user is an abusive/disruptive sockpuppet then indeed an indefinite block is warranted in this case. (→Netscott) 09:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should unblock "her" just to see what "she" does next. It's hilarious once you're in on it to see everyone take it so seriously. We could just keep it to ourselves. And watch. :) Tyrenius 09:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Strike - it's not very nice that this person is exploiting people's kindness and generosity. Tyrenius 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't take offence at Courtney bringing me into this conversation, although she slightly misrepresented me, but personally I have felt that she was on a road to inevitable blocking from the first posts I saw of her. I think she is a troll, I think she is probably a sock (I have some opinions of who but won't smear anyone), and while I don't have an opinion on a permanent block I think she'll eventually get one, one way or another. A third of her edits are great, a third are blatant - at the very least useless to the project and at worst inappropriate - attention-seeking, and a third are subtle trolling. In my interactions with her I AGF, but my opinion is that s/he's like a kid who shoots spit balls at the teacher when her back is turned, then sits there with an innocent smile the rest of the time. Anchoress 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bang on target. Tyrenius 09:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to read every single diff, but I looked at a few more, and it just confirms what a few of us have been saying: this user's career here is an elaborate piss-take. There may be some genuinely helpful edits somewhere, but if so they are hard to find.
    I dunno. She's wasting a lot of our time, even if some of it is funny once you understand what she's up to. I suppose it's a question of whether there is any admin who is prepared to tell her that we got the joke and we'd now like to give her a chance to edit seriously. I'm not going to be that admin. Maybe someone else is more soft-hearted. If anyone does give her a second chance, I for one will watch her. If no one does, I guess that's the definition of a community ban. Either way, El_C made a good catch here. Metamagician3000 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I support an indef ban as the very first ban, for a user with a record, if that record includes productive edits. I'm inclined to agree with MM3K about the career so far but I do think someone ought to tell this user "we get the joke and here's your chance to edit seriously". So I'd give this user a second chance and watch carefully. I'm not seeing consensus either way yet though, and I'd like to hear from El C before I overturned his block, as I REALLY don't like to overturn other people's blocks. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Assume Good Faith" doesn't mean we have to act willfully stupid or credulous. I support El C's action, because this user smells like an obvious troll to me. Nandesuka 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as Lar is the one doing the watching, I'm with Lar here.(you did volunteer! ;-P) You will indef block if this person acts up again, right? Anybody strongly opposed? If not... good luck! Kim Bruning 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if I overturn the block I'll keep an eye on this user to the best of my ability (but welcome help). Perhaps a notice to the user to that effect by me is in order as well. Maybe even a mentorship. And yes, if something does transpire that is unacceptable, I would block indefinitely, I've blocked indefinitely before and have no issues with the concept, just didn't think it was warranted yet in this case. El C, is this acceptable to you? ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see any warning related to the reasoning behind the ban, this seems out of order, and perhaps inspired by other events unrelated to the user being banned. I recently looked through this users contributions, and I see that other reasons may have been involved with the ban, however those reasons were not made clear. HighInBC 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't say I support the block. Based on looking at a few diffs, the user seems naive (e.g. lack of appreciation of copyright), but not dangerous. I also hope we're not blocking people just because they offer to upload pictures of anal sex. If we prefer to stick with illustrations of sexual techniques as opposed to photographs (I've no opinion on this), we can tell the user this rather than blocking them outright. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtney doesn't seem to be an overly disruptive user to begin with. Considering this is her first block ever and she was blocked for disrupton, seems a little suspicious. I think she would need to be mentored for Wikipedia civility, if anything. Her message above was inappropriate, yes, but blockworthy, maybe not so much. I would have tried to talk to the user about her actions, and block (for maybe 48 hours) if she continued to be disruptive, but indefblocked.. never.. for the above message. I don't know if her block was very justified in the sense of disruption, because no warnings were ever used and there doesn't seem to be many comments on her talk page about her conduct prior to her block. — The Future 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done the look-at-every diff thing. Somebody said a third of her edits are great; they aren't. Of her edits, I counted six which seemed OK, and only one, this human experimentation business she agitated about on AN/I, which truly helped the encyclopedia. My opinion is that Courtney couldn't troll us any harder if she had came back in time from the future with a cybernetic trolling machine with which to troll us. She's completely disruptive, but in a slow, methodical way that has been shy of producing any blocks. Should she be indefed? Sigh, I guess not. I suggest reducing the block to a week and letting this episode stand as a warning. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no doubt that the sole purpose of this account is disruption, and I commend El_C for acting on that basis. However, it was a BOLD move and he has properly posted it here for discussion. Some other users have raised various doubts and opinion is divided. I think it is right to make sure that people are happy with admin actions. One objection is that a warning was not given for what could be seen as naivete, rather than deliberateness. I propose that this block to date should serve as that warning, and now be lifted. It is not going to do a great deal of harm now that Courtney Atkins is going to be closely watched. It won't take long to confirm things one way or the other, and it should at the very least provide some amusement. Has there ever previously been an article simultaneously a Featured Article Candidate and an Article for Deletion, I wonder? I propose also that any user should feel free to revert any action by Courtney Atkins, if they feel it is not appropriate, provided they leave an explanation on Courtney Atkins' talk page as to why they have done so, for educational purposes. Also, bearing in mind the pranks, we should not allow the uploading of any photos, unless it can be proved that these are the copyright of Courtney Atkins. Tyrenius 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That all seems reasonable to me. I'm not lifting unless 1) either I hear from El C or a clear consensus here develops, right now it's not clear to me yet, and 2) the user responds positively to my offer of mentorship. I note Zscout offered to help mentor as well. Others may choose differently but those are my criteria for lifting.++Lar: t/c 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I support Tyrenius' suggestion, upon hearing from El_C again. — The Future 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. My only fixed position is on the photos, which I feel otherwise could be a serious error. Tyrenius 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it could be. If she's unblocked, I think she should be allowed to upload Images as long as they aren't about the very pointy ones she expressed here about self-photos of her recieving anal sex. I would support of blocking of her is decided to post those Images. — The Future 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had encounters with Courtney, and I've read this post, and I'm stongly opposed to the unblocking of Courtney. She is a WP:Point troll in the worst sense of the term I kind of just made up. She is almost dilberately hypocritical in the sense she posts about Wikipedia becoming myspace, while she has a photo of herself plastered on her userpage and makes posts like these[4][5][6][7]. I'll confess I haven't read the book, but I doubt this. Also, I find these posts just really odd[8][9]. Also, it didn't help when she suggested a Stalinist system of maintaining user accounts. She has certainly exhausted my patience, demonstrates trollish behavior, and to be perfectly blunt is up to no good in my opinion. Yanksox 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm an outlier here, but when I contrast this user with other "exhausted our patience" users, I'm just not seeing that we're anywhere near that point yet. I think you guys know I think of myself as firm and intolerant of trolling (some of which I do definitely see here) but I'm not seeing the exhausted part yet. I expect typically to see a larger history here, or somewhere else, before I get to "exhausted my patience" state. You can count on me to mentor this user and if it's not working out, block, and block hard. But if the community doesn't agree, that's fine too. I'd like to get to a conclusion though, if possible. I wish El C would speak up again. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    unblocked

    After hearing from El C that he has no objections, I have unblocked this user. See: User_talk:Courtney_Akins#Unblocked. What I would ask from the rest of you is twofold, give me the space to mentor this user and see if they can reform and fly right... don't expect me to jump on every little thing. But on the other hand, DO please bring things to my attention, issues, advice, anything you feel I need to know. My email and talk are always open to my fellow admins. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, cool with me. Metamagician3000 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be happy to co-operate. Tyrenius 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A victory for the trolls. Again, natch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what Jeffrey? Lar has volunteered to bear the burden so you don't have to. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't have to "exhaust the community's patience" to be blocked indefinitely

    Catching the tail end of this on returning from a break, I just want to protest the notion that an account needs to "exhaust the community's patience" before they can be blocked indefinitely. El C clearly didn't place an "exhausted patience" block but an "all edits trolling" block. Such blocks can with perfect appropriateness be set on an account's first day. Why ever not? We frequently invoke "All edits vandalism" as a reason for pretty much immediate indefinite blocks; is there a significant difference between that and this? No. Not even if the editor was savvy enough to technically make one or two non-trolling edits just to spike our guns. Lar's wasting his time, but it's his choice. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Chiming in to point out that I've blocked a few accounts indef (see for yourself: Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) ) in some cases with just one edit (when that single edit was by an account with a bad username that was clearly vandalism) so it's not that an account NEEDS to have exhausted the community's patience. It's just that it was asserted (or felt to me like it was asserted) that this one had, and I'm not sure that's the case, as it hasn't yet exhausted mine and I think I'm part of the community (right? er, maybe don't answer that? :) ). Note also that I didn't unilaterally lift, I got El C's concurrance first... I could well be wasting my time, who knows, we shall see. (something you've suspected me of doing in the past in other contexts, mind you) Or maybe I have other motives, as I did those other times you thought I was wasting my time. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you weren't the one barking up the Exhausted Patience tree as if it was the only one in the forest. But several other users were. A metaphor of dogs, not monkeys. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    No one objected when I indef blocked User:General Tojo without warning, for ex. Perhaps he lacked the promise of sexy pics! ;) El_C 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of the fact that User:General Tojo was banned indefinitely without warning. Perhaps you are a bit too trigger happy with your ban button? Dionyseus 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Awareness is good! El_C 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweetest Day

    All primary source information (including photos) was just edited out of the Sweetest Day page by Transfinite. It was replaced with unverified information. It seems obvious that someone is interested in keeping the Sweetest Day page full of disinformation rather than primary source information. Can anything be done about this?

    Thank you!

    Miracleimpulse 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You inserted a lot of malformatted stuff into the article without clearly identifying a source. I would say the other editor was right to revert your edits. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The source of all information was clearly stated as being The Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper issues dated 10/8/21 and 10/8/22. Each photo was clearly marked with the source and date. No primary source has been identified for any of the current information posted about Sweetest Day. Why shouldn't the facts about Sweetest Day be posted on Wikipedia? Miracleimpulse 09:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to mention the fact that you've uploaded a mass of images with completely incorrect copyright tags. --InShaneee 13:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the correct tag to use for self-made images? Miracleimpulse 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You have the correct tag for self-made images already. But these images are not self made, they're cropped images from another source. Cropping a copyrighted image doesn't remove the copyright. If you think these are off copyright by age, one of the PD tags is correct. If you are asserting fair use, a fair use tag is correct. A discussion of tags can be found here: Commons:Copyright_tags, and it does cover fair use (although fair use images have to stay on en: they cannot be uploaded to commons). Hope that helps. That said, I looked at the article as it was prior to reversion and I agree with those who said that it was a mass of unformatted (and possibly copyrighted) material. That material should be discussed on the talk page, and the article modified to cite the material without including it. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are the images in this article now in compliance with Wikipedia copyright tag policies? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612

    Also, why do the Administrators of Wikipedia have no comment(s) on the unverified nature of the current Sweetest Day article? The "Herbert Birch Kingston and His Friends" article has zero verification and lists no primary sources. This seems like a double standard. Miracleimpulse 06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikistalking?

    User:Netsnipe noticed suspicious activity and suggested I report it here. From my talk page: "Just a warning that a vandal might be wikistalking you. Your request to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse has now been removed twice without explanation by IdlP (talk • contribs) and Rm104 (talk • contribs)." Followed by: "Even this message was deleted by QFMC (talk • contribs)." At Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse I had posted a request for advice along with a link to this page: User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. The only other activity by User:IdlP was to a featured list candidate where I voted on 21 August. [10] Another new account User:CF18000 deleted posts of mine from two different project talk pages on 21 August. Please investigate. Durova 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm on it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else got there first. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the upshot? ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Any news? Durova 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Syphonbyte

    Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was briefly blocked for being an impostor of Cyde, and then unblocked on AGF. A CheckUser I have just run shows that the account was very likely created by Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with whom Cyde appears to have had a dispute, for harassment. The impostor account is now reblocked, but I leave it up to you to decide what to with the creator of the account. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Syphon for 48 hours. I would not object if another admin feels a need to lengthen this block. JoshuaZ 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has requested a review on their talk page, I reviewed it, declined to lift, and support this block. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    48 hours seems about right for a first offense of this nature. Hopefully he will realize he is now on a short leash and any more sockpuppets will escalate the ban. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you may want to check this out for more suspected sock activity. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Halibutt attacks me again

    I had asked for Halibutt to be warned for personally attacking me less than a week ago, my petition on here was removed without any action being taken, and he has now done it again. if you will notice here[[11]], he has personally insulted me again. hopefully this time someone will do some justice and atleast warn him.

    --Jadger 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You called a user Trollobo instead of his username Molobo and you want us to warn the user who pointed out to you that this was rude by doing the exact same thing to your username? Grow a thicker skin. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the most WP:CIVIL response Theresa could have gaven you, but I agree with her. The message he gave you was ingood faith unlike your original message and now you want someone to warn him because he supposedly did it to you? Sorry, but I wouldn't warn him. — The Future 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. BTW, User:Molobo is not another user, it is a troll that has been banned for a full year for his trolling. Hali was not the one that pointed out it was "rude", it was Lysy. that is not his only personal attack upon me, on my talk page "why do you think all black people should be exterminated" yet I have never spoken to him about Black people or anything of the sort. as in Western law, not only must the law be done, it must be seen to be done. So let me get this straight, if both sides break the rule, neither should be warned/punished? In that case I would like the previous warning upon myself removed from my record/talk page, as it for my remark that was in response to the "black extermination comment", which was not in fact a personal attack, but I pointed out his personal attack upon me was a logical fallacy. --Jadger 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was not a personal attack. I suggest you find something more productive on Wikipedia to do than name call which isn't getting you nowhere. — The Future 01:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't mean you get to call him Trollobo. And I agree with everyone else; I saw no attack against you. Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    then if they were not personal attacks, can I remove the improper warning from my talk page? you all after all stated it was not a personal attack, that makes one against 4 (4 saying it wasnt a personal attack, 1 saying it was) --Jadger 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets get a few things straight, we never said Halibutt's edit was a personal attack. We never said that your edit wasn't. Next, Wikipedia isn't based on votes nor is a democracy (your 4-1 comment above). Still, you're editing here has become vexing, so I strongly suggest you let the matter drop now.. If you remove the warning from your talk page, I will revert. — The Future 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with The Future here. You are not going to get what you want from us here. My advice is to drop the matter. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    wikipedia is built upon consensus, it is the wikipedia's foundation. --Jadger 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is, and I think everyone here has come to the consensus that were not going to warn him. — The Future 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is User:Stasi2 an inappropriate username?

    Just wondering, if this is not too offensive then feel free to undo my username block. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I don't find it offensive but that's because I have no idea what it means. Can you explain please? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Stasi were the East German secret police. So "Stasi2" is a bit like naming yourself "Stormtrooper2" or "KGBfan7" - Nunh-huh 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well in that case I agree with the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um.... there's nothing wrong with "Stormtrooper2" or "KGBfan7" as far as I can see. "Stormtrooper" is a common term in Star Wars and elsewhere - the Nazis don't have a copyright on it. "KGB" can refer to all kinds of things like this radio station or this band or this NYC club. Similarly, "Stasi2" could refer to this band or this ad agency or this French organization. wikipediatrix 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The test is not "can you dig up an inoffensive use for the name", but "is this name likely to be offensive". Stormtrooper and Stasi both, I think qualify as likely to offend. It is no great hardship for someone to choose a name less likely to offend. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't have to "dig up" these references, they came from page one of a Google search. We're talking about stasi.com here, for Pete's sake, not something obscure. wikipediatrix 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Are we going to block for every bad word from another language? That is, is every word with a bad connotation from every language off limits? My mom was harassed by the Stasi before she escaped, so I sure don't have a lot of sympathy for them, but I'd try to ask the user what they meant by their username. If they meant something else then maybe this username could slide. But it's no biggie either way to me. They can always choose another username. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I should probably point out that Stasi may also be a genuine name - I regularly deal with someone at a software company with that forename. It's pronounced like "Stacey" in her case. Google suggests it's a surname too. The user's few edits don't suggest they are a fan of the GDR. --ajn (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally know someone with the first name Anastasia that has a nickname of Stasi. I most definitely do not consider it offensive. -- JamesTeterenko 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stasi is a not-uncommon surname. Look here and here and here and here. Game over. wikipediatrix 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally feel ambivalent towards the username, but I would probably lean towards letting them have it, but that doesn't change the fact that wikipediatrix is acting like an idiot, the "game" is not over, it is a discussion with two side. You can't just "win it" by coming up with a few unlikely alternate definitions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is outrageous that a new user that makes good edits is spit on like this. Not a nice way to greet newcomers. The name is in no way inappropriate. Lapinmies 07:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unblocked this user, per this discussion. Their few contributions all appear to be good edits, let's AGF and keep a potentially good contributor. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is a common surname, then I think it should be allowed. HighInBC 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Jasper23

    This user insists on removing warnings from his user talk page every time I post them. I would like to request that an admin mediate this situation so as to work toward a resolution for the both of us. Wandering Star 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just want this user to leave me alone. He is harrasing me after leaving an invalid vandalism warning on my page. I have every right to remove invalid warnings from my talk page. I have been the victim of personal attacks from this user, uncivil behavior and repeated harrasment on my talk page. I would also ask for a review. Or someone could just tell him to leave me alone. Either way.Jasper23 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you both take a 24-hour break from each other and Wikipedia before someone says something uncivil or worse... FWIW, Dispute resolution is over here. — The Future 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think a warning was in order here as it was clearly a good faith edit. Edit warring to keep a warning on someone's userpage achieves what exactly? A better approch would be to discuss the matter on the article talk page and stay off user talk pages altogether. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a bad suggestion. I guess on my end, I got worked up over having my edits deleted, with the reasons given being that my claims were unsourced, even though I had included sources in the body of the text. I responded to this by posting a warning on Jared23's page, in an effort to head off an edit war. Jared responded by posting comments on my pge which rubbed me the wrong way, and the whole thing escalated from there. I looked at Jared23's talk page and saw a link to an earlier admin incident log showing that he makes quite a habit of deleting things from his User:Talk page when he doesn't like them. Since he wound up deleting every one of the warnings I posted to his page, I felt somewhat incensed. It was like talking to a brick wall, you know? Like trying to reason with somebody who just flat refused to listen or even acknowledge that anything had been said at all, except for the things that he posted on my own page. He can talk, but he can't hear. At the end of the day (literally, since I'm on EDT), I suppose it shouldn't matter so much. After all, who really cares if Jared23 deletes comments from his user:talk page or not? As for my edits to the article Cracker (pejoritive), I guess it was inevitable that somebody would have deleted all or a large portion of them. Better to just accept that some of it survived in some form, and not get irritated over it. I don't need the high blood pressure anyway. Wandering Star 02:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wandering Star, the earlier "admin incident" was a poor reason to get on Jasper's case. Did you research it? If not, please click on my links here. Jasper wasn't "making quite a habit of removing warnings", he was removing inappropriate warnings placed by inexperienced users, and has every right to do so. This is the previous ANI thread on the subject of Jasper23 removing warnings and getting harassed for it. This is me warning the harassing users to stop. This is one of them self-reverting the warnings and apologizing. And this is me expressing regret that Jasper seemed to have been driven away by the threats and the stress. Wandering Star, I hope you'll stick to your decision to be more Zen about these kinds of things. After all, if someone removes a warning, it means they've read it; that's good, isn't it? (And Jasper, nice to see you back, and a tip: if this issue comes up again from editors who have noticed the "admin incident" (now the two admin incidents...) but not how it panned out, you might do worse than save a link to this comment of mine, so as to be able to give any new warriors on your page the links it contains. I'm sorry to say the don't-delete-my-valuable-warning edit warring seems to become more and more common.) Bishonen | talk 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Abuse of process

    Apologies in advance for the length, but it is a complicated case.

    Wikipedia regularly finds itself caught in the crossfire between extremists from both the Republican and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland. Both communities use certain terms to define Northern Ireland in an area that suits their political agenda while sending a fuck you (or 'Wikipedia accepts that we are right and you are wrong') message to the other. Unionists call the place "Ulster" to claim it wasn't created by an Act of Parliament only as recently as 1920. Republicans say "Six Counties" or "Six Occupied Counties" to claim that the place's existence is invalid. Various users have spent a lot of time reverting the POV-pushing from both sides. One republican POV-pusher, Lapsed Pacifist ended up being referred (by me) to the arbcom for his republican POV-pushing behaviour. (He did a runner once referred.)

    Now a Unionist POV-pusher is not merely engaging in the word games, but abusing WP processes and vandalising articles in the process. A valid term, "constituent country", is used to describe Wales, Scotland and England. It is also used by the British Government and the Unionist Community to refer to Northern Ireland, to suggest that Northern Ireland, far from being a creation of a controversial 1920s law, is an ancient country akin to Scotland and England. Nationalists and Republicans reject the term, arguing that Northern Ireland is neither a nation, a country nor a country country but merely, depending on one's politics, a region of the United Kingdom created in 1920, or part of the country of Ireland.

    Because of its highly controversial and disputed nature, and because of sensitivities to the way both communities use language, it was agreed not to use the term in its descriptive sense in the Northern Ireland article. Instead a neutral, non-judgmental variant was piped, with an attached footnote explaining that unlike in Scotland, Wales and England, the term is controversial and disputed by one side, and accepted by the other, when used about Northern Ireland. A pro-Unionist editor, Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (known as Mal) has been waging a one-person campaign to ensure his community's term is used as fact rather than described as a controversy in the article. Because his POVing was constantly reverted, he has proceded to abuse Wikipedia procedures:

    1. by proposing that the article on the the real, perfectly valid term "constituent country" be renamed "constituent part". This is clearly a bad faith nomination. (He then voted oppose to his own nomination!)
    2. by changing the articles on those parts of the United Kingdom where the term's usage is non-controversial so that they also use the piped link to the neutral variant only needed in Northern Ireland. It is simply a stunt in his tactical battle. He wants to have people from England, Scotland and Wales endorse the term (as they correctly will) and then to stop him messing around with their articles rally to support its controversial usage in the Northern Ireland.

    I am an admin but having dealt with Mal's antics repeatedly I cannot intervene to close off his ridiculous stunt renaming nomination. Nor can I sanction him for his bad faith edits here, here, here and here. Could someone else please intervene? Setanta's stunt pulling and POV-pushing has gone on long enough. Reducing one page to a mess is bad enough. (Those of us who have spent the time fighting of extremists from both sides are used to it by now. Their antics on WP are so notorious they even have been written about in Irish and British newspapers!) But taking his POV 'war' for tactical reasons to other pages is crossing a line and making a mockery of Wikipepdia. This has to be stopped.

    Again, apologies for the length. It is, as I am sure you can see, complicated. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um...why not file an RfC? It would be much more organized than listing the issue here, and it would be a lot easier for the involved parties to find. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The move nominator has since confirmed that its a bad faith nomination, not least by this dubious tag[12] applied to the term that they made the move proposal to. Djegan 06:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Several bad faith AFDs?

    Because of a comment left on my talk page by another user concerning my addition of {{sockpuppeteer}} on User:Kmaguir1, I was directed to a discussion concerning this user's recent mass AFD and prod listings, as well as several AFD listings by new users that this user has voted on. While it's a bit bad faith to assume that these users are all sockpuppets, it could be that Kmaguir1 is just now an AFD browser, and not creating sockpuppets to list AFDs. These are just the AFD hits, none of the stubs that he prodded.

    --Ryūlóng 06:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and then there are these off color comments at the AFDs [13] and [14] and possibly [15] at the discussion about him. Ryūlóng 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is User:Not a dog a sockpuppet?

    I am concerned that User:Not a dog is a sockpuppet. It appears to me that they are "new" as of August 15, 2006. Since that time they have made well over 250 edits. They have a knowledge of WP that far exceeds that of a new editor. Their behavior patterns appear similar to recently blocked User:Ste4k. Can someone check the IP addresses of these two users and even if they are different, are they located in the same area? If not a sockpuppet of User:Ste4k are they a sockpuppet of someone else? —Who123 13:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what to make of this accusation. Not a dog 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you lay out the evidence at requests for Checkuser then they can make sure one way or the other. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User evading Indef block

    User:Edipedia

    Not sure if this is the correct place to report this, but User:Edipedia has been inserting illegitimate warnings on my Talk page, and subsequently deleting comments left by other editors on my Talk page.

    • Edipedia inserting illegitimate warning - [16].
    • Removal of warning by another editor - [17].
    • Edipedia removes comments left by other editors and re-insert illegitimate warning - [18].

    --- Hong Qi Gong 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Unsure is this is correct place

    Hi guys, a character called Achilles has been popping in and out of the articles on Robert Kennedy and John F Kennedy and adding in spurious remarks and generally being a pain. I just realised someone else gave him/her a warning for being offensive. I've tried a thousand times to remind the 'contributor' (vandal, in my opinion) that this is an encyclopedia and not National Enquirer. Others are having trouble getting the person to stop adding in cutting little remarks and it's gotten to the point that others are now just reverting his/her additions. Could one of you take a moment to tell me what to do at my user page, please. I'm really at the end of my tether and would prefer he/she found another article to vandalise / use to subtly call others names. For some reason unbeknownst to me his/her current piece of enjoyment is to accuse RFK of having had affairs (no such evidence). Having been a solid contributor to both articles I am getting really fed up now. And that shouldn't be the case, I shouldn't have to keep undoing this person's foolishness. Thanks, guys.Iamlondon 00:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Taeguk Warrior

    Just an FYI posting: Taeguk Warrior (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely due to repeated and blatant disregard for established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has been given multiple chances to turn over a new leaf, and has repeatedly abused those chances. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats can be found on User talk:84.195.124.111

    User refactored Talk:Loose Change (video) to remove all his comments, thus rendering half the discussions extremely confusing as they involved replies to statements that were no longer there. After I reverted the page to make it make sense again, he again removed his comments and threatened legal action.--Rosicrucian 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored the talk page and warned the user. Tom Harrison Talk 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user persists in edit-warring to refactor the talkpage. [19] [20] [21] The user doesn't seem to understand why he can't do this. Will somebody please talk to him again?--Rosicrucian 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him for three hours. Tom Harrison Talk 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Toira and incivility

    I'm reporting personal attacks made by user Toira (talk · contribs), see [22].

    Toira has a history of making incivil comments towards others on the Zinedine Zidane talk page, [23] [24]. Those who have participated in the discussion including myself have pretty much let those personal attacks slide, and one (of my knowledge) has asked him to calm down [25]. But as it seems this person has no interest in talking in a civilized discussion and is not willing to heed advice, what is the proper way to deal with such users? --Inahet 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How long does it take for an admin to answer a simple inquiry on this board? Sheesh! Ignore the above request, I placed a warning on toira's talk page. If personal attacks persist, I guess I'll take it up on the right board. --Inahet 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Jon_Awbrey and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

    User:Jon_Awbrey has moved Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to Wikipedia:WikiCaviling, on the grounds that he claims the original title is defamatory to lawyers. However, politically-incorrect or not, "Wikilawyering" is the actual terminology that has been in use on this site's discussion areas; "WikiCaviling" is an ugly neologism with no support that I know of. Page titles should reflect actual usage instead of attempting to impose political correctness. *Dan T.* 18:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jon Awbrey appears not to wish to bother with such apparent wastes of time as bothering to convince others he has a point before embarking on move revert-wars. I've locked Wikipedia:WikiLawyering against such moves and suggest others check other places he may have been hard at work for similar activity, with a 24-hour block IMO being appropriate should he have been working hard enough at his quest to warrant serious admin consideration that he's been sorely disruptive - David Gerard 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked Jon for 24 hours for fairly egregious trolling not only in the page move itself, but also the accompanying comments on the Wikilawyering talk page. Gwernol 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He'd disrupted WP:NOR for something like a week now, and had just started in at WP:SR. FeloniousMonk 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unlocked Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, but the close attention of others in 24 hours when Jon's block is up would be a good idea - David Gerard 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over his recent contributions to his talk page, he's clearly trolling others there, I'm concerned about disruption when his block comes off. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Put an end to this move/redirect war

    [26] Can someone put an end to this move/redirect war please? Preferably by removing the participant under arbcom sanction for precisely this kind of disruption? SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for a ruling on British place names

    I have discussed this problem with an admin and neither of us were able to find guidance on: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) and so I have been advised to seek guidance on this issue here.

    The problem arises following attempts by a Wikipedia user to seek out references to "England", "Scotland" and "Wales" and edit them to read "United Kingdom".

    One example of this can be seen at Atlantic Ocean where User:Owain recently made changes including changing text:

    from "Aberdeen, Scotland" to "Aberdeen, United Kingdom"; from "Liverpool, England" to "Liverpool, United Kingdom"; and from "Newport, Wales" to "Newport, United Kingdom".

    I came across this change while using VP and had made no contribution to this particular article myself but reverted on the grounds that there was no problem with the original text and that the changes reflected a minority POV, and certainly did not conform to "common usage". My revert was immediately reverted by User:Owain so I issued a warning to him using VP, which he chose to delete from his home page. I therefore requested that VP admins protected the disputed page.

    I believe that:

    • the edit was nonsensical, totally unnecessary and politically-motivated
    • the edit made the article imprecise in not giving sufficient detail to pinpoint a place by omitting the obvious (i.e. the country), and gave less information than the original edit
    • to deliberately ignore the country is to disrespect the people, culture and traditions of those nations
    • there have been a large number of edits to this page by many other Wikepedians, all of whom saw no problem with the identification of the country

    User:Owain recently made changes the article on Lisvane by changing the text:

    from "For the village in Conwy, see Llysfaen" to For the village in north Wales, see Llysfaen

    Again I had made no contributions to this article but believed the edit presented a biased POV, expressed by a small number of users involved with County Watch and Association of British Counties who attempt to wipe out, or depreciate, any references to the counties of England, Wales and Scotland which were formed following local government reorganisation in 1974 and again in 1996.

    Finally User:Owain recently made several changes to the article on Aberdyfi by changing the name of the town to the anglicised version of "Aberdovey" throughout. Again I must point out that I had made no previous contributions to this article. Despite being presented with several 'reference' articles, all using the spelling "Aberdyfi", he continued to revert to the out-of-date spelling, thus flaunting the "common usage" policy. The comment he makes on his talk page "I attach absolutely no authority to the 'National Assembly'" (the elected parliament of Wales) reveals his political motives.

    I believe that what we are witnessing is an attempt a small group of people to use Wikepedia to put forward a heavily-biased, right-wing, "British Nationalist" agenda, views which are rejected by the vast majority of the population as being out-of-date. I am informed by other Wikipedians that these antics have been going on since before I began contributing to Wikipedia.

    If Wikepedia is to be accepted as a serious source of information then this cannot be allowed to continue and must be stopped at the highest level. Should an investigative journalist attempt to compare Wikipedia to other conventional encyclopaedias I believe that we would be totally discredited on the grounds of neutrality.

    I am not a member of any political party and have no political axe to grind, in fact I treat all politicians with equal contempt!

    Can we please have a definitive ruling on the convention to be used when referring to place names here? -- Maelor  19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    We don't make 'rulings'. Open an RfC, or go to the ArbCom, if that's been tried. --InShaneee 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread should probably be moved to this editor's talk page with a pointer toward Wikipedia:Requests for comment. (→Netscott) 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Troyboysc

    troyboysc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : User who's uploaded a number of illegal images. Please apply the cluestick. upload log. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:COOL CAT ON WHEELS!!!!

    The {{attackuser-m}} template had been repetively removed by User:Bastique after I complained about the bot removing it on irc. history Furthermore he protected the page he is revertwaring on.

    I believe it is necesary to mark such accounts targeting spesific users. I have no problems with the category.

    --Cat out 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unprotected and reprotected, seems to be a lame edit war. --pgk(talk) 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    what was the point of unprotected and reprotecting? --Cat out 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You were complaining about the protection since he was involved in the war. So I've imposed the protection instead. --pgk(talk) 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasnt complaining about that. I am not a troll, dont treat me like one. I am not the kind that jots for "Admin abuse" unnecesarily. --Cat out 21:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The account can't attack anyone. It's blocked. It had no contributions. And I support the non-recognition of vandals. And it's been unprotected and reprotected by someone else, so I'm no longer involved in the admin activities portion of it, only the minor edit war. Bastique▼parler voir 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The account was created with the intend of intended attacking/impostoring me. Marking it as such is more than acceptable. --Cat out 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yeah... Except that you used your rollback tool and protected a page in a dispute you were involved in. (The lamest one ever.) Don't do that again. The current version is fine. Grandmasterka 21:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The rollback tool was done before protection. The protection was placed with an edit summary. Cool Cat had already performed 3RR prior to what I did. Would you like him blocked as well? Bastique▼parler voir 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like the attackuser-m template back on that page. --Cat out 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked both participants... It feels odd blocking them, but this kind of stupidity is not constructive. By the way, using rollback OR page protection in a dispute you are involved in is frowned upon. Grandmasterka 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked Bastique (for he is doing the right thing) and shortened Cool Cat's block to two hours (as my experience with Cool Cat is that he needs the extra tough love). Also, Bastique's use of protection was not protection abuse; it's a case of an uninformed and meddlesome user interfering with new but generally agreed-upon practices regarding how we report abusive users. Cool Cat acted rashly and without knowledge, and in so doing acted to feed the trolls. He should know better; his two hour cooling-off period will help to remind him that it is important (a) not to feed the trolls and (b) talk to others before acting. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to start deleting all these categories and pages, re-open WP:DENY or something like it and get the consensus of the community. Right now this whole move to delete this stuff is being pushed by a small group. WP:DENY did not have consensus before, yet people are using it as reasons to delete things. If we are going to make a major shift in the way we deal with this, it needs to be hashed out as obvioulsy there are a lot of people who disagree. pschemp | talk 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    InShaneee is abusing his administrative authority

    I wish to file a complaint against InShaneee for abusing his administrative authority. Under the guise of removing "personal attacks," InShanee has deleted comments he disagrees with which are not at all personal attacks. For example, one of the edits he deleted was my argument in support of another administrator, Bishonen: [27] He also removed another section further down that is critical of one of the goals of the Wikiproject Paranormal - the Wikiproject that he appears to run. My comments are directed against the sources that some Wikiproject Paranormal members insist on using for the Natasha Demkina article. Apparently, he's taking this criticism personally and is calling it a "personal attack" so that he can remove it under his authority as an administrator (and threaten me with a block if I revert it - see additional comment below).

    Another editor and an administrator has joined in my objection to InShanee's actions: [28] [29] I hope other editors and administrators will also tell him that he should not abuse his administrative authority and that censorship is not a practice welcomed in Wikipedia. If his abuse of authority continues, that authority should be rescinded. Askolnick 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see where you're saying he used the admin tools in doing any of this. Well, unless rollback counts, but that's just a shortcut for something anyone can do. Friday (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Complaints of abuse are normally signs that an admin is doing his job right, but yeah, I can't see how it constitutes as a personal attack, but it wasn't an administrative action; as Friday said, rollback is just a shortcut. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rollback is only supposed to be used in the case of vandalism; let's get that straight right out of the gate. That particular edit probably should have been trimmed by hand, and by preference commented on rather than excised. -- nae'blis 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some consensus on that, but it is not universal, and it is not policy. Generally though, the arbcom does frown upon it. Still, it is not as cut-and-dried as you state. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight, two administrators, User:Friday and User:Sceptre, are unaware of the fact that rollback is an admin-only feature that is supposed to be used only in cases of obvious vandalism? Dionyseus 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that people frequently say that about it, yes. Friday (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is that supposition documented? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that three administrators. Rollback is supposed to be used only in the case of vandalism. Dionyseus 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is neither policy nor even a guideline. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The link you reference above says this:"If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation...". DJ Clayworth 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also stated here: Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary. Mike Christie (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor is that policy or guideline, but an essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell? That's not an essay. Where's the {{essay}} tag? It's a list of facts, just like Wikipedia:Editing is. Is that now an essay as well? Also, if that's enough, I point to the MarkSweep, Gunaco arbitration case, a rollback revert war that led to Gunaco's desysopping, with MarkSweep "strongly cautioned to use the administrator's rollback tool only when reverting vandalism." Hbdragon88 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it labeled guideline? Is it labeled policy? Did the arbcom say that their caution applied to all admins or was it specific to one in one particular case? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's a matter of community consensus, therefore your insistence on a formally stated "policy" is a bit misguided. As for Arbcom's take on the issue, it seem pretty clear, it's been stated in numerous arbcom cases. ([30]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As is clear from this page, no such consensus exists. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is naything from the RFAR ever labeled as strict, by the rules, policy? (besides user punishments and probation). You just have to infer. Obviously the rampant misuse of the rollback, especially in a revert war, was strong enough that the ArbCom had to say something about it. And in this case, they said only vandalism. I think that applies to all admins, but if you disagree, Ic ould ask the ArbCom for clarification. Hbdragon88 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dionyseus, the edit summary of the second and third reverts clearly mention disruption. Instead of using the typical anti-admin one liners, "counting who disagrees", and using strawman arguments, why not talk about how those edits where disruptive. Disruptive flaming/vandalism can clearly be reverted. That is why the admin reverted. The actual item in dispute here is whether those edits were really "disruption", which I currently do not agree with the reverting admin on.Voice-of-All 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I left out the part about his threats to block me if I reverted his changes - or made any similar comments like those again. That's abuse of administrative power. IhShaneee appears to believe that he can use his blocking power to stiffle arguments he dislikes. Askolnick 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to agree with Bishonen. I don't see anything here obviously crappy enough to use rollback on, unless there is something I missed.Voice-of-All 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, it appears that User:InShaneee is placing unwarranted blocking threats on Askolnick's talk page. [31] [32] Dionyseus 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment of an outsider: InShaneee left a warning for "No Personal Attacks" and threatening a block, pretty much immediately before this note was left of AN/I. Askolnick is not helping the situation by pretty much continuuing a verbal assualt on InShaneee on Askolnick's own talk page. While InShaneee is focusing also on other things (Unblock declining, I noticed), Askolnick is still focusing on the conflict (Hence this discussion). I have the odd feeling that this inter-editor conflict is just going to escalate if both editors remain "Unrestrained".
    The first dif I see is sort of unwarranted, since removing even completely idiotic things (Like bots reverting past your revert of vandalism giving YOU a warning) from talk pages is met with (6.5 times out of 10) with a warning on not removing comments or blanking.
    This has obviously escalated too fast and too far. Both editors likely fall under Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption of this Wiki. It needs to be made clear that catfights shouldn't be tolerated. Logical2u 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While Inshaneee was justified in removing some of the many Pravda.ru links (really, you could have made your point with much more brevity, or created a subpage in userspace to link to), the majority of Inshaneee's rollback was inappropriate, and the blocking threats seem questionable. While rollback can occasionally be used for edits that are not vandalism (occasionally WP:IAR does apply)), in this case it was clearly an inappropriate use of rollback. Furthermore, it seems disingenuous to describe the edits in question as personal attacks, unless Natasha or her representative has edited Wikipedia. While Askolnick needs to be cautioned to calm down and focus criticism on actions, not people, I think a formal review of the actions here is warranted. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've at times both admired and found reason to criticize in InShaneee's firmness in enforcing his view of the NPA rule. In this instance, my impression is he's overstepped a line, both in the initial revert and in the way his subsequent warnings and counterwarnings have escalated the situation. I'd say an RfC might be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AOL proxy block

    The AOL vandal is back again: to stop them, I've temporarily blocked one of the large AOL proxy farm ranges from eiditng for 15 minutes. -- The Anome 22:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • They're not "proxy farms" that's just how AOL works, and I can't imagine that there's just the one person using AOL that you can call it "the AOL vandal". There are many, many idiots out there, and many of them use AOL. That doesn't mean however, that each act of minor vandalism is anything but that.--AOL user 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cretanpride and Homosexuality in ancient Greece

    Cretanpride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been POV-pushing at Homosexuality in ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages for a while now, including a bad-faith AfD, and the use of several sockpuppets.

    I became involved in the matter on August 24 when I noticed a 3RR violation, and I subsequently tried to address the user's concerns in the article and on its talk page. (I think I had edited the page once or twice before in a fairly insignificant way.) I ended up contributing a fairly major rewrite/expansion of the article yesterday, because although I believe Cretanpride's position was academically unsupported, the article provided insufficient context and might be misread by someone with an insufficient understanding of the subject.

    Cretanpride's most recent sockpuppet account is Ellinas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (confirmed by checkuser). As Ellinas, Cretanpride presented himself as a less extreme advocate of the positions he had previously advocated more rabidly; I don't think that the Ellinas account actually vandalized or violated any Wikipedia policies except the WP:SOCK. Aldux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Cretanpride for 48 hours after Ellinas was confirmed as a sockpuppet. I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could take a look at this situation and see whether a longer block is warranted. I don't really trust my own judgment in this case, in part because I've become an editor of the article and in part because I was fooled by the Ellinas sockpuppet, who I took at face value.

    Aside from one suspect edit and one good-faith contribution from the Ellinas account, Cretanpride hasn't edited the Homosexuality in ancient Greece article since his 3RR block. I think the real issue is that Cretanpride has exhausted the patience of the article's regular contributors (see Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece). I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gencomprodukts

    User:Gencomprodukts accidentally posted several bits of his rather lengthy userpage into several places in article space, complete with many helpful links to his website and many helpful links to the various pieces from other articles. I've helped him put it in the right place by userfying it, and drawn his attention to WP:NOT.

    He seems to be having the same problem with misplaced userpage content at the French-language Wikipedia, as fr:Utilisateur:Gencom; could anyone help him out in the same way there? -- The Anome 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He is also in violation of WP:Username for using a company name as a username and advertising. pschemp | talk 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This material is now being reposted, both by User:Carillo and User:83.214.8.132. The MO is the same as before. Speedy deleting as advertising. -- The Anome 18:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've now blocked the originating IP for linkspamming. Perhaps someone who is an admin on fr: could take a look at these, very similar, edits: [33] -- The Anome 18:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and he's back again, this time as User:Jowy. He seems impervious to reminders about WP:NOT, and responds to blocking by creating new accounts, and has also (presumably) also moved IP address since that block. -- The Anome 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now blanked the pages and locked them against recreation, since there seems to be no other way to communicate with what appear to me to be this user's repeated efforts at advertising. The pages in question are: Laurent BOUDIC, LaLawrence, Laurent boudic and Lalawrence. -- The Anome 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Timacyde (talk · contribs)

    Could someone take a look at Timacyde? It's very suspicious - he has a forged welcome note from Cyde on his talk page, and then he transcluded User:Syphonbyte/Holdem onto it. I'm thinking he may be a sockpuppet of Syphonbyte. He has more weird stuff in his contribs. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef for trolling -- Samir धर्म 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as though Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is evading his block here. This page created by Syphonbyte: User:Syphonbyte/Holdem relied upon this image Image:HoldemifJEWgotem.jpg uploaded by Timacyde. (→Netscott) 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Timacyde is now abusing the {{Stop}} template to the point of freezing browsers on his talk page, so I would recommend that that be protected. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that image had an interesting history. (→Netscott) 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected by The Anome -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Back (and blocked) as Edy_C._Syew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the same image. (→Netscott) 00:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If User:Clyde_Wey and that user name's corresponding talk page could be protected that'd be hepful too. (→Netscott) 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Userpage has been protected. I'm not seeing any pressing issues with the respective talk page, however. El_C 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tis a bit odd that Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is active at the same time as this latest batch of socks. I'm starting to think that Syphonbyte (talk · contribs) is heading for an indefinite blocking. (→Netscott) 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:IPuser

    Exists now, just thought I'd let you know. Happy editing--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dangherous

    As far as I know this user has been blocked from editing Wiktionary as he was a sockpuppet of the guy who deleted the Wiktionary Main Page. Should he not be blocked here too? Just FYI 86.41.133.9 00:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not in the slightest. So long as a user is making useful edits and not consistently breaking Wikipedia policies, he's welcome on Wikipedia. Blocks are preventative, not punitive measures. I don't like this user's contribution patterns... but nothing particularly out of order jumps out. Captainktainer * Talk 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Barefact

    [[34]] The most egregious action on Barefact's part --- that I have seen, were his false accusations of sock-puppetry against me, and two users[[35]] and [[36]] , for which he had no evidence. I would consider that an attempt to game the system.

    He even tried to use his false accusation of sock-puppetry(unproven and untrue) to reinstate a POV article of his [[37]] by saying that it was deleted by sock-puppetry. This is a clear example of lying and deception.

    One of his former articles was deleted because of OR [[38]].

    Even after an RFIC in Scythians he removed all reference to Scythians being Iranian recently.

    The user Template:Barefact puts OR research from his website www.turkicworld.org. For example he disfigures quotes: [[39]]. For example the following quote: However, it retained its grammatical structure and basic lexical stock; its relationship with the Iranian family, despite considerable individual traits, does not arouse any doubt. has been taken from this book directly: [[40]] (the first link pg 6), yet he disfigures the quote that has been taken directly from the scholar to a totally opposite quote! He is putting a one man show on the ossetic language, since all the sources Britannica, Encarta, Columbia and all available English sources agree with me, yet he is taking material from his ultranationalist webpage www.turkicworld.org and cut & pasting it. Please ban this user for his disruptive behavior on multiple accounts specially OR, vandalism and false accusation of sock-puppetry and using the false allegation of sock-puppetry in order to change the mind of other administrators about the deletion of one of his false articles [[41]].

    Finally there is the admittance of the vandalizing user himself from his own webpage: The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion. [[42]] (note the link above is connected www.turkicworld.org and is written by this user per his own admission). Note the user believes that he can go against universal acceptance of scholarly facts in Wikipedia. I have warned him numerous times about [[43]] but with no success. He clearly admits he is going against universal accepted position of scientific community and wants to put his cooked up theories instead of accepting the universal judgment of relavent scholars of the field. --Ali doostzadeh 00:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More Charlie Crist issues

    Camroarty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Htanzler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to make similar edits to the Charlie Crist page to banned user Tywright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removing key information from the page on his stances, an admin needs to look into this. --CFIF ☎ 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    M7 MBA / User:Opeman

    Can someone check Opemans contribution history [44], I have a suspicion that their edits are recreations of deleted content. exolon 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not according to the deletion log: [45] [46]. What exactly is the basis for your suspicions? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=72521728"