Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224

Dutch declension, Archaic Dutch declension

There are a few problems to address here.

1. I was being attacked as "foreigners", "don't understand Dutch" and need to "fuck off", etc in the discussion page about merging the two articles. I don't know a lot of Dutch, but I'm certainly know much enough to edit things I know which is true and which is not. And I asked someone who does know Dutch to do the rewrite.

2. I did not attack, nor erase anything. I simply revert the page to something believable.

3. I suspect Govert Miereveld, Bombshell and Scavenger are of the same user.

4. The above user, plus some users with a very similar IP, never responded to replies, nor discuss anything when there has been a very clear POV fork which needs to be addressed till lately when Rigadoun suggesting the merge of 2 pages.

5. The abovementioned users keep brining the Archaic Dutch declension page to Dutch declension page, making redirects, moving links from Dutch declension to Archaic Dutch declesion on Dutch grammar page on several occasions.

I feel violated. Although the comment was removed by another user for good enough reason, I think it is not at all civilised. Thanks in advance for the help because this has been going on for quite a while and I can not stand this anymore. Excuse my language in the beginning. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not admin, but diffs please. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The three accounts are indeed clearly sockpuppets, I have accordingly blocked two of them and given the third a warning. As for the rest of his behaviour, I consider myself more-or-less involved in the content dispute, so I'd appreciate if somebody else could take over. I can confirm that Bombshell has been disruptively editing against consensus, blatantly failed to understand WP:ATT, and has been making some rather nasty personal attacks (mostly in Dutch [1]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• And also in French and German. Judging by the verbiage, the user is Belgian. Not that that matters. It's basically a rant like "I'm pissed and you can all go to hell". Not very nice, to say the least. >Radiant< 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The user is back using a very similar IP again. He/she cannot provide reliable quotes yet keep reverting. It totally violates WP:OWN in my opinion. It's a bit of a wonder a user cannot write correct English grammar tries to contribute to pages relating to languages. link

Violation of WP:POINT, by User:Steve Dufour

• Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), has previously been blocked for violation of WP:POINT. For more recent comments by other editors on this user's inappropriate disruption of the project, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Violation_of_WP:POINT.. More recently, the User continues to violate WP:POINT: DIFF 1. The User had previously tried this: DIFF 2, and was correctly reverted by User:Antaeus Feldspar, DIFF 3. Incidentally, this disruption was inserted again by later banned User:BabyDweezil, and was reverted again, and stayed removed until now. This repeated pattern of disruption of the project is clearly unacceptable. Smee 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

How many times is that now? - Denny ^(talk) 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeking block of User:Merbabu from further supply of comment to User:DavidYork71 talk page

This is motivated by the firstnamed user's supply of incivilities here:[[2]], and by it's manner and degree of unsolicited attention directed at the secondnamed user in general. Please effect this, or inform me how to do so. Thanks and Easter Regards, DavidYork71 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And while folks are at it they might want to remove the soapboxing image found at the top of User talk:DavidYork71 (do note that User:DavidYork71 never requested that User:Merbabu not post to his talk page). (→Netscott) 05:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt anyone interested in the issue will read the full discussion where I’ve ask David to explain the meaning of the pic. As I pointed out in the discussion, an admin has already asked for the image’s removal. It’s apparently a graph purporting to map average IQ’s across various racial groupings, however, David—apparently a self-avowed fan of Hitler [3], [4],—will not explain this – when prodded he suggests it is an ‘Arabic-Hindu’ chart, hence my suggestion of ‘rubbish’ I believe is quite apt. Merbabu 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a graph of racial groupings and IQ differences among said groups. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what it is. I'd invited him some time ago to remove it, to no avail.Proabivouac 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is misuse of the incident noticeboard - a careful examination of blocks, warnings and comments about the complainant will show that the reverse is in actual fact true relative to bheaviour on wikipedia. SatuSuro 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image of the racial grouping IQ graph. I then reviewed Mr York's contribution to the project, particularly since his last block and I've given him another one. Sarah 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the removal of this graph, the alleged factual accuracy of which is completely beside the point.

Diffs such as these[5], [6] are disturbing. I am not clear that this block was earned as a matter of policy, but at the same time it is very difficult to muster sympathy for a user who has declared Adolf Hitler a "great man" and a "great statesman."Proabivouac 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Malber

After being caught sock-puppeting the other day, Malber (talk · contribs) has gone on a WP:POINT spree trying to get all his own contributions deleted before leaving the project ([7], [8]). Apparently he was successful in applying CSD G7 to a number of articles and images, even items that were clearly useful encyclopedic contributions and had existed for a long time; he is now bragging about how he misled admins into following his bad-faith nominations. I've speedy-closed the latest AfD he had created in this context, and I'm going to restore the speedy deletions. I'd also recommend a good long block, but I'd prefer it if somebody else applied it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for a month (although he should be unblocked if he wants to come back and be constructive) and deleted some choice comments on his talk page. This reminds me a lot of the actions of someone I knew in real life who I've come to strongly dislike, and it's a shame, 'cause Malber was a good contributor. Grandmasterka 09:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I dropped the user a note. El_C 09:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Lygophile (talk · contribs)

This user wanted to insert some totally biased claims on Americans in the Dutch (Ethnic group) article. (Arrogant, propaganda machine etc) which are not supported by sources. In the following discussion he first called me "full of shit". I gave him a standard No Personal attacks warning, though he denied making one, calling me a liar instead. He subsequently claimed: "if you think "your full of shit" as a respons to spreading lies about me is a personal attack your just a whiny little bitch (now thats a personal attack)". I doubt this needs any further explanation.Rex 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Another personal attack, after 3 warnings (an Admin included)

He once again calls me "full of shit" and asks me to "shut up". Rex 10:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One more

This time he made a personal attack on my talkpage, in Dutch. "hou op met je spelletke. je bent gewoon het kleine broertje dat zn oudere broer blijft irriteren tot ie kwaad wordt en dan naar ze mammie loopt zielig te doen. je provoceerd het zelf met je onzin, dus dan moet je ook niet gaan janken" :Translation:

"Stop your little game. You 're just the little brother who keeps provoking his older brother until he gets angry and then runns home to his mummie to act pathetically. You provoke these things yourself so quit being a cry baby."

I'm not quite enjoying these things, so if an admin could finally undertake some action? Thanks Rex 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both users stepping back sounds like the best thing to do at this moment. El_C 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

24hr block. However, you appear to have been goading him, which can't help matters. Disengagement when things get heated is a good idea for both sides.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Things getting heated is no problem for me. Making personal attacks when you can't "winn" a discussion which requires references is. Rex 10:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking was needed; I already dropped a note on the talk page, so that should have been given a chance. El_C 10:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to unblock if you wish; however, Lygophile needs a tap with the cluestick about acceptable ways of communicating (even when being goaded) and 24 hours presents a good opportunity for him to cool off.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block. This user had clearly developed a disruptive pattern that had to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats some vile stuff. - Denny ^(talk) 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, of course. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack blocks are, generally, a bad idea; especially any that can be seen as punitive. El_C 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And a no personal attacks policy that is not enforced has no power to prevent abusive behaviour. Why even have a policy if we don't enforce it? We can't just warn people forever. I think this block is preventative in nature, as the behaviour seems likely to continue in the lack of any intervention. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a world outside of warning templates and it's this. El_C 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Breach of privacy policy

194.73.163.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has breached privacy policy in these three edits [9], [10] and [11]. I would like these versions oversighted and the user given a final warning to cease or be blocked. DavidBoothroyd 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ip blocked for one year, edits deleted. El_C 10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review

I declined an unblock request at User talk:I'm so special. I would normally never do this in a case I had previously been involved with (the user's first block was for "trolling", in attempting to advocate on my behalf on this very noticeboard!), but in this case the user asked for me by name and I agreed with the indefinite block; the user's contributions have largely been restricted to the above-noted advocacy attempt, some talk page edits, and starting Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MONGO. Feel free to disagree with my action. --Guinnog 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people seemed to be in agreement with the block up above, I'm not sure why upholding the same block needs further discussion, but I guess he'd only believe the same old crap we keep telling him if it came from you. :-) If you'd unblocked him unilaterally, different story of course. Grandmasterka 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[12]--MONGO 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't see that discussion. My post was really designed to be transparent, as declining an unblock in a case I've been involved with seemed like it might attract criticism. I should have made it under the existing discussion if I had seen it. --Guinnog 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to miss, there are 60 headings on this page as I write this.--MONGO 13:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SPSF luvr

SPSF luvr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can someone check him? He's gone nuts on User talk:Feydey‎ with rampant attacks. - Denny ^(talk) 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Feydey has it, he just responded. Wasn't sure if he was online. - Denny ^(talk) 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got some reason in his/her mind. feydey 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Willy on Wheels

I'm uncertain how much concern this warrants, but User:64.251.49.194, a Connecticut school IP in the midst of a month-long block, is redirecting the IP's talk page to User:Willy on Wheels. Figma 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, redirects like that shouldn't happen: someone ought to protect that IP's talk page for the duration of the block. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is sprotected for duration of the block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

VoA Bot II

Relatively minor in the scheme of things, but User:VoABot II seems to have some minor coding errors. Twice now, in the span of about two hours, it's shit itself in much the same way - a user creates a page, I come in and speedy-tag, the user removes the speedy-tag, VoABot sees this, tries to revert, but somehow gets my username in both fields ("Reverted edits by Action Jackson IV {information} to revision #120485586 by "Action Jackson IV". [content lost?])"), then leaves me a message in my talk page informing me of this revert, and that my username has been tagged as adding inappropriate MySpace links/etc. Just figured I'd throw a heads-up. Examples can be seen here and here, if the articles have not yet been deleted. Methinks a further beta-testing period is in order. --Action Jackson IV 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Input request

I discovered that Dwanyewest (talk · contribs) has posted many copyright violations. I don't have time right now but will search his contributions for more later. Examples are Radio Roo, Pocket Dragon Adventures and Space Vets which I deleted and he recreated after being warned. (and I will delete again right after I finish this message). What to do with this user? For now I blocked for 48 hours for repeated copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see. If the block drives the point home, there's no need to do anything. If he comes back in two days and continues posting copyvios, make the second block longer. I'll take a look through his contributions too and see whether I turn up any more. Shimeru 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fortyfeet

I'm not too sure where else to put this or if it's against any sort of policy or what could even be done, but I figured I'd at least try to bring it to someone's attention. Yesterday, User:Fortyfeet, redirected his talk page to his user page and edited his user page to say he no longer wishes to edit, if someone wanted his account they could have it so long as they changed the user email, and gave the password for it. I undid the redirect because, as far as I know, that's not allowed, but I'm not going to touch the user page unless I know 100% whether or not it is against policy. Thanks. --pIrish 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account in accordance with WP:U. Sharing accounts or passwords is not allowed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of banned user User:JJonathan

He's back as User:JJive. Aside from the identifying comments on his talk page, the editing pattern and writing style is identical. Also note the edit summary [13] here, when removing the AFD notice (article was created by User:JJonathan) Took this to AIV but no action was taken... --Kurt Shaped Box 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only because AIV is for obvious vandalism, which this isn't. For someone unacquainted with the case - i.e me - it's tricky to see the disruption. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

JJonathan's MO is basically introducing subtle factual errors into articles (e.g. date-changing, adding inappropriate categories/list additions, addition of uncited info about the vocal range of singers), sandwiched between legitimate style/spelling/wikify edits. It's been going on for months (I've only just discovered it myself) - you really need to look through the edits of his long list of socks before you notice the pattern. Ban one and another pops up and carries on. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate?

Resolved

 – Or seems to be, for now? --Luna 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are this [14], and the page it links to, acceptable? Andy Mabbett 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't appropriate. The linked page has been deleted. Attack pages aren't acceptable, even as a user sub page. IrishGuy ^talk 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, this seems to be escalating. Andy Mabbett 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the note on your talk page was left after that post at Talk:St Paul's tram stop. Both have been removed, so let's hope things calm down, from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

221.126.134.0

This ip seriously needs the attention of an admin. Violation of copyright[15], repeated NPOV and defamation despite warnings[16] [17] [18] and page blanking. [19] The ip also demands deletion of the article on the talk page, despite obvious assertion of notability. [20]. I need help in this, as I might violate 3RR if I keep on reverting... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting garbage doesn't count for 3RR. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only trying to make sure... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly personal attacks on user talk:Asucena

Are what seems as personal attacks such as these allowed on user talk pages? -- Avi 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't mind a non-admin's opinions (just delete this if you only want admin-opinion):

[21] is obviously not allowed. Blockable offense. (which is why it's good that you blocked them)

However, this is also nearly as bad. (unless, of course, he can prove it; which is entirely possible)

This is unhelpful, but not an attack. Expressing a "I hope this isn't true" sentiment isn't an attack. There isn't anything wrong with addressing possible concerns that are presented to you. Nobody is obligated to dismiss things automatically. However, it's of questionable value, since a user talk page isn't really the best place to address it, but it's probably best to simply ask them to remove it, and then go from there.

This is also terribly inappropriate. Wanting to reinstate someone else's opinion is debateable... (on the one hand, it's reinstating an unsourced allegation. On the other hand, they might've thought they were upholding free speech) However, labelling you as a "Vandal" was, absolutely, an unwarranted accusation, which really does deserve a CIVIL and NPA reminder, at the very very least. Bladestorm 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, I don't know if Jayjg needs to "prove" it. It's on her own user page. "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." Of course, that doesn't mean it's true, but you can't blame people for taking her at her word. IronDuke 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

However, she doesn't say that she was paid to edit wikipedia. There's a very clear implied accusation that she's being paid by hamas to edit wikipedia articles in hamas' favour. She denies that she is paid by Hamas at all (she claims to be an employee of the palestinian government, and a volunteer for hamas, but not "employed" by the latter at all, let alone for so specific a duty). It isn't that I think jay was intentionally making anything up. I just don't think it's appropriate to take the information asucena's provided and expand it into more than it is. (BTW, I tend to get genders wrong lately; anybody know if asucena's male or female?) Bladestorm 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) Just so people don't think I'm missing something obvious: I know there's still a conflict of interest. :) Bladestorm 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where Jay has said she's being paid (maybe he has elsewhere; not an unreasoanble guess from her own statements). What I'm saying is, Jay's remarks are nothing like as bad as what she has been saying; they are not, in fact, at all bad, but consistent with his COI concerns, which is where we should be focusing our attention. To your last point: Again, if you go to her user page, you will see she self-identifies as female. IronDuke 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Not only is Asucena employed by Hamas, but she is employed as part of her PR duties to edit Wikipedia." The part that stands out is, "she is employed as part of her PR duties to edit Wikipedia". Not only does she deny being directly employed by Hamas at all, but she also hasn't directly stated (at least, I don't think she has) that her duties specifically include editing articles. Again, I'm not saying he was trying to make anything up. Just saying that it was an unnecessary assumption. BTW, just remember that it was the IP editor who actually accused jay. Anyways, I think avi's handled it rather admirably. If she still has concerns, she can take it up with Dispute Resolution or something similar. (And thanks. I thought she was a she, but then had a hard time finding exactly where I'd picked that up) Bladestorm 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

She said "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." Hamas is the largest part of the P.A. authority, she says she's their official online representative and is in Hamas' political public relations division. Which part have I misunderstood? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the links and left what I hope is a reasonable explanation on the user's talk page. Let's hope this ends here. -- Avi 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this quote on her page "ayjg, I'm not employed by hamas - hamas doesn't employ anyone! I'm a member of Hamas and a volunteer. I am employed by the Palestinian government. --Asucena". Considering Palestine is not a country, therefore he/she cannot be a representative of a recognized government. More accurately, the user is an avowed member of an activist, partisan group, admittedly acting on behalf of that group for "public relations" on wikipedia. This seems to me in direct violation of WP:COI. I cannot see why this user is allowed to edit middle eastern related articles any more than Ariel Sharon would be allowed to edit Israel or Palestine articles. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be questioned whether he/she is really what is claimed. I may be ignorant but I didn't know Hamas had a special PR interest in Move America Forward. The POV edits made there seem more like an angry liberal's views (e.g. emphasis of 'neo-' conservative) than what I'd expect Hamas to care about, but perhaps the two descriptions can overlap (both angry liberal and Hamas PR). In any case there it is still reason to believe a COI problem so that user may have to be topically banned. The Behnam 02:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite range block on Verizon ISP?

Resolved

 – Block lifted--VectorPotential^Talk 23:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite range block of Verizon? Is this a good precedent to be setting?--VectorPotential^Talk 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to assume Bastique knows what he's doing. Certainly the reason for blocking looks adequate: possibly there have been complaints concerning the behaviour of those using this IP of which we do not know. You can ask him, though. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The only other instance where an ISP was indefinitely blocked, was AOL, and that was only under the open proxy exception.--VectorPotential^Talk 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there's a good reason for this. It was a hard block, but we'll just have to trust him with this one. PTO 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's easier to say that when you don't use Verizon :)VectorPotential^Talk 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request needs review

User:Pmanderson (signs as "Septentrionalis") is currently blocked for 52 hours for a 3RR violation. He has requested an unblock, disputes the 3RR violation but offers to undo the last edit, and the subject page is now protected. The user has a series of prior 3RR blocks which of course is an aggravating factor. He has posted an unblock request which should be reviewed in a timely manner. I am not going to do the review myself because I unblocked this same user in a prior 3RR situation I found borderline. Please note that the blocking admin, User:El C, has asked to be consulted before any unblock. No position from me on the merits of the request. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How does unblocking him in a prior 3RR demands recusal on your part, I'm so not following that. El_C 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "demand" it, but with 1000 admins, I figured it wasn't necessary for the same person to (potentially) unblock the same user twice in a row. For what it's worth, though, I would probably commute this block to time served, as I think the user has pretty clearly gotten the message. (On the other hand, I'm pretty useless as a 3RR enforcer. The one night I took a shift at AN3, I wound up giving everyone warnings, filling my talkpage with complaints from people who were disappointed their opponents hadn't been blocked, and I said to myself that if the community wants rigorous and unflinching 3RR enforcement, they're going to have to ask someone else.) Newyorkbrad 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, there are always complainst with 3RR enforcement, regardless of what you do. Which is why so few admins bother with it. El_C 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the user has "gotten the message", at least from my interpretation of his/her talk page. It seems that he/she thinks it's okay to revert as long as they're reverting someone else's revert (if that made sense). The fact that the user you are edit warring with broke WP:3RR does not give you the right to break WP:3RR yourself. It was the exact same edit he/she had been edit warring over. Valid block in my view. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user has certainly broken the spirit of 3RR and probably the letter as well. Septentrionalis is a fine, fine editor but he does seem to have a problem when it comes to revert warring and doesn't seem to have gotten the message over multiple blocks. Hate to say this, but a valid block. Hopefully the user will take some time off and rethink their attitude to reverting: I say this regretfully, but it is needed. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deepest sympathies with NYB. I looked, wanting to help, and the only decision I could make was a strong intention to add this edit war to WP:LAME. Several experienced editors blocked for 3RR over (1) a fraction of a sentence giving (2) an alternate language name of a city in (3) an article not even about that city but about a lake? What in the name of Zeus (alternate name Jove, Jupiter...) is going on here? This is incredibly trivial. It's under discussion earlier on this very page, #Edit war at Lake Scutari, and that discussion is longer than the entire article in question. On the one hand, no, I don't think anyone should be blocked for something as silly as this, but on the other, there is a strong argument to block everyone involved just for the inherent disruption for making such a mountain out such a molehill. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that PManderson thought he was not over the 3RR limit, as evidenced by the fact that he specifically pointed out the fourth edit to El_C. I would be in favor of shortening the block. I agree with bbatsel that 3RR applies to all editors, not only to the first person blocked for it, but this appears to have been a misunderstanding of that point. CMummert · talk 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Posting others' personal contact info

Resolved

129.120.44.17 is an obnoxious WikiTroll who has repeatedly vandalized the Euphonium article (replacing every instance of the word "euphonium" with "baritone" repeatedly) and has left flame-bait messages on the talk page. I've gotten the article fully protected, but this afternoon, he crossed the line (in my opinion) when he posted my cell phone number on the talk page. Whoever it is goes to school with me (I go to UNT and 129.120.xxx.xx are UNT campus computers) and obviously knows me, but I do not know who it is and certainly am not okay with him posting my personal contact info on Wikipedia. Please block this IP address for 24 hours. --NetherlandishYankee 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I should probably note that whoever 129.120.244.17 not only knows me, but is posing as me (saying things like, "I'm Rob McDaniel" (when that is really my name) or "Here is my cell phone number" (and then gives mine).

How can I verify that this happned? El_C 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(removed) seems to be relevant. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked and requested oversight for the edit in question. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --NetherlandishYankee 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed diff - let's not spread it around until oversight kicks in. x42bn6 Talk 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how should I have providede the info requested without posting the diff? At least one other recent edit by that IP seems to violate WP:CIVIL while others sound like a moderately civil attempt to convince others of the merits of his contention. I have no opnion on the underlying merits, but several editors seem to disagree with the IP editor, who does seem to be a single consistant individual, at least in recent edits. DES ^(talk) 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No one's saying you did anything wrong, he just removed it so the personal information wouldn't attract more attention than it had to begin with. I found it by just looking at the history of the page mentioned in the OP. At any rate, it's already been oversighted and the user blocked, so not much more to see here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the diff after User:Bbatsell said he reported it for oversighting, so I thought that there was no need to show the diff any longer. I didn't imply you did anything wrong. x42bn6 Talk 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Not feeling defensive, just asking for advice if such a think comes up again. Thanks. Incident over, i guess. DES ^(talk) 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Range IP Vandalism?

Earlier in the day I reverted two vandalism in Swanson, one from 169.232.229.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[22] and the other from 169.232.229.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[23]. Now another IP from the range, 169.232.226.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has vandalized my userpage and making personal attacks[24]. I wonder how that should be done?--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• They all seem to be registered to UCLA, and Universities usually have large blocks of computers all running through a single proxy, so I imagine that a range block would probably cause massive collateral, certinaly possible though--VectorPotential^Talk 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since those resolve to "University of California, Office of the President", an abuse report to UCLA with those IP's might not be a bad idea... Vector is right though, an outright range block would be big collateral damage. Unis abuse are typically a bit more likely to actually address a problem when compared to commercial IPs from my experience.--Isotope23 19:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is: Are there anything I need to do? --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet's photographs

Resolved

This issue is noted as part of another issue but I've posted it separately here to ensure it gets attention. I've also left a message on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.

Following a recent block, Captain scarlet has changed about 64 of his uploaded photographs to appear as shown here [25].

These are images which are used on Wikipedia that he has previously released into the public domain. See his user log for the full list of images replaced. Is there anything that can be done about this? This is an urgent matter as there are many articles on Wikipedia now displaying these images. If this isn't resolved promptly many are likely to be removed from articles by editors unaware of the context of this issue. Adambro 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Any commons user can revert the images but it may be necessary for a commons admin to protect them. AFAIK, the GFDL is not revocable. Thatcher131 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this is resolved. It will of course be necessary to monitor the users actions though. Adambro 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moral: think long and hard about indef-blocking anyone who has meaningful contributions. Single-purpose vandal accounts are ten a penny, editors like this, rather less so. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Department of Justice vandalizing

An IP registered to the United States Department of Justice just showed up on WP:AIV and needs blocking. Now what? PTO 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing that says you can't block the Department of Justice--VectorPotential^Talk 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you do block them though you need to inform ComCom directly. Mackensen (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Which IP was it? I just reported a bunch. - Denny ^(talk) 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed from WP:AIV, since it seems to be a content dispute. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) Yes, it has been removed. It was part of the range 149.101.0.0/16. It'll be back eventually, though. PTO 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Casey Serin - article in question

I would go into it heavily, but am short on time today. BLP issues galore here possibly. - Denny ^(talk) 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

212.201.56.x IP range

This IP range has been causing trouble on the several Nazi Germany military pages and user talk pages. Could someone set up a range block? Main three I've found:

• 212.201.56.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.201.56.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.201.56.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Wafulz 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh it also looks like they're socks of User:Nadia Kittel --Wafulz 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it appears the relevant range is 212.201.56.0/24 -- I'm not sure if I see the sort of high-level abuse I usually associate with a rangeblock, though. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with this issue. Could take a "wait and see" approach for a bit. Your call. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A question of perceived incivility?

This is granted that I have been a bit involved in the discussion, and probably should not have gotten involved at the level I have - but I feel it prudent nonetheless to bring this to here. On the AFD for English language names for Chinese people, while there is a seeming lack of concensus for deletion, one user - User:Skookum1 - almost seems content to basically point blame at User:Uncle G for what seems to be, by Skookum's explanation, a fork. There's clear dissent as to whether the article should be deleted, but...well, I'll let the conversation speak for itself. --Dennisthe2 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be a garden-variety AfD-gone-off-the-rails, and that Wikipedia is being disrupted in service of a point. The point itself seems to have something to do with an article being created to "prove" that a prior merge consensus was incorrect. Which seems to violate "State your point; don't prove it experimentally." What kind of action were you hoping for from AN/I? MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, little more than an answer to a question, maybe some insight if anything. I felt compelled to bring it to outside attention, and while it's not the first time I've seen an AfD discussion get heated, it's getting more than I've seen, and by my perception, Skookum1 has pretty much slapped NPA or CIVIL in the face. I could be wrong, though.... --Dennisthe2 23:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IP harassment on numerous talk pages

In case some of you haven't seen this yet it is really getting out of hand. IrishGuy ^talk 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP and other admin help needed

This may not belong here, but it's getting to be over my head, and I think I need a lot of admin help. Michael Wolff has Tourette syndrome, and is married to Polly Draper of thirtysomething. Their two very young children, Alex Wolff and Nat Wolff have a newly-launched Nickelodeon show, The Naked Brothers Band (TV series), which is causing their articles to get increased attention. Because their father has TS, some of the vandalism I've been reverting on all of the articles is concerning me. One gave a date of death for one of the children; another said the children had "mental disorders" like their father. I'm worried about BLP issues. The talk pages also tend towards getting out of control, because it's a kid's show. Now there is a Natwolff56 posting to Alex Wolff, so there are username issues to be dealt with. In fact, I don't know what is supposed to be done with the username, or how we verify if it's him, not to mention that if it is him, he's a child. I left a message, but I really don't know what to do next, and I'm afraid following all of these articles is going to get away from me. Can admins help out? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted all the affected pages and others should do the same. Regarding User:Natwolff56, your warning to him was appropriate, except that if he really is Nat Wolff, I think it may be a slight overstatement to say he's forbidden from editing pages about his family (as opposed to that it is discouraged and he should be careful of NPOV and COI if he does). Newyorkbrad 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also blocked the account that falsely inserted a date of death (albeit "2008") for one of the children. All of its other contributions were also vandalism, and there was a username (Asdfpoop) violation as well. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, can you direct me to a page that I can refer to, or can you correct what I said there? I guess I'm not sure on our policy or where to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also watch The Naked Brothers Band (there's a lot going on at the talk page there) and The Naked Brothers Band (film). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The basic guidelines are at WP:COI, although they pretty much say what one would expect them to. Newyorkbrad 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Natwolff56 to change his username of verify his identity through OTRS. Thatcher131 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up on that; can someone do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You just need to ask the user to e-mail with some sort of evidence they are who they say they are (the e-mail is info-en@wikimedia.org ) and we'll keep an eye out for the e-mail coming through. -- Nick ^t 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, here's another weird thing. Michael Wolff's article used to have the text,

Wolff serves on the Board of Directors of the Tourette Syndrome Association (TSA), and is involved with mentoring children with Tourette's through the chapters of the TSA.

That text has been deleted, recently. Maybe someone wants to keep that lower key now, because of the boys' show. I've been traveling a lot lately, and I'm not sure who deleted it or when. But Wolff is very prominent in the Tourette Syndrome Association, and his TS is well verified to reliable sources. Because of the situation with the children now, I'm tempted not to re-add, until the interest in the kids dies down, but I didn't want people to think I was saying he had TS with no references. Not sure what to do; advice needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I added it back in. It was lost with this vandalism. The next edit restored one paragraph but for some reason didn't add back that sentence. As it doesn't look like there was a valid reason for removal, I put it back. IrishGuy ^talk 23:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much; and I juggled the text, because what was once a serious article about a jazz musician has been impacted (I think) by Nick kid edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing

What about this? [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I think you dealt with the matter appropriately by telling both people to calm down. It's not serious enough to be a personal attack just yet. --Bowlhover 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Credit to another wiki?

I'd like a few sets of eyes on an issue at Harvey Bialy. An editor is claiming that we need to include a "credit" template acknowledging the use of text from The AIDS dissident wiki, a wiki dedicated to the idea that HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS. As best I can tell, the AIDSWiki article was mostly copied from Wikipedia, not vice versa; I've asked for specifics about which text is being used.

The second issue is that the editor insisting on the credit template happens to be the founder and (nearly) sole contributor to AIDSwiki, which raises the question of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. He appears to be User:Revolver editing under one of the IP's he uses since "retiring" (see User Talk:Revolver for a list of others). The incivility and CAPS LOCK action are characteristic.

I'd like comments from people more versed in GFDL than I. This thread from the mailing list suggests that in the past such "vanity" credits have been frowned upon. I'd prefer to rewrite any parts of the article that are copied (assuming there such parts can be specified) and remove the credit, because AIDSWiki is not a good source for Wikipedia - aside from being a wiki, it's dedicated to presenting a minoritarian/fringe POV as correct. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since that is not a reliable source, any material taken form there should be removed unless attributed to a known authority. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a little complex because the subject himself edits the article occasionally and inserts information, asserting that he is the only source necessary. It's a little tricky from a WP:BLP standpoint. I'm inclined to tag everything unsourced and remove it, since there really are few or no independent reliable sources there, but would appreciate more eyes on the article since a few editors get quite ornery about it (as you can see from the diff above). MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous personal attack

User:Jill Teed has referred to myself and several other editors as a "cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers". The term volunteer is a reference to a member of the Provisional IRA, and I take great offence at being referred to as a former member of a terrorist organisation, as I'm sure do the other editors concerned. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider giving the user a warning. Apparently was blocked before for sockpuppetry... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a direct result of my investigation, it should be stated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Suggesting someone is a "former volunteer", as in "Óglaigh" is just not on. Offensive in the extreme - Alison^☺ 00:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that basically calling a group of users terrorists would clasify as a personal attack. I will give her a warning if she hasn't received one already. IrishGuy ^talk 00:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior, good block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No block has been issued. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I mis-read. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've issued the block. I'm familiar with the checkuser and SSP report on this case. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Long history of vandalism

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, IP address 72.10.125.195 vandalized a page I've been working on (El Escorial), and on checking his contribution log found that his edits for the past month have basically consisted of nothing more than vandalism. I think a block would be in order. --NetherlandishYankee 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}}ed. Probably not all the same person, but the persistent abuses are a drain on resources which could just as well be spent elsewhere. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing deletion log concern

Resolved

 – – Luna Santin (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the deletion log for the highly inappropriate redirect Kill the sandniggers!!!, which for some reason was on my watchlist, and was disturbed. According to this deletion log, the racist redirect was to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel.

The disturbing part is that the only contributor was User:Ryulong, according to the deletion log. From what I can tell this user is an admin, and it just disgusting that an admin, of all people, would create such an inappropriate and racist page. It should not be tolerated.

I am not imagining this, am I? The Behnam 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This happens when people fix pagemove vandalism. The person who fixes it is left as the creator of the redirect; this happens all the time. Here [27] is the actual vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew, thanks for clearing that up. It didn't seem like Ryulong was that type of user either, so I even more surprised. I have now learned something new. The Behnam 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, in the future, before making a public spectacle of this, you could ask him privately what was going on, thus alleviating your concerns? --Golbez 05:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that next time. Sorry if I don't understand that technical stuff, but the text of the deletion log was rather misleading. I apologize for the misunderstanding. The Behnam 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User blanking their talk page to hide vandalism warnings

I don't want to bust 3RR on her talk page. Lizzie Harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refuses to leave vandalism warnings up on her talk page. I already warned with {{uw-tpv3}} (I thought there was a more specific one of "don't remove warnings" but couldn't find it), but continues to blank anyway. Somebody else's problem now. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason there isn't a specific don't remove warnings template is because it isn't actually against the rules to remove warnings from your talk page. The Kinslayer 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If he blanks them it means he's read them. Users are entitled to manage their talk the way they see fit. So just act as if the warnings were there and block if it's warranted. Don't fight over talk page blanking. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A 3rr is not appropriate here. Users are not required to leave warnings on their talk page. If they remove them then they obviously have seen them. Admins and experienced editors know to look at the history before giving another warning or block. FloNight 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll add this to WP:PEREN, it comes up often enough. >Radiant< 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm noticing that Lizzie Harrison is now blocked for "vandalism", but I'm not seeing where she vandalized. Anyone know what's going on? Bladestorm 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vandalism to a now-deleted page, perhaps? >Radiant< 08:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"ownership"

User apparently refusing to allow changes to Template talk:Derbyshire tramways, on the basis that he created it. (If there is a better page to raise such issues, please point me at it) Andy Mabbett 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Does not appear to be a matter of ownership. Pigsonthewing edit adds nothing useful to the page, and makes editing the template harder. I would be on your side if you were adding something useful but Pigsonthewing is just changing a bar to a star and making the template harder to edit, as it is not 1 entry per line. In my opinion the edit is clear downgrade and should be reverted, as it was.--Dacium 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue of ownership relates to the attitude of the user concerned; not the content of the individual edits. That said, my edit did add more - like many articles it include a horizontal lists, separated by bullets (•). These characters may be spoken, intrusively, by assistive software ("bullet cat bullet dog bullet..."), and the content is not marked up, in the HTML source code, as a list, which reduces functionality on some devices and reduces semantic meaning. There is now CSS available for horizontal lists, which my edit, using {{flatlist}}, applied. That uses a CSS border, not a bar, which is not read by assistive software. From your description, it seems that you may have been viewing the new page with old, cached, CSS. Try refreshing your browser. Please explain why you think my edit "makes editing the template harder". Andy Mabbett 13:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry I did have a cache problem :-) Anyway has anything happened with this?--Dacium 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There appears to be a similar issue, with the same editor, on Talk:Sheffield Midland station. Andy Mabbett 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And, I suspect, a 3RR-avoiding sock puppet. Andy Mabbett 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Lake Scutari

I'm edit warring at Lake Scutari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with Rarelibra (talk · contribs) on whether or not to include the name "Scutari" for the city after which the lake is named.

To be honest, only the 3RR stopped me from continuing :-) In any case, if an administrator wants to take a look at the issue it would be much appreciated. I think it's quite simple: you won't need to read much to get the idea.

The relevant discussion: On mentioning the city as Scutari.

Thanks already. - Best regards, Ev 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In simple terms, this diff. resumes the dispute, which revolves around this two basic versions:

• Rarelibra's version:
  "[Lake Scutari] is named after the city of Shkodra (Skadar, Shkodër) in northern Albania."
  Thus forcing the reader to check the article on Shkodër to discover that the city is also known as Scutari.
• Ev's version:
  "[Lake Scutari] is named after the city of Shkodra (Skadar, Shkodër) in northern Albania, also known by the Italian name Scutari."
  Thus making the relation between the names of the lake and city immediately comprehensible.

• The article currently states:
  "[Lake Scutari] is named after the city of Shkodra (also known as Skadar or Shkodër) in northern Albania."
  Thus forcing the reader to check the article on Shkodër to discover that the city is also known as Scutari.

Best regards, Ev 05:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that Rarelibra's edits are intended to emphasize his personal opinion on the article's name, i.e. that it should be named "Lake Skadar" or "Lake Shkodër". - Best regards, Ev 14:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The text before Rarelibra's campaign listed Scutari as one of the names of Shkodra, as it is (see it:Scutari). This would also be acceptable to me; but Ev's version may be clearer in explaining why this is the (usual) English name of the lake. In any case, I have reverted Rarelibra's last exact reversion - to Ev's version, as it happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit war apparently got both Rarelibra and Pmanderson|Septentrionalis blocked for 3RR. Under discussion, below, here. #Unblock request needs review. I weighed in on the article talk page (in favor of mentioning the town name). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! looks like it's settled. Talk:Lake Scutari. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) - requesting immediate block review

I just blocked Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption at WP:GAN, among other things: possibly running an unauthorized bot, misusing Wikipedia as if it were a webhost, uploading various unused PDFs such as this one, blanking various articles - and warnings from his user talk page, and using talk pages to post off-topic discussions. I initially blocked for 24 hours, but upgraded it to indef after seeing the extent of his behavior. I'd like to have this block reviewed, preferably soon. --Coredesat 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He has also used his user page as some sort of... spam? And uploaded a couple of Excel files. We're not a webhost, and his recent disruption was unacceptable. – Chacor 05:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This editor and myself worked on Template:TOChidden productively. I notice that the WP:GAN editing he/she was doing relied upon a javascript program apparently created by User:AndyZ. If this user's editing corresponds to that script's intended usage then I'm not entirely sure I see any sort of bad faith here. Possibly misguided though. This user's editing has focused on Raël and Raëlism and much of the content that he/she has in his/her user space appears related to that. I don't agree with this indefinite blocking given that this user has no prior history of disruption and given that they appeared to be making good faith (although seemingly disruptive) script based edits. (→Netscott) 07:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he just sent me an apology e-mail. I will go ahead and unblock him if he promises to knock off the heavy script use, as users in the #wikipedia IRC channel were finding it extremely disruptive. He can be reblocked if this happens again. --Coredesat 07:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It was highly disruptive; the script is not meant for good articles (it's meant for WP:PR), and the user also put all these articles on hold, and at the speed he was doing them, presumably wwithout reading them at all. This is highly disruptive. Also, an explanation for the pdfs, oprhaned unencyclopedic images and the Excel files is warranted. We're not a webhost. – Chacor 07:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kmarinas86 has promised not to overuse the scripts and put all articles on GAN on hold again. Given that and Netscott's statement, I am going to unblock him. This may not sit well with some users who were upset by Kmarinas86 placing all articles on hold, but a weird edit history isn't quite enough to not assume good faith. Any problematic and unused items can be IFDed/MFDed, or speedied if he so requests it. --Coredesat 08:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking a 3RR violator prematurely

This may or may not be a big deal, but I wanted to bring it up here. User:John Smith's was recently blocked due to a 3RR violation[28], and then he was unblocked just a few minutes later[29] by another admin. The admin that did the unblock statedly made no comment on the validity of the block, but his rationale was that the article that the reverts happened was now protected and blocking John Smith's would slow discussion. While that rationale would seem to make sense, on the other hand, what's essentially happened is that a 3RR violation was treated with an article protection instead of a block. I was not aware that this is appropriate action for 3RR violations. Admins' comments would be appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Smith for 72 hours for 3RR (I defend my interpretation of the reverts), but didn't notice Deskana has already attended to the case (he left the Result section header blank). I find it somewhat problematic that not only does he not get blocked, he gets the page protected on his last version (discussion on the talk page seem fairly heated at this stage, as well). I do not, however, take issue with the unblock (although I prefer being asked before blocks of this nature are undone). In short, I disagree but the action itself is well within his discretion. El_C 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask for a third-party admin opinion on this. It's a little alarming to me, because theoretically, what if another editor violates 3RR on the same article? Should he or she expect a block or just an article protection? I would think this actually encourages revert-warring instead of discouraging it. Please consider re-instating the block. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fear that you misunderstand the point of 3RR blocks. They are not punitive. They are to stop edit wars so that consensus editing can occur. If the edit war was stopped another way then a 3RR block is not needed. FloNight 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but realistically, the punitive nature of 3RR blocks goes a long way to discouraging revert warring, as evidenced by the fact that the blocking admin may choose to block for more than 24 hours on repeated offense. What I'm wondering is, what if the same editor violates 3RR again? If he reverts enough times, surely another admin will come in and protect the article to his version again. Then would he not get blocked again? And to be honest, what is the point of 3RR blocks if article protection is a preferred method of stopping a revert war? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid point: another admin would not see it reflected in the blocklog. El_C 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Honestly, I actually agree that an article should be protected if there's an edit war. That's not really the issue I have. I only think that 3RR violators should also be blocked. I know that we all should stay away from revert-warring, but the reality is that there are numerous 3RR violations everday, and the violators are blocked. What that has achieved is a mechanism that discourages experienced editors from revert-warring. Not blocking a 3RR violation would break this mechanism and encourage 3RR violations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually e-mailed El C to say that I did not believe I had broken 3RR anyway - El C, why did you not respond?

If I had been blocked and he hadn't lifted it, I would have certainly appealed it. But Hong the admins are right. Really I question why you raised an "incident report" on this - were you trying to get me re-banned? John Smith's 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. You violated 3RR and ought to be blocked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For a bit of context, here are the four reverts that John Smith's did - [30][31][32][33]. He repeatedly removed the section that begins with "In the session titled..." to add in his own version of the section. Yes, I know it takes more than one party to revert-war. But a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation and a block is warranted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree that I violated 3RR or that a block is necessary. Really it would be best if you just dropped this. John Smith's 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both HongQiGong and the admin El_C. The point is that John Smith was edit waring and violated 3RR. He was the ONLY editor who insisted to edit war about this. Everyone else, including those who are on "the other side" disagreed with him. Yet, he persisted, and pledged to edit war. So, instead of getting blocked (he was, correctly initiallly), he gets the page protected, again. Protection is better than edit waring, but if its one person that insists on edit waring to get his way--and violates the 3RR rules in doing so-- a block is highly instructive, preceded by a strong warning that such conduct is not acceptable editing behavior. As soon as he got unblocked he went back to edit war on other articles such as this one: Cultural Revolution.Giovanni33 20:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're edit warring too Giovanni. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, revert wars will happen. That's precisely why there's a 3RR policy, and it needs to be applied in this case. None of the other editors involved violated 3RR, and the revert war would have naturally stopped when editors exhaust their three reverts - unless of course, an editor willingly violates 3RR. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR is not punitive. It's merely an electric fence. If people were "exhausting their 3 reverts" (that is to say Edit waring in general), then either blocking _all_ of them or protecting the page (or both), would be the correct actions. --Kim Bruning 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. First off, his first "revert" was not a revert at all. It was actually a rather lengthy, multi-part contribution to the article, which you can more accurately see if viewed as a whole. I don't see how that's a revert.

Second, at least some of the reverts by other editors were very inappropriate. For example, an IP editor made this very valid change. (Note that it is more concise, and doesn't contain the same POV aspect to it.) It was summarily reverted. Yes, the material could've been mostly kept had "concerning the distortions of history and representation of Mao" been simply changed to, "concerning the alleged distortions of history and representation of Mao", but the point is, the shorter version was more neutral. And simply reverting to a less neutral phrasing is hardly a way to resolve the issue. The fact that HongQiGong, Giovanni, and John Smith all intentionally used precisely 3 reverts is the real problem, as all three are trying to get around the spirit of 3RR.

As it stands, there's no war going on. People have to discuss (and support) the changes now. And that means everyone on both sides. To me, this seems entirely valid. Bladestorm 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm, actually, that is not the correct diff. This[34] is John Smith's first revert, taking out the addition that another editor inserted here[35] without even an edit summary. The issue I'm raising here is not a content dispute, but the premature unblocking of a 3RR violator. Maybe you disagree with the content yourself - you're more than welcome to join the ongoing discussion. Yes, I fully admit that I also participated in the revert war. So now what I'm wondering is this - if John Smith's break 3RR again, or others also break 3RR, will they be blocked, or will the article get protected again? If John Smith's is the only one that gets an exception to the 3RR block, is this not a case of an admin showing preference in an edit war, even if done so unintentionally? My point is that if future 3RR violations will be treated with blocks, then John Smith's should have been blocked now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you need to stop implying I am/will be receiving special treatment. I am sure one policy will be applied to the article. John Smith's 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to make this brief (I tend to talk too much). Hong, I'm not trying to take sides here; merely present things more objectively. I do have the correct diff, as he made 8 or so edits all together in a batch, not just removing content, but changing, rewriting, and even adding a bit (at least, that's how it seemed to me). Taking one eighth of the collective edit isn't really very fair. What's more, technically speaking, you all violated 3RR. So if you're saying he got special treatment, then so did you. Seriously, stop worrying so much about policy. Focus on content. Bladestorm 23:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm fully aware that admins are not required to block on 3RR violations. What I'm asking is for a reconsideration of the choice to unblock. Here are the four reverts he made - [36][37][38][39]. And here's the actual addition of text he took out[40]. Note the timestamp is before his first edit that I listed here, making it a revert. It's a pretty clear cut case here. Yeah, ideally we should avoid revert wars on our own, but realistically, 3RR blocks and the threat of 3RR blocks is what stops most revert wars from getting out of hand. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise against reblocking for a few reasons.

1. There appears to be progress on the talk page of the article in question, though I certainly may be reading that wrong
2. Regardless of whether it was appropriate to unblock him before (which I think it was, since I did it), blocking him now would be more of a punishment than serve any purpose.
3. There was edit warring on both sides and blocking would just silence them both, then they'd probably continue to revert afterwards

--Deskana (ya rly) 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Change or remove edit summary?

Resolved

 – -KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 07:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

diff of summary in question I'm not looking for any intervention regarding the editor who said this, but because it's wrong I'm wondering if it can be changed so that my name doesn't appear or if not that deleted. Thank you Article as it was before I even edited here I didn't include it as a diff because a lot has changed between december and now. The quote is in the first or second paragraph under the section Military Career. Anynobody 06:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You need a editor with oversight permission for that. A full list of people with oversight is here --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I'll do that. You can mark this resolved. Anynobody 06:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil

Can someone please warn the editors here [41]. Comments from Atabek, I agree that "Armenian Genocide" made a big hype in media and "it's clear that Armenians did massacre Azeris, it's clear that genocide and massacre are not defined by number of victims but by intention of the crime. So, I don't see why "Armenian Genocide" remains on this page", This user is bringing in irrelevant things and bashing on the Armenian Genocide for no reason its very uncivil and offensive. Artaxiad 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note suggesting dispute resolution. — coelacan — 06:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, there is an open arbitration case already, so disregard my previous comment. I may be missing something important since I'm unfamiliar with the material, but it's not obvious to me how comparing the Armenian genocide to the March Days massacre is inherently incivil. Perhaps you can let this slide? — coelacan — 07:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

S.U.H.E.L. (talk · contribs)

• Because I reverted his additions to Mazzy Star that were directly ripped off from this webpage, he's left me this odd message. It's rather clearly a personal attack, but with all the "don't run up on me, homeboy", it seems kind of threatening to boot. JuJube 08:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to have handled it pretty well. It sounds like a empty threat to me. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 10:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppetery and no ban?

Artaxerex (talk · contribs) is a confirmed puppet master of: User:Faranbazu, User:Arteban1, User:Napht and User:Torsh.

There are good enough reasons to believe that he has also edited under various IPs. I would like to know why this user was only blocked for 3 days, which was not extended when he created yet more sock puppets, and also considering that he has been doing this for some time and there is no stopping him from creating more.

As you can appreciate, it's very difficult to improve articles when a user keeps creating problems like this, and it is discouraging for this voluntary project. I would like to know some admin's opinions regarding what solution is the most appropriate in a case like this --Rayis 12:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters, a ban is something that is not handed out lightly, even to sockpuppeteers. A ban is a community construct and you have to be a pretty long term or serious abuser of community patience to get banned. I think you are asking why this person didn't get indefinitely blocked for puppeting, and to that I would say you need to ask the blocking admins, who used their discretion when handing out the blocks. From what I see the main account has not edited since 2-APR. Do you have Diffs or a checkuser result that this person created more socks after the block extension to continue editing around the block? Is the editor continuing to use sockpuppets to circumvent WP:3RR now? If this person is continuing to engage in the same sort of behavior they were blocked for, I'd be happy to look into it if you provide me some diffs. If they are not, then there really is nothing to be done here.--Isotope23 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Helpful IP address here....

This IP will only make constructive and helpful edits! Don't block us.... okay! --74.53.88.50 13:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So they helpfully went straight to place !votes in several RfAs... this one might be worth watching.--Guinnog 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No promises on that one. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 13:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page is very suspicious when it says "this is not an open proxy". A quick Google search shows that this IP has been used for spam. – Chacor 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This IP is not an open proxy. Chacor, please be good towards IPs. --74.53.88.50 13:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from 194.255.124.250

194.255.124.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a well-known sock / vandal IP. It also has a tendency to try to portray me as a vandal, as this recent edit demonstrates. Another edit summary effectively accused another editor of being a Nazi [42]. Would somebody please do something about it? Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice this post above but this account is a sock of User:Comanche cph mentioned above. Among other things, this is shown by this edit. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky violated 1rr rule

Aivazovsky violated 1 rr Arbcom desicion on page Qazakh [43]]--Dacy69 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't because I reverted once yesterday and once today and both times I have invited users to see the talk page. Dacy69 meanwhile reverted this article [44] without an adequate explanation (he is on the 1RR revert parole as well and with this action appears to have violated it himself). In fact, he reverted a compromise version of this article proposed by User:Khoikhoi, an administrator to one by User:AdilBaguirov, a user whose history of questionable behavior now has him blocked for one week [45] and a pending block for one year. [46] -- Aivazovsky 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you never revert at all, but always take it to Talk, you won't be accused of violating your ArbCom sanction. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You 2 times today reverted this page, though first was not pure revert but in the essence it was. About me - I gave explanation on talkpage about my edit. You just claim that User:AdilBaguirov references wrong without reasanoble objection. As far as User:Khoikhoi - on this page he is acting not as admin but as editor, not neutral, though. --Dacy69 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted once today and once yesterday and my objection to User:AdilBaguirov, as clearly stated on the talk page was that he uses original research to back up his statements. -- Aivazovsky 16:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistant Spam (Peterrahme (talk · contribs · count))

Articles: Amazing Grace, John Newton, William Cowper have all been reverted due to spamming links. User has been warned 5 times. The link being spammed is here: [The Man & The Story Behind Amazing Grace - by Peter Rahme User is User:Peterrahme

--Csodennc 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is quicker for this. If he keeps on going, I guess it can go to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. x42bn6 Talk 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

User:Kevin Murray thinks it's really important that the notability guideline explicitly allows for articles which can have only one non-trivial external source. Some others of us think that is an open invitation to rules-lawyering. See [47]. I believe that "A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works which are both reliable and independent of the subject." has the merit of being unambiguous and easy to understand; his "A notable topic should be the subject of substantial and non-trivial published source material which is both reliable and independent of the subject. More than two sources are preferred, in rare cases can one substantial source imply notability." has an air of "articles should cite sources unless you can't find any". Guy (Help!) 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Guy. Multiple non-trivial works needs to be an absolute requirement. I'm mentioned as an actor in the local paper back in high school, doesnt mean im notable. A single source fails in all regards to proving notability. -M^ask? 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I support Guy's version, too. But, to be fair, Guy's wording doesn't require the works to be cited either, only that they exist. Which is a good thing. There are no absolute requirements on WP, especially in terms of deleting articles, but the multiple sources requirement encourages more well-rounded articles, which is why I prefer it. CMummert · talk 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the requirement is that it should be supportable from multiple sources. Ideally, of course, those will be cited, but I'm happy enough to be an eventualist on that score. I am still waiting for an example of an unambiguously notable subject that has only one source. Oh, background: I think these guys want to use WP:AI as a replacement for WP:N. Much as I admire Jeff and respect his tenacity, I think even he would have to admit that his position on the inclusion spectrum is about as far to the inclusionist end as you can get without actually falling off :-) Guy (Help!) 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Images in Signature

Hello. I have a problem with images in user signatures. Especially S V G images. For some accessibility software (screen readers etc.) S V G images are read as text because their file is not recognised as binary, and vector graphisc slow computers considerably, and when they are removed from display the formatting is not always kept, this creates great problems in user signatures, but then I see policy WP:SIG forbids images. I asked[48] one user if he could remove image from signature as per WP:SIG#Images. I received no response and the comment was archived in less than 24 hours. The user continues to sign with an image.

The user (User:AKMask) also had another request to remove image from signature which had this response[49]. I can understand that the user has had the image before the policy was created, but I disagree the policy does not apply because the flag image is small. “I dont(sic) have any issues with people refactoring(sic) talk and discussion pages to eliminate it if they so desire” I think this is very backwards. By the time I see the flag it has already caused a problem, then the user is asking me to edit it out? Even on this A N I page I am posting this user is posting with his flag. I think the rules should apply to everyone evenly. Many people had images (even small ones) and removed them. I do not think it is fair that there has to be a "significant outcry" (Who judges this?) before an accepted policy should be followed by a particular user. I post here to hope an administrator could ask him again please to remove the image from his signatures.--Dacium 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, he's soon going to have to be blocked until he removes the images from his signature. It's a simple rule that we all have to follow, and there is no grandfather clause. --Cyde Weys 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: aren't SVG images usually rendered to png by MediaWiki? I'm uncertain as to why they're specifically creating a problem. But yes, Cyde Weys' warning seems pretty reasonable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I used a flag before the policy came in, I removed it when the policy came in. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain once and for all why images in signatures are not allowed. Even the most obnoxious, ornamented, 1KB signature you can think of is still nothing more than HTML, and it is sent inline with the rest of the discussion page. Now this may inflate bandwidth by a little bit, but that's not a huge problem. Images, however, are handled totally differently. Each image needs to come across through a separate HTTP connection. People are saying, "Oh, but this or that image is only 300B" — that's not the point. The point is that it puts a lot more load on the server by requiring another HTTP request, not through bandwidth. If images in signatures were allowed and a lot of people were using them, rather than the typical discussion page generating a few HTTP requests, it could potentially generate dozens of them. That would be putting an utterly unnecessary increased load on servers, and to prevent this from happening, images are banned in signatures, period. I have spoken with AKMask on IRC and explained this with him, and he is removing the image voluntarily. The draconian block threat is unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Images are banned, but the other restrictions on sigs don't seem to be so clear. Is there a client-side solution (eg, user CSS sheets or GreaseMonkey extensions) that re-factor a user's local page? That would allow users to post with ugly sigs, and other users to avoid those sigs. Dan Beale 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the script is called TonySidaway.js ;-) Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• HAH! El_C 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the use of images in signatures is not forbidden at all. WP:SIG#Images is a wiki Guideline and is not policy and therefor not enforceable. Any admin who blocked a user because of an image in their signature would themselves be violating wiki policy. There are two options for this issue. 1. Change the guideline into actual policy. 2. Automate the system to prevent the use of images in signatures. You can see from this entry that people are already working on this: bugzilla:6379. In the meantime, while you may request a user remove an image from a signature, there is no wiki policy at present to enforce this. Z Ha Dum 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can read here, guidelines are actionable. Saying that because community consensus is expressed on a page marked as a "guideline" instead of a "policy" equates to "not forbidden at all" is ludicrous and not an accurate reading of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actionable YES! and in this case the action taken would be to request a user to remove the image from their signature. Proposing or applying a Block on a user for refusing to remove that image is not appropriate. The fact is that this is NOT policy, it is a guideline which is proposed by wiki consensus. It is a suggestion of how things should be done. If this was to be a hard and fast rule for editors then it would be POLICY and would have a preset consequence well defined by that policy. At present it is not POLICY and has no predefined consequence. While an admin may request a user to apply this guideline, they may not enforce it. Read the first line of "Guideline" it states that it is a guideline only and is NOT set in concrete. While the use of images in signatures may be an annoyance to some editors, to others it has no affect at all. If you don't like the guideline then I suggest that you apply to have it adopted as POLICY or joint the group at bugzilla:6379. Until then, you should lay off the bully tactics focused at editors that do not share you POV and try and focus more on editing wikipedia. After all, that is the real reason we are here - or do you have some other agenda? Z Ha Dum 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree

Could someone investigate a series of odd incidents, mainly concerning Category:User templates, and the following pages: User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short.

PatPeter (talk · contribs) has been using this page to replace what's been accepted as userpage format, and as far as I can tell, there's been no one but him working on the category 'rule' changes (see below).

Cat page changes:

• Category:User templates: [50]
• Category:Book fan user templates: [51]
• Category:Dance user templates: [52]
• Category:Fandom user templates: [53]
• Category:Grammar user templates: [54]
• Category:Interest user templates: [55]
• Category:Language user templates: [56]
• Category:Mathematics user templates: [57]
• Category:Scouting user templates: [58]
• Category:Wikipedia related user templates: [59]

Also refer to [60], [61], and [62]. Blast 05.04.07 0424 (UTC)

• I've already questioned the use of WP:StS on WP:AN earlier. Note that the CFD has now been closed as "speedy keep" due to orphaning of the category by the nom, PatPeter (talk · contribs), amongst other irregularities. See here. Also, as a result of this comment, my first encounter with this user, I received this reply. - Alison^☺ 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats because you made it clear as mud that you were trying to tell me to assume good faith on behalf of other users and not myself. -PatPeter 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just found out there's apparently some history to all this on ANI - Alison^☺ 05:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears that this is not the first time PatPeter's conduct has been raised on this board (see this archived thread). I have recently become aware of a range of questionable edits by this editor:

1. The bringing of an TfD for the user category Category:Cub Wikipedians on the basis of it containing only one member when he had orphaned it himself ([63], [64]). Given this, I have speedy closed the discussion and suggested a new debate at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion with proper nomination (the category is a little problematic, especially given the difference in meaning ascribed to the word "Cub" between the gay community and the Scouting community).
2. The user created userbox User:PatPeter/User antigay which stated an opposition to gay rights in general (not just same sex marriage etc). It has been speedy deleted by Grandmasterka as divisive and inflammatory per CSD T1.
3. At present his userpage contains a flashing alert declaring that he is about to commit suicide. It appears highly distasteful and likely to distress users with personal experience of suicide.

I don't know enough about the templates listed above to assess PatPeter's edits to them (though the "rules" do seem expressed unnecessarily strongly) but would ask they be investigated by someone who does. WjBscribe 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's trying to be distasteful or offensive with this suicide message. I think he's suffering from some serious depression. One of his userboxes says as much. I wouldn't treat this as a joke or an attempt to be rude; actually I think someone completely uninvolved might want to leave a nice note recommending that he make an appointment to talk to someone. He's on a university campus, and most have free and confidential counselling available at the drop of a hat. — coelacan — 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re. the "suicide" comment. These things, even if made in jest, often run deeper, in my experience - Alison^☺ 05:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My only interaction with him so far was this, which I found to be in rather bad taste. Potential socks? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be overlooking something. What's the sock potential you're seeing? — coelacan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I guess you were talking about this.... That is really weird. I don't know if it yells "sock" so much as "weird random stuff". — coelacan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It was presumably done to make the templates appear more used than they really were... WjBscribe 07:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Some of them were done after the Tfd closed. — coelacan — 07:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What's troubling me right now is the title overrides on User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short. Over at User talk:Mallanox one can see how he directed someone to these pages as though they were Wikiprojects making guidelines that should be followed, or at least that's my reading of it. Anybody else troubled by the title overrides, or should I just drop it? — coelacan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable, especially given the use of the redirect WP:StS and WP:CGC so the user has little to tell them that it is NOT a Wikipedia page... WjBscribe 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried. But I wasn't going to keep reverting as my own one-person inquisition. — coelacan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As redirects to userspace for WP: shortcuts are expressly excluded from CSD R2, I have listed the shortcuts at Redirects for discussion. WjBscribe 07:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

watch out for category emptying

PatPeter has now admitted that he was emptying a category prior to speedying it, to "fight fire with fire". So if anyone is doing speedy deletions, and you see a category tagged by User:PatPeter or an Oregon State Univeristy IP, consider that it may have just been emptied. — coelacan — 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You think I live in Oregon? I live in Chicago, it says so on my userpage. -PatPeter 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Username question

This is a strange situation that I'm not quite sure how to handle. I used to have the username SuperMachine (talk · contribs) until it was renamed to ChazBeckett (talk · contribs). My SuperMachine user page and talk page were redirected to ChazBeckett. Now someone has created User:SuperMachine and removed the redirects. My former signature (SuperMachine) is all over the place and now points to this new user. I'm not quote sure how to approach this. Do I ask the user to please stop using the name SuperMachine? Should I find all my old signatures and update them to point directly to ChazBeckett? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, ChazBeckett 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it should have shown up as a "taken" name and therefore ineligible for a new user to acquire. The short version thereof is that he can't have it, and the software should have let him know that. Since it didn't, it's up to one of the admins to do so. Utgard Loki 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that would be great if an admin could handle it. The user has only made four edits, so it shouldn't be a big deal to choose another user name. Thanks! ChazBeckett 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While I surely empathize, there really isn't much to do about it. When you changed names, you left the old handle behind and all of your contribution attributions were changed accordingly. The only thing that changing your name doesn't do is adjust timestamps; that's up for you to do by hand. As the changing usernames pages says, the old account isn't blocked as it has been left empty and abandoned. I suggest you approach the user nicely and explain the situation, and ask if they could change names out of courtesy. If they don't, well... you gave up that old account. Sorry that I couldn't be of assistance. Maybe someone else can. Teke 01:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... my understanding was that the software wouldn't allow anyone to register a username which had been renamed -- perhaps that change was more recent than I realized, or my understanding is otherwise flawed. Not sure about the best thing to do, here. Only other idea that comes to mind is a "user disambig" link, but eh... – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bowlhover: talking back to admins is not a permablock offense

Resolved

 – User unblocked, everyone lives happily ever after. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Higher up on this page, this chickenrace with Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just got an editor indefinitely blocked. A real, productive, editor, not a vandal, sock, or adder of unconstructive material, except for one April Fool's joke (not a very funny one IMO, but that's sort of not the point). I consider it disgraceful for admins to throw their weight around in this way, and bait users. "If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block" might stand as the perfect, canonical example of what not to say to a user who is already upset. It's certainly the perfect way of backing the user into a corner where all alternatives are humiliating. I have asked Carnildo, who blocked for 24 hours, and Yamla, who followed up by blocking indefinitely, to unblock.[65] [66]. I hope one of them does, and soon.. By the way, deleting Bowlhover's user talk was a mistake. We're not supposed to do that, only blank it. The history should remain accessible. Since it only is visible to admins, I will quote from Yamla's block message, which was also his "unblock denied message". (Are these two really supposed to be telescoped? Well, never mind, that's a minor detail.) Bowlhover had written (among other things) this in his unblock request:

• "This 24-hour block is useless. I will repeat what I said two times before: I will not apologize for my actions, nor will I refrain from them on April 1, 2008. I guarantee that extending the block will be also useless."
• Yamla declined the request, with the comment: "I have reverted somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 instances of this sort of thing. That's no exaggeration. You may think it is funny but we don't, not after that many "pranks". As you have promised to continue these actions, I have extended your block to an indefinite one. If you later promise to refrain from vandalism in the future, please request an unblock and someone will be happy to unblock you. In the meanwhile, please note that if you create any new accounts to continue editing while this one is blocked, this may be grounds for a permanent ban."

Was Bowlhover perhaps being punished for all the 10,000—20,000 April's Fools' pranks that Yamla had reverted..? It was hardly Bowlhover's fault that Yamla was burned out on April's Fools. It seems to me that both these admins have thrown their wieight around in an inappropriate way. The admin is supposed to be the bigger person, not use his/her powers to back a user into a corner.
Look at [Bowlhover's block log]! No previous blocks on this established long-time user. Weren't we supposed to have been promised more care with the block button from Carnildo? In his latest RFA, he made the undertaking that "I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand." Yeah? Bishonen | talk 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Surely a preventative block would have to be issued on March 31, 2008? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, all let's calm down and review this. Bishonen, don't make this a 'get Carnildo' vendetta-crusade. I'm gong to investigate it, so should others. But lets hear all sides of this story without any sarcastic animosity.--Doc^g 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply 10,000 to 20,000 April Fools jokes, I meant vandalism generally. Bowlhover promised to continue these pranks and that is simply inappropriate. I made it quite clear that if he promised not to vandalise any further, he should be unblocked immediately. But someone who promises to continue vandalising in the future should not be permitted to edit. That the user implied, at least, that he would use sockpuppets to vandalise also weighed in on my decision to extend the block. --Yamla 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also hope that we all learned from a recent arbitration case that calm consideration can prevent a mistake from becoming a disaster. I second Doc's plea, and will investigate further myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I should note that I am quite happy for any other admin to unblock this user if they have reason to believe this user will no longer vandalise the Wikipedia, or if they are willing to take responsibility for that vandalism if they believe he will continue vandalising. --Yamla 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have looked into the history and also have serious concerns about this indefinite block, although I am also unimpressed with the user's complete indifference to the possibility that his April Fool's prank about a toxic spill in a major city might cause genuine alarm, and his complete unwillingness to consider moderating his comments regarding future actions. I find no basis for the suggestion that Bishonen's raising this matter was primarily based on the fact that the first blocking admin was Carnildo rather than anyone else (she frequently posts with concern about blocks she considers unjustified). Newyorkbrad 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

His talk page was tagged db-author, so the unability thereof is his own fault and not the outcome of malicious machinations. I'll note that this kind of post [67] is singularly unhelpful, if distressingly common. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the appreciation, Mackensen, it was nothing. User talk pages are not supposed to be deleted according to the guideline Wikipedia:User page. How would you have liked me to put it? "I assume good faith and by no means malicious machinations and apologize for opening my mouth, but deleting user talk pages is a mistake"? I actually thought it might be minorly helpful to point it out. And I thought it it would be majorly helpful to take issue with this pushing-out of an established contributor, which had roused no interest until I did. Doc, if I had wanted to make it a "get Carnildo vendetta-crusade" it would have sounded quite different. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It looks like overkill to me. Serious problem editors are often not treated this harshly, though I too am unmoved by the "humor" of the edit in question. I think this user should be unblocked, but I would have no problem with a remedy that blocks the user every April 1 until they agree to stop. IronDuke 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right... unblock him now and someone put him on the docket for a preventative 48 hour block starting March 31st, 2008. I'll actually be impressed if anyone remembers to do that...--Isotope23 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. The activity was highly immature and I've every sympathy with Carnildo's initial 24 hour block. I'd have done the same. However, despite his bravado, I doubt he'd do it again. If he did, we'd simply block him then. Feel free to replace the block if the consensus here is that he should remain blocked.--Doc^g 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block (note that indefinite and infinite aren't the same thing), but at the same time this [68] isn't a message that would move me to unblock somebody. In effect, it promises continued disruption and sockpuppetry if admins don't do his bidding. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose we leave him unblocked but consider him on community parole. Forget/ignore his foolish words, the first sign of actual intentional disruption, we block him for good.--Doc^g 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. You said you wanted to hear all sides of this incident before making judgements, so why did you call me "foolish" before I had a chance to defend myself? And forgive my bragging, but do you really think I'll intentionally disrupt Wikipedia if I haven't done so for the past year and a half? --Bowlhover 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. WP:AGF, it was a lot of bluster in response to his block.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) Note that he specifically stated that if unblocked he would not promise not to do somethign simialr next April first, which could be taken as an implied promise not to do anything of the sort on any other date. This is surely not the most explict or graceful way of handling the matter, but is not quite the same thing as proclaiming himself a committed and unrepentant vandal. I agree that this block should be lifted. DES ^(talk) 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is going on with these charges of vandalism and sockpuppetry? Yamla's reason for his block was "User claims he will continue vandalising, unblock only on a promise from user to never again vandalise any article.)" Well, I never vandalized Wikipedia and never will. Vandalism is always done in bad faith, by definition; the prank I posted, no matter how awful a joke, was done in good faith. I wasn't thinking "Let's make these stupid editors have heart attacks". I was thinking "Hmmm, let's pull a prank on somebody like millions of other people are doing right now".

The reason for my outbursts at Mathew, Cardillo, and Yamla was anger. Cardillo and Yamla never discussed my reasons for the prank ([69][70]) before blocking me. Tell me, fellow Wikipedians: if an admin is trying to block you while ignoring your defense, what would you do? Wouldn't you get angry? If the admins don't want to cooperate, negotiate, or be flexible, fine. I will not either.

Will I do something similar on April 1, 2008? Well, I do like pranks, but hopefully by then I will have become better at it. I will definitely not post any hoaxes until 362 days later. By the way, I've never posted anything that could be interpreted as a "disruption" prior to this incident.

Now for the prank itself. Please discuss the reasons I linked to above before making judgements about it. About sockpuppetry: I don't know how you twisted my words to make it seem I threatened to create sockpuppets. I wanted to leave Wikipedia forever instead of "vandalizing" using another account.

I challenge Yamla to find a single vandalism, i.e. obviously bad faith, edit made by me. --Bowlhover 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying that perceived hostility from admins or editors justifies reciprocal behaviour on your part. That's not a particularly helpful attitude. It seems that some people were angered themselves by your initial actions, and I have seen any sign that you apologized them (if you did, please point it out so I'm not making false statements). Regardless of intent people thought you were disrupting the reference desk. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest. The indef block was a poor call - but so was you getting angry and engaging in bravado. Let each reflect on their own actions; forget recriminations; and go back to doing whatever we do round here. Pride has been injured here - but if you insist on defending yourself, the admins will too, and the temperature will rise. It seems that what the events of 2nd April show is that not one comes our well of that confrontational path. Cool it one and all.--Doc^g 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if we are going to have April Fools' pranks, I would rather see meta-pranks, such as Shii's announcement that he was going to unblock and mentor a certain banned user, or nominating WP:RFAR for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was an attack page. Pranks that directly affect article content and hence interact directly with the real world are dangerous, and ought to be treated like vandalism. It would be nice if Bowlhover would acknowledge this. Thatcher131 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Nothing too scary on April Fools day, especially not for a major city. Maybe I'll nominate a vandal for adminship? --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Prank was uncalled for April Fools or not in the particular place it was done. But the indefinite block was also uncalled for since it obviously was a good faith attempt to make some people smile and construing it as "vandalism" was borderline violation of WP:AGF. The user in question isn't some noob out to cause trouble and even a cursory look at his history and block log bears that out. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest" God, I do hate that expression! Please do show some use of vocabulary! - or else shut up. Giano 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doc^g 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc, despite your previous criticism of me, should I assume your call for peace was made in good faith? O.K. I forgive Carnildo and Yamla for blocking me, but please be more lenient next time with blocking users. Thanks a ton to Bishonen for bringing this incident up on the administrator's noticeboard at a time when I felt very alienated; I highly appreciate it, and you've made a gloomy day much better for me. And thanks, Doc, for the unblock. I very much appreciate that too.

To everyone reading this: I wish you a happy Good Friday and Easter if you're Christian, and an enjoyable ultra-long weekend if you're not. I'm eager to finally close this case. --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested update to blocking policy posted

See here on blocking policy talk page:

Per previous precedent and commonly accepted practice, linking to attack sites, or linking to sites that attempt to "out" the identities of Wikipedia editors for any purpose is a blockable offense. This includes re-inserting such content that was already removed, and its initial insertion. Users who post such information or links, or that re-insert them after their removal, may be blocked for the safety and protection of other editors.

thanks, - Denny ^(talk) 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a special case of posting personal information, really. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much support anything to make the policy clearer that linking to sites that give personal information is a complete no-no. And nowiki'd URLs are just a way of getting round that. Incidentally, people keep referring to "attack sites". They're quite right, of course, but the problem is that it implies that the main objection to the sites is that they attack users. That's not the main problem. If someone posts to a website that says I'm a fat swine, it's not a big deal. If someone posts to a website that says I live at 17 Cherry Tree Lane, that is a big deal. (Actually, I don't. I took that address from Mary Poppins, but I think it makes the point clear.) ElinorD (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. It's not hard to find out who I am in real life, and probably where I live, but that's no reason to shout about it. If I want people to know then I'll post my address. And if we can stop the Readers Digest along with the abusers that will be a plus :-) Guy (Help!) 23:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, we only publish information about you when it serves our purposes. Otherwise, we que the personal information we have gathered about 67 percent (as of today) of Wikipedia admins in a secret site inaccessible to Wikipedia fanatics. That blacklisted site you're trying to inflitrate while claiming you are not yourself is just a front. The real work goes on out of reach of your prying eyes. We knew Essjay was Ryan Jordan long before we decided it is time for another high-profile Wikiblunder to make the press -- we forced the New Yorker correction according to our timetable for Wikipedia's demise, and guess who inspired them to step in that do-do in the first place? We dislosed Linda's and Kate's personal details in real time (or near real time - almost as quick as we could put it together and play it) because -- you guessed it -- it suited our purposes. That car parked down the block, guy, -- well, let's just say we have a detailed understanding of your editing schedule.KnowAboutU 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited WP:HARASS (the section which says that posting another editor's personal details is harassment, regardless of whether or not those details are correct) to show that posting links to a site which publishes these details is also harassment, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites. ElinorD (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this page, then? Looks like Wikipedia has to blacklist Wikipedia under the new no-telling-the-truth-about-the-liars-who-write-Wikipedia policy. KnowAboutU 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. There are 227 of these links across 8 wikipedias. I suggest disabling those links before blacklisting; see the discussion at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#wikipedia review.
2. Nobody knows about this new policy[71] just enacted within the last 24 hours that could lead to their being blocked. I suggest widely publicizing it in the Signpost, at the Village Pump and on the Community Portal. You might also consider developing a sequence of warning templates; as it stands, a user can delete chunks of articles several times before getting blocked whereas just posting a link on a user talk page (for instance, "did you know they're saying this about you at Wikipedia Review?") could get someone blocked on sight. I don't think that sort of person really meets the spirit of WP:STALK and may not even know of this new change in the rules. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Another user:Serafin sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Current ban discussion at WP:CN. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

blocked user:Serafin has created another sockpuppet and is using it on numerous articles.

• Momo111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

he has had over 40 sockpuppets now, can we semi-protect recovered territories as that is the article he commonly vandalizes.

--Jadger 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. --Yamla 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please move for a community ban against this user. Alternatively, if I have not done so within 24 hours, please prod me and I'll do it. This vandal has no place on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personnal attack and threat received

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have received a threat from User:67.10.203.37, which includes a violation of my privacy.

Please see wikipedia article including the threat.

What are my options ? Hektor 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks are extremely serious in Wikipedia. If the ip makes attacks again, report it at WP:AIV. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a block on the IP address that made those edits. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Xanucia

Resolved

 – No block issued, pending mention of any problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at this user's recent participation in AfD discussions? It is not as helpful as one might hope.-FisherQueen (Talk) 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the there is much that can be done - there is no requirement that comments on AFD be based in reason or in policy. CMummert · talk 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy against voicing a keep bias. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

Resolvedblock ended now Tyrenius 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

On his talk page: [72], Paul venter (talk · contribs) has been blocked for incivility. He has since leveled a charge against the blocking admin that says, and I quote, "have chosen instead to abuse your powers of blocking, that your lack of evenhandedness is not appropriate to your office". It should be noted (see Paul's contrib list) that he has been involved in edit wars with several other editors over what amounts to minor stylistic differences (Paul's version of the articles in question is frequently the one in violation of the MoS, though the differences are largely moot). Also, Paul has left incivil comments in his edit summaries (again, see his contribs list) which is the specific reason he was blocked by the admin in question. I am not taking any formal stand on the issue, only to post this here per a request at Paul's talk page and seek further comment from admins.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the contribs before the block, but accusations of that nature towards the blocking admin should simply be ignored. People get upset by a block. I'm sure Tyrenius doesn't take it personally. If I had a penny for every blocked user who's told me I'm not fit to be an admin, I'd be, I don't know, driving an Italian car or something. Bishonen | talk 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Agreed with Bishonen. I've gotten comments and emails a lot worse than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted, in the interest of full disclosure, that Paul has done a quite a bit of good work here. He has created or substancially expanded a number of articles, his silly editwars over picture size and placement notwithstanding. If everyone involved could simply cool their heads and let things settle down, the stylistic problems can be hammered out later. However, none of that excuses the incivility and editwarring. I only say that if we can get the editwars to stop, on the balance Paul as an editor can be an asset to Wikipedia.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Crossed in the mail: Something I find disturbing in this recent block. If you look at the following chronology, both personal attacks by Paul venter (talk · contribs) took place before the first warning by Tyrenius (talk · contribs).

Time	User	Page	Edit summary
11:19, 5 April 2007	Paul venter	Otto Beit	Revert image shrinking by stalker
11:23, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius
11:23, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul ventner
11:24, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul venter
17:28, 5 April 2007	Paul venter	Charles Collier Michell	Repair damage by stalker
00:45, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	PERSONAL ATTACK WARNING
02:40, 6 April 2007	Paul venter	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul venter
03:34, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	Block for personal attack
03:44, 6 April 2007	Paul venter	User talk:Paul venter	→Block
03:58, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	→Block - If you follow the instructions in the block notice, another admin will review it.
04:02, 6 April 2007	Jayron32	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents	User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

Therefore, Paul venter was not ignoring Tyrenius' warning. He hadn't received it yet! --Kevinkor2 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is right - I got the times muddled. However, he had previously been warned about ignoring guidelines and consensus[73] and responded by attacking other editors.[74] He was also warned previously about leaving uncivil edit summaries and editing warring.[75] He has no excuse. He blanked an ongoing discussion on his talk page [76] and carried on with a belligerent attitude [77][78]. He continues to insist on his personal ideas about, particularly, image size, regardless of other editors, MOS or policy, which in this case Kittybrewster was attempting to implement. I'm letting the block stand. Tyrenius 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1 blocked for a week

AfterArigato1 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) continues to contribute in non constructive ways. In view of multiple prior warnings ([79], [80] et al) and incidents ([81], [82], [83] and the next several revisions, [84], [85], [86] in which he reverted an edit by a likely sock or meatpuppet and tryed to smear Valentinian with it, but a CU showed "not related" to that sock for Valentinian and "related" for other socks that consistently support Arigato1, [87], et al.)I have blocked for a week and explained my actions here. It is suspected that Arigato1 is just the latest sock of a persistent troublesome user, believed first seen as Comanche cph (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) who has a somewhat slanted POV regarding Denmark and Sweden, and who seems to have a grudge with long time valued contributor Valentinian (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email). Some CU checks have been performed, and there is a pattern of sockery and meatpuppetry associated with these accounts and other ones that are intertwined (see for example [88]). Many of the single (vandal or PA) edit accounts have already been blocked indefinitely. The next occurance of this sort of activity will likely result in me blocking Arigato and his IP (which should shut him down, as Danish IPs stay with the same user for a very long time if not indefinitely) indefinitely. As always, I invite review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the edits of Klovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), most importantly the first edit I don't really think a CU is necessary to establish that this is yet another sock. The dispute concerns exactly the same thing. Like Arigato, the user name is Danish. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Klovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Even if not a sock, this is still a WP:POINT account that has been trolling a couple of articles (and apparently decided to declare themselves an admin on their userpage).--Isotope23 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Isotope23, I concur with your action. I'm now inclined to block Arigato for more time for block evasion, especially if this stunt is repeated. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A CU confirms that Klovn and Arigato1 are almost certainly (as sure as it ever gets) the same user. Given the past history I'm increasing the block to 2 weeks, and added account creation prevention from this IP. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

user Iwazaki has violated the WP:NPA towards me. He has called me "Elalan" Elalan (talk · contribs)(a blocked user for sockpuppeting) and has also insulted me number of times.

If you see his contributions you can see in his edit summary saying "Reply to elalan" which is actually a reply to me. You can see it here. This is insulting me because I am a new user and to be branded a outlawed user is not the way I want to be treated. I have left warning on his user page but he has crossed it out with comment "removed useless remark". Link is here.

Here is another link where he calls me Elalan the first time to which I have clearly said I am not. here. You can see he has written this:

"Who ever wrote the above paragraph disqualified himself from writing anything regarding LTTE and related issues.With such a naive knowledge of Sri Lankan issues I would kindly ask this above person to study the issue before even start touching the article..And I would also like to ask this person to use glasses and see what's written on those posters properly"- Personal attack

"way to go Elalan, with your hilarious editing.They were immediately reverted.Actually I am kinda surprised that You talk about AGF here while condemning Our country,Wikipedia Admins, several of Wiki Editors before..I still remember what You wrote at your Talk page " - another Personal attack.

Here is another link where he has called me biased editer (violates WP:NPA).here

"And I am sure later, you would say even all the suicide bombings,mass murders by LTTE should also be under the GOSL section!! Even though I admit you have a fair good knowledge of the LTTE, some of your remarks made me(and very well the others too) speechless !! "- here he implies that I am a biased editor and that my remarks makes people "Speechless".

Please take nessasary steps thanks. Watchdogb 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page, telling him not to refer to you as Elalan. If he continues to call you that, despite the note, give him a warning.--KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

page move & history merge request

A newbie (JoeSanchez (talk · contribs · count)) has copied and pasted the contents of Abdalqadir as-Sufi al-Murabit to a page he himself created: Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi. Obviously, this ruined the edit history, but worse, naming conventions dictate that titles not be used in page names. The original name was therefore correct. Could a sysop please merge the histories (of the talk pages as well), and recreate the article at Abdalqadir as-Sufi al-Murabit?. Thanks! Errabee 14:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What I did is merely according to WP:HISTMERGE.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. You applied it to the wrong page. Errabee 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. The WP:HISTMERGE assumes that the new title is the desired title, which in this case it simply isn't. Application of WP:HISTMERGE therefore leads to confusion in this case and should be avoided. Errabee 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR block/possible puppet

I have blocked Anyone7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As well as inviting review of this decision, I invite closer inspection of the user's contribs as I suspect it might be a new account from some old "friend" or another. As a novice editor they sure seem to know what they're doing. --kingboyk 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody? --kingboyk 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the page got protected anyway. It's certainly possible it's a sock, but I can't tell right offhand who it would be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Risker, User:Tjstrf, and others Disrupting WP, Hijacking Essjay controversy

Please, someone stop the nonsense these users are doing that are wasting other Wikipedian's time and energy and preventing people from creating good work.

See this post's edit summary: "is it time to create a distraction?" followed by this, this, this, and this MfD — C.m.jones 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominating one of your subpages for deletion is not disruption. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

At what point are we allowed to community ban users who stay within policy but are disruptive to the point the other editors are tearing their hair out? Or does this need to go to Arbcom? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a provision in WP:BAN that allows for banning for "exhausting the community's patience." —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How many POV forks of an article do we need to let rot in sandboxes for Google to crawl possible BLP vios? None? :) - Denny ^(talk) 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix blocked

Resolved

Autoblock lifted. {PTO} {speak} 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From User:Cascadia's talk page:

Will an admin monitoring my talk page, or someone, please unblock me. User:CanadianCaesar has blocked an IP belonging to the University of Phoenix, instead of the username he was going after, and has such blocked all contributors within UOP (and it is a slow day here!).

Thanks for your help!

Oh, and please revert WP:BOLD if it hasn't been already. I as in the process of doing this when I was blocked. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1 ^Talk 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Overly zealous, POV-pushing and un-CIVIL

Trouble may be brewing over an anon - 216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs). S/he seems to be pushing various POV issues through on pages, as a quick scan of the edits on the contribs page indicates. Trouble is, s/he has a point to a very minor extent in some cases - it's simply the dogmatic and un-civil attitude evident in messages like this and edit summaries such as this and the edits to User_talk:Dicklyon and the like that are a major cause of concern. There's no 3RR violations evident, and I'd hesitate to call it vandalism per se, but something definitely needs to be done, so I've brought it here. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Durova, although I am unsure that a conversation about behaviour norms wouldn't have had a better effect. Jkelly 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've called it vandalism, and got beat on by him for it. I also issued a 3RR warning, which may have stalled off his next revert by a few hours. He likes to vigorously clean warnings off his talk page and spew back at those he disagrees with and those who warn him. He likes to put his arguments in edit summaries instead of in talk pages. A real nuisance. But then he probably thinks the same of me, so what can you do? Personally, I think a permanent ban for persistent incivility would not be a bad thing, not just for him but for this problem that arises now and then. Dicklyon 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist and contribs

Resolved

 – ²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The watchlist and contrib pages seemed to have gone strange these past few days. They all seem to be lagging by 20 minutes. Anyone else having this same problem? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Me too". Andy Mabbett 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. It's nearly impossibly to track vandals when their contrib lists are empty yet you know they just hit a particular article. Can't just warn/block with no apparent edits done - Alison^☺ 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already listed on WP:VPT. Twice. —Cryptic 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but how is this an incident that requires administrator attention? Please use the proper pages. --Golbez 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To see if other admins have or had this problem, as the lag can seriously impede admin duties. But I'm spiting you, so ignore me. ;) —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it a fellow admin deserves a sarcastic rhetorical remark? It was just a question. I had the same question and found the answer because Cryptic pointed to the discussion. --Hu12 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, since when was humor rationed? :) And yes, I did look at the linked threads, and all is back to normal (for me, at least). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate it being asked here. I thought my timezone was way off, I tried another computer... It definitely disrupted my admin activities. alphachimp 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise: I'm glad it was brought up here. The lack of a reliable "contribs" has been making it extremely difficult to do vandal-patrol today. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Illwauk

Resolved

 – User:Illwauk blocked for 48 hours for violation of WP:NPA.--Jersey Devil 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

is this where I report personal attacks? (I thought there used to be a separate noticeboard for that). Some here: User_talk:Illwauk#Civility.2C_please. Not a dog 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable language. [89] The user has been blocked for 48 hours.--Jersey Devil 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk spamming by User:Smith Jones

I wasn't sure if this qualified as persistent spamming to be reported at AIV, but I know posting here will get a response.

User:Smith Jones has been spamming user talk pages and a couple of userpages (apparantly at random, mostly admins it seems, possibly those who made edits to homeopathy?) asking them to join a wikiproject. See his contribs. Screwing up the formatting in one, asking a bot, and marking all the edits as minor. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter

Back on-line and sleeping, according to the userpage message. Thank goodness - Alison^☺ 05:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not so optomisitic about the message that says "sleeping for 8-10 hours or the rest of eternity". People who wish to sleep that long should probably not recieve a "Thank goodness"; probably more of a "keep prayer lines open"... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. But the fact that he was on here 20 minutes ago is only a good thing. By all means, though, keep the prayer lines open ... - Alison^☺ 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Images in Signature

Hello. I have a problem with images in user signatures. Especially S V G images. For some accessibility software (screen readers etc.) S V G images are read as text because their file is not recognised as binary, and vector graphisc slow computers considerably, and when they are removed from display the formatting is not always kept, this creates great problems in user signatures, but then I see policy WP:SIG forbids images. I asked[90] one user if he could remove image from signature as per WP:SIG#Images. I received no response and the comment was archived in less than 24 hours. The user continues to sign with an image.

The user (User:AKMask) also had another request to remove image from signature which had this response[91]. I can understand that the user has had the image before the policy was created, but I disagree the policy does not apply because the flag image is small. “I dont(sic) have any issues with people refactoring(sic) talk and discussion pages to eliminate it if they so desire” I think this is very backwards. By the time I see the flag it has already caused a problem, then the user is asking me to edit it out? Even on this A N I page I am posting this user is posting with his flag. I think the rules should apply to everyone evenly. Many people had images (even small ones) and removed them. I do not think it is fair that there has to be a "significant outcry" (Who judges this?) before an accepted policy should be followed by a particular user. I post here to hope an administrator could ask him again please to remove the image from his signatures.--Dacium 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, he's soon going to have to be blocked until he removes the images from his signature. It's a simple rule that we all have to follow, and there is no grandfather clause. --Cyde Weys 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: aren't SVG images usually rendered to png by MediaWiki? I'm uncertain as to why they're specifically creating a problem. But yes, Cyde Weys' warning seems pretty reasonable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I used a flag before the policy came in, I removed it when the policy came in. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain once and for all why images in signatures are not allowed. Even the most obnoxious, ornamented, 1KB signature you can think of is still nothing more than HTML, and it is sent inline with the rest of the discussion page. Now this may inflate bandwidth by a little bit, but that's not a huge problem. Images, however, are handled totally differently. Each image needs to come across through a separate HTTP connection. People are saying, "Oh, but this or that image is only 300B" — that's not the point. The point is that it puts a lot more load on the server by requiring another HTTP request, not through bandwidth. If images in signatures were allowed and a lot of people were using them, rather than the typical discussion page generating a few HTTP requests, it could potentially generate dozens of them. That would be putting an utterly unnecessary increased load on servers, and to prevent this from happening, images are banned in signatures, period. I have spoken with AKMask on IRC and explained this with him, and he is removing the image voluntarily. The draconian block threat is unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Images are banned, but the other restrictions on sigs don't seem to be so clear. Is there a client-side solution (eg, user CSS sheets or GreaseMonkey extensions) that re-factor a user's local page? That would allow users to post with ugly sigs, and other users to avoid those sigs. Dan Beale 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the script is called TonySidaway.js ;-) Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• HAH! El_C 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the use of images in signatures is not forbidden at all. WP:SIG#Images is a wiki Guideline and is not policy and therefor not enforceable. Any admin who blocked a user because of an image in their signature would themselves be violating wiki policy. There are two options for this issue. 1. Change the guideline into actual policy. 2. Automate the system to prevent the use of images in signatures. You can see from this entry that people are already working on this: bugzilla:6379. In the meantime, while you may request a user remove an image from a signature, there is no wiki policy at present to enforce this. Z Ha Dum 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can read here, guidelines are actionable. Saying that because community consensus is expressed on a page marked as a "guideline" instead of a "policy" equates to "not forbidden at all" is ludicrous and not an accurate reading of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actionable YES! and in this case the action taken would be to request a user to remove the image from their signature. Proposing or applying a Block on a user for refusing to remove that image is not appropriate. The fact is that this is NOT policy, it is a guideline which is proposed by wiki consensus. It is a suggestion of how things should be done. If this was to be a hard and fast rule for editors then it would be POLICY and would have a preset consequence well defined by that policy. At present it is not POLICY and has no predefined consequence. While an admin may request a user to apply this guideline, they may not enforce it. Read the first line of "Guideline" it states that it is a guideline only and is NOT set in concrete. While the use of images in signatures may be an annoyance to some editors, to others it has no affect at all. If you don't like the guideline then I suggest that you apply to have it adopted as POLICY or joint the group at bugzilla:6379. Until then, you should lay off the bully tactics focused at editors that do not share you POV and try and focus more on editing wikipedia. After all, that is the real reason we are here - or do you have some other agenda? Z Ha Dum 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree

Could someone investigate a series of odd incidents, mainly concerning Category:User templates, and the following pages: User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short.

PatPeter (talk · contribs) has been using this page to replace what's been accepted as userpage format, and as far as I can tell, there's been no one but him working on the category 'rule' changes (see below).

Cat page changes:

• Category:User templates: [92]
• Category:Book fan user templates: [93]
• Category:Dance user templates: [94]
• Category:Fandom user templates: [95]
• Category:Grammar user templates: [96]
• Category:Interest user templates: [97]
• Category:Language user templates: [98]
• Category:Mathematics user templates: [99]
• Category:Scouting user templates: [100]
• Category:Wikipedia related user templates: [101]

Also refer to [102], [103], and [104]. Blast 05.04.07 0424 (UTC)

• I've already questioned the use of WP:StS on WP:AN earlier. Note that the CFD has now been closed as "speedy keep" due to orphaning of the category by the nom, PatPeter (talk · contribs), amongst other irregularities. See here. Also, as a result of this comment, my first encounter with this user, I received this reply. - Alison^☺ 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats because you made it clear as mud that you were trying to tell me to assume good faith on behalf of other users and not myself. -PatPeter 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just found out there's apparently some history to all this on ANI - Alison^☺ 05:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears that this is not the first time PatPeter's conduct has been raised on this board (see this archived thread). I have recently become aware of a range of questionable edits by this editor:

1. The bringing of an TfD for the user category Category:Cub Wikipedians on the basis of it containing only one member when he had orphaned it himself ([105], [106]). Given this, I have speedy closed the discussion and suggested a new debate at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion with proper nomination (the category is a little problematic, especially given the difference in meaning ascribed to the word "Cub" between the gay community and the Scouting community).
2. The user created userbox User:PatPeter/User antigay which stated an opposition to gay rights in general (not just same sex marriage etc). It has been speedy deleted by Grandmasterka as divisive and inflammatory per CSD T1.
3. At present his userpage contains a flashing alert declaring that he is about to commit suicide. It appears highly distasteful and likely to distress users with personal experience of suicide.

I don't know enough about the templates listed above to assess PatPeter's edits to them (though the "rules" do seem expressed unnecessarily strongly) but would ask they be investigated by someone who does. WjBscribe 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's trying to be distasteful or offensive with this suicide message. I think he's suffering from some serious depression. One of his userboxes says as much. I wouldn't treat this as a joke or an attempt to be rude; actually I think someone completely uninvolved might want to leave a nice note recommending that he make an appointment to talk to someone. He's on a university campus, and most have free and confidential counselling available at the drop of a hat. — coelacan — 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re. the "suicide" comment. These things, even if made in jest, often run deeper, in my experience - Alison^☺ 05:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My only interaction with him so far was this, which I found to be in rather bad taste. Potential socks? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be overlooking something. What's the sock potential you're seeing? — coelacan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I guess you were talking about this.... That is really weird. I don't know if it yells "sock" so much as "weird random stuff". — coelacan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It was presumably done to make the templates appear more used than they really were... WjBscribe 07:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Some of them were done after the Tfd closed. — coelacan — 07:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What's troubling me right now is the title overrides on User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short. Over at User talk:Mallanox one can see how he directed someone to these pages as though they were Wikiprojects making guidelines that should be followed, or at least that's my reading of it. Anybody else troubled by the title overrides, or should I just drop it? — coelacan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable, especially given the use of the redirect WP:StS and WP:CGC so the user has little to tell them that it is NOT a Wikipedia page... WjBscribe 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried. But I wasn't going to keep reverting as my own one-person inquisition. — coelacan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As redirects to userspace for WP: shortcuts are expressly excluded from CSD R2, I have listed the shortcuts at Redirects for discussion. WjBscribe 07:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

watch out for category emptying

PatPeter has now admitted that he was emptying a category prior to speedying it, to "fight fire with fire". So if anyone is doing speedy deletions, and you see a category tagged by User:PatPeter or an Oregon State Univeristy IP, consider that it may have just been emptied. — coelacan — 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You think I live in Oregon? I live in Chicago, it says so on my userpage. -PatPeter 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page

Please see User talk:Captain scarlet/Trollbox. Andy Mabbett 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it inappropriate? It looks like an archive of trolling against him to me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to lump concerns made by other users into a "trolling" category. It promotes assuming bad faith when we should be assuming good faith. It only serves to aggravate any conflict that may have stemmed from the alleged trolling. If you believe someone is sincerely trolling you, it's acceptable to simply remove their comment from your page -- there's no need to put it on a "trolling" shelf to display your displeasure with those users. Leebo ^T/C 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how unappropriate me putting comments I view as trolling onto a seperate page. All contributors I feel trolled on my page are well aware of the regard I have for their comments. I prefer to keep them archived than to delete them. It's simply an archive. Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be incivility on both sides in this "trollbox". A less loaded name for it might be "Archive of disputes" without any references to trolling. I stand by my assertion that it's not appropriate to relegate certain users' comments to the side as trolls. Leebo ^T/C 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Request - I'd like to see Andy/Pigsonthewing's thoughts on the matter, specifically why he felt it was inappropriate when he reported it, it doesn't seem right to leave Leebo alone on this, and there may be another concern we're not yet aware of. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Chairboy's request, but I will say that I agree with Leebo and don't like calling the page anything close to "trolling"; especially since, in the first section at least (which is the only one I read), there wasn't any trolling (at least not by the other party...). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF; WP:NPA and, further up this page "Attack pages aren't acceptable, even as a user sub page.". Andy Mabbett 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while although some of the incidents are hard to track down, neither Hardouin nor Adambro were trolling. In Adambro's case, asking a person what they meant when they made a very cryptic statement about you isn't trolling. (If you don't want people asking such questions, then be less confusing when you talk about them) And, as far as the sock puppetry case is concerned, I don't know whether it's true or false. However, I do know that you should give a person notification of a case you've made against them. (That is, if he hadn't informed Captain scarlet of the case, then that would've been a lot worse) It certainly looks like an attack page. Bladestorm 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Leebo and Bbatsell. Trolling is a loaded word and nothing in this "archive" is actual trolling. This is a series of user disputes apparently based off of content disputes. Archiving them is fine. Calling them "trollboxes" is not. I'm going to suggest that Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) voluntarily moves them to a more WP:NPOV name like "dispute archives".--Isotope23 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note Image:Sheffield Town Hall 04-10-04.jpg and many more like it. Andy Mabbett 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be highlighted that the user in question, Captain scarlet, is currently blocked from editing Wikipedia and this is probably a retaliation about that. It does of course however mean that he is unable to take part in this discussion to clear up any misunderstandings. I'd suggest this issue should also be raised over at commons. Adambro 19:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I count 64 images replaced with that, see [107]. Adambro 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this as a new issue, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Captain scarlet's photographs. Adambro 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is still there, under the original name. Andy Mabbett 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• The user is now editing again; the page is still there . Andy Mabbett 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Username question

This is a strange situation that I'm not quite sure how to handle. I used to have the username SuperMachine (talk · contribs) until it was renamed to ChazBeckett (talk · contribs). My SuperMachine user page and talk page were redirected to ChazBeckett. Now someone has created User:SuperMachine and removed the redirects. My former signature (SuperMachine) is all over the place and now points to this new user. I'm not quote sure how to approach this. Do I ask the user to please stop using the name SuperMachine? Should I find all my old signatures and update them to point directly to ChazBeckett? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, ChazBeckett 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it should have shown up as a "taken" name and therefore ineligible for a new user to acquire. The short version thereof is that he can't have it, and the software should have let him know that. Since it didn't, it's up to one of the admins to do so. Utgard Loki 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that would be great if an admin could handle it. The user has only made four edits, so it shouldn't be a big deal to choose another user name. Thanks! ChazBeckett 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While I surely empathize, there really isn't much to do about it. When you changed names, you left the old handle behind and all of your contribution attributions were changed accordingly. The only thing that changing your name doesn't do is adjust timestamps; that's up for you to do by hand. As the changing usernames pages says, the old account isn't blocked as it has been left empty and abandoned. I suggest you approach the user nicely and explain the situation, and ask if they could change names out of courtesy. If they don't, well... you gave up that old account. Sorry that I couldn't be of assistance. Maybe someone else can. Teke 01:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... my understanding was that the software wouldn't allow anyone to register a username which had been renamed -- perhaps that change was more recent than I realized, or my understanding is otherwise flawed. Not sure about the best thing to do, here. Only other idea that comes to mind is a "user disambig" link, but eh... – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bowlhover: talking back to admins is not a permablock offense

Resolved

 – User unblocked, everyone lives happily ever after. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Higher up on this page, this chickenrace with Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just got an editor indefinitely blocked. A real, productive, editor, not a vandal, sock, or adder of unconstructive material, except for one April Fool's joke (not a very funny one IMO, but that's sort of not the point). I consider it disgraceful for admins to throw their weight around in this way, and bait users. "If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block" might stand as the perfect, canonical example of what not to say to a user who is already upset. It's certainly the perfect way of backing the user into a corner where all alternatives are humiliating. I have asked Carnildo, who blocked for 24 hours, and Yamla, who followed up by blocking indefinitely, to unblock.[108] [109]. I hope one of them does, and soon.. By the way, deleting Bowlhover's user talk was a mistake. We're not supposed to do that, only blank it. The history should remain accessible. Since it only is visible to admins, I will quote from Yamla's block message, which was also his "unblock denied message". (Are these two really supposed to be telescoped? Well, never mind, that's a minor detail.) Bowlhover had written (among other things) this in his unblock request:

• "This 24-hour block is useless. I will repeat what I said two times before: I will not apologize for my actions, nor will I refrain from them on April 1, 2008. I guarantee that extending the block will be also useless."
• Yamla declined the request, with the comment: "I have reverted somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 instances of this sort of thing. That's no exaggeration. You may think it is funny but we don't, not after that many "pranks". As you have promised to continue these actions, I have extended your block to an indefinite one. If you later promise to refrain from vandalism in the future, please request an unblock and someone will be happy to unblock you. In the meanwhile, please note that if you create any new accounts to continue editing while this one is blocked, this may be grounds for a permanent ban."

Was Bowlhover perhaps being punished for all the 10,000—20,000 April's Fools' pranks that Yamla had reverted..? It was hardly Bowlhover's fault that Yamla was burned out on April's Fools. It seems to me that both these admins have thrown their wieight around in an inappropriate way. The admin is supposed to be the bigger person, not use his/her powers to back a user into a corner.
Look at [Bowlhover's block log]! No previous blocks on this established long-time user. Weren't we supposed to have been promised more care with the block button from Carnildo? In his latest RFA, he made the undertaking that "I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand." Yeah? Bishonen | talk 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Surely a preventative block would have to be issued on March 31, 2008? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, all let's calm down and review this. Bishonen, don't make this a 'get Carnildo' vendetta-crusade. I'm gong to investigate it, so should others. But lets hear all sides of this story without any sarcastic animosity.--Doc^g 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply 10,000 to 20,000 April Fools jokes, I meant vandalism generally. Bowlhover promised to continue these pranks and that is simply inappropriate. I made it quite clear that if he promised not to vandalise any further, he should be unblocked immediately. But someone who promises to continue vandalising in the future should not be permitted to edit. That the user implied, at least, that he would use sockpuppets to vandalise also weighed in on my decision to extend the block. --Yamla 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also hope that we all learned from a recent arbitration case that calm consideration can prevent a mistake from becoming a disaster. I second Doc's plea, and will investigate further myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I should note that I am quite happy for any other admin to unblock this user if they have reason to believe this user will no longer vandalise the Wikipedia, or if they are willing to take responsibility for that vandalism if they believe he will continue vandalising. --Yamla 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have looked into the history and also have serious concerns about this indefinite block, although I am also unimpressed with the user's complete indifference to the possibility that his April Fool's prank about a toxic spill in a major city might cause genuine alarm, and his complete unwillingness to consider moderating his comments regarding future actions. I find no basis for the suggestion that Bishonen's raising this matter was primarily based on the fact that the first blocking admin was Carnildo rather than anyone else (she frequently posts with concern about blocks she considers unjustified). Newyorkbrad 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

His talk page was tagged db-author, so the unability thereof is his own fault and not the outcome of malicious machinations. I'll note that this kind of post [110] is singularly unhelpful, if distressingly common. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the appreciation, Mackensen, it was nothing. User talk pages are not supposed to be deleted according to the guideline Wikipedia:User page. How would you have liked me to put it? "I assume good faith and by no means malicious machinations and apologize for opening my mouth, but deleting user talk pages is a mistake"? I actually thought it might be minorly helpful to point it out. And I thought it it would be majorly helpful to take issue with this pushing-out of an established contributor, which had roused no interest until I did. Doc, if I had wanted to make it a "get Carnildo vendetta-crusade" it would have sounded quite different. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It looks like overkill to me. Serious problem editors are often not treated this harshly, though I too am unmoved by the "humor" of the edit in question. I think this user should be unblocked, but I would have no problem with a remedy that blocks the user every April 1 until they agree to stop. IronDuke 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right... unblock him now and someone put him on the docket for a preventative 48 hour block starting March 31st, 2008. I'll actually be impressed if anyone remembers to do that...--Isotope23 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. The activity was highly immature and I've every sympathy with Carnildo's initial 24 hour block. I'd have done the same. However, despite his bravado, I doubt he'd do it again. If he did, we'd simply block him then. Feel free to replace the block if the consensus here is that he should remain blocked.--Doc^g 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't support an indefinite block (note that indefinite and infinite aren't the same thing), but at the same time this [111] isn't a message that would move me to unblock somebody. In effect, it promises continued disruption and sockpuppetry if admins don't do his bidding. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose we leave him unblocked but consider him on community parole. Forget/ignore his foolish words, the first sign of actual intentional disruption, we block him for good.--Doc^g 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. You said you wanted to hear all sides of this incident before making judgements, so why did you call me "foolish" before I had a chance to defend myself? And forgive my bragging, but do you really think I'll intentionally disrupt Wikipedia if I haven't done so for the past year and a half? --Bowlhover 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. WP:AGF, it was a lot of bluster in response to his block.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) Note that he specifically stated that if unblocked he would not promise not to do somethign simialr next April first, which could be taken as an implied promise not to do anything of the sort on any other date. This is surely not the most explict or graceful way of handling the matter, but is not quite the same thing as proclaiming himself a committed and unrepentant vandal. I agree that this block should be lifted. DES ^(talk) 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is going on with these charges of vandalism and sockpuppetry? Yamla's reason for his block was "User claims he will continue vandalising, unblock only on a promise from user to never again vandalise any article.)" Well, I never vandalized Wikipedia and never will. Vandalism is always done in bad faith, by definition; the prank I posted, no matter how awful a joke, was done in good faith. I wasn't thinking "Let's make these stupid editors have heart attacks". I was thinking "Hmmm, let's pull a prank on somebody like millions of other people are doing right now".

The reason for my outbursts at Mathew, Cardillo, and Yamla was anger. Cardillo and Yamla never discussed my reasons for the prank ([112][113]) before blocking me. Tell me, fellow Wikipedians: if an admin is trying to block you while ignoring your defense, what would you do? Wouldn't you get angry? If the admins don't want to cooperate, negotiate, or be flexible, fine. I will not either.

Will I do something similar on April 1, 2008? Well, I do like pranks, but hopefully by then I will have become better at it. I will definitely not post any hoaxes until 362 days later. By the way, I've never posted anything that could be interpreted as a "disruption" prior to this incident.

Now for the prank itself. Please discuss the reasons I linked to above before making judgements about it. About sockpuppetry: I don't know how you twisted my words to make it seem I threatened to create sockpuppets. I wanted to leave Wikipedia forever instead of "vandalizing" using another account.

I challenge Yamla to find a single vandalism, i.e. obviously bad faith, edit made by me. --Bowlhover 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying that perceived hostility from admins or editors justifies reciprocal behaviour on your part. That's not a particularly helpful attitude. It seems that some people were angered themselves by your initial actions, and I have seen any sign that you apologized them (if you did, please point it out so I'm not making false statements). Regardless of intent people thought you were disrupting the reference desk. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest. The indef block was a poor call - but so was you getting angry and engaging in bravado. Let each reflect on their own actions; forget recriminations; and go back to doing whatever we do round here. Pride has been injured here - but if you insist on defending yourself, the admins will too, and the temperature will rise. It seems that what the events of 2nd April show is that not one comes our well of that confrontational path. Cool it one and all.--Doc^g 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if we are going to have April Fools' pranks, I would rather see meta-pranks, such as Shii's announcement that he was going to unblock and mentor a certain banned user, or nominating WP:RFAR for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was an attack page. Pranks that directly affect article content and hence interact directly with the real world are dangerous, and ought to be treated like vandalism. It would be nice if Bowlhover would acknowledge this. Thatcher131 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Nothing too scary on April Fools day, especially not for a major city. Maybe I'll nominate a vandal for adminship? --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Prank was uncalled for April Fools or not in the particular place it was done. But the indefinite block was also uncalled for since it obviously was a good faith attempt to make some people smile and construing it as "vandalism" was borderline violation of WP:AGF. The user in question isn't some noob out to cause trouble and even a cursory look at his history and block log bears that out. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest" God, I do hate that expression! Please do show some use of vocabulary! - or else shut up. Giano 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doc^g 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc, despite your previous criticism of me, should I assume your call for peace was made in good faith? O.K. I forgive Carnildo and Yamla for blocking me, but please be more lenient next time with blocking users. Thanks a ton to Bishonen for bringing this incident up on the administrator's noticeboard at a time when I felt very alienated; I highly appreciate it, and you've made a gloomy day much better for me. And thanks, Doc, for the unblock. I very much appreciate that too.

To everyone reading this: I wish you a happy Good Friday and Easter if you're Christian, and an enjoyable ultra-long weekend if you're not. I'm eager to finally close this case. --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested update to blocking policy posted

See here on blocking policy talk page:

Per previous precedent and commonly accepted practice, linking to attack sites, or linking to sites that attempt to "out" the identities of Wikipedia editors for any purpose is a blockable offense. This includes re-inserting such content that was already removed, and its initial insertion. Users who post such information or links, or that re-insert them after their removal, may be blocked for the safety and protection of other editors.

thanks, - Denny ^(talk) 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a special case of posting personal information, really. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much support anything to make the policy clearer that linking to sites that give personal information is a complete no-no. And nowiki'd URLs are just a way of getting round that. Incidentally, people keep referring to "attack sites". They're quite right, of course, but the problem is that it implies that the main objection to the sites is that they attack users. That's not the main problem. If someone posts to a website that says I'm a fat swine, it's not a big deal. If someone posts to a website that says I live at 17 Cherry Tree Lane, that is a big deal. (Actually, I don't. I took that address from Mary Poppins, but I think it makes the point clear.) ElinorD (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. It's not hard to find out who I am in real life, and probably where I live, but that's no reason to shout about it. If I want people to know then I'll post my address. And if we can stop the Readers Digest along with the abusers that will be a plus :-) Guy (Help!) 23:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, we only publish information about you when it serves our purposes. Otherwise, we que the personal information we have gathered about 67 percent (as of today) of Wikipedia admins in a secret site inaccessible to Wikipedia fanatics. That blacklisted site you're trying to inflitrate while claiming you are not yourself is just a front. The real work goes on out of reach of your prying eyes. We knew Essjay was Ryan Jordan long before we decided it is time for another high-profile Wikiblunder to make the press -- we forced the New Yorker correction according to our timetable for Wikipedia's demise, and guess who inspired them to step in that do-do in the first place? We dislosed Linda's and Kate's personal details in real time (or near real time - almost as quick as we could put it together and play it) because -- you guessed it -- it suited our purposes. That car parked down the block, guy, -- well, let's just say we have a detailed understanding of your editing schedule.KnowAboutU 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited WP:HARASS (the section which says that posting another editor's personal details is harassment, regardless of whether or not those details are correct) to show that posting links to a site which publishes these details is also harassment, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites. ElinorD (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this page, then? Looks like Wikipedia has to blacklist Wikipedia under the new no-telling-the-truth-about-the-liars-who-write-Wikipedia policy. KnowAboutU 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. There are 227 of these links across 8 wikipedias. I suggest disabling those links before blacklisting; see the discussion at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#wikipedia review.
2. Nobody knows about this new policy[114] just enacted within the last 24 hours that could lead to their being blocked. I suggest widely publicizing it in the Signpost, at the Village Pump and on the Community Portal. You might also consider developing a sequence of warning templates; as it stands, a user can delete chunks of articles several times before getting blocked whereas just posting a link on a user talk page (for instance, "did you know they're saying this about you at Wikipedia Review?") could get someone blocked on sight. I don't think that sort of person really meets the spirit of WP:STALK and may not even know of this new change in the rules. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Another user:Serafin sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Current ban discussion at WP:CN. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

blocked user:Serafin has created another sockpuppet and is using it on numerous articles.

• Momo111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

he has had over 40 sockpuppets now, can we semi-protect recovered territories as that is the article he commonly vandalizes.

--Jadger 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. --Yamla 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please move for a community ban against this user. Alternatively, if I have not done so within 24 hours, please prod me and I'll do it. This vandal has no place on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personnal attack and threat received

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have received a threat from User:67.10.203.37, which includes a violation of my privacy.

Please see wikipedia article including the threat.

What are my options ? Hektor 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks are extremely serious in Wikipedia. If the ip makes attacks again, report it at WP:AIV. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a block on the IP address that made those edits. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Xanucia

Resolved

 – No block issued, pending mention of any problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at this user's recent participation in AfD discussions? It is not as helpful as one might hope.-FisherQueen (Talk) 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the there is much that can be done - there is no requirement that comments on AFD be based in reason or in policy. CMummert · talk 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy against voicing a keep bias. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

Resolvedblock ended now Tyrenius 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

On his talk page: [115], Paul venter (talk · contribs) has been blocked for incivility. He has since leveled a charge against the blocking admin that says, and I quote, "have chosen instead to abuse your powers of blocking, that your lack of evenhandedness is not appropriate to your office". It should be noted (see Paul's contrib list) that he has been involved in edit wars with several other editors over what amounts to minor stylistic differences (Paul's version of the articles in question is frequently the one in violation of the MoS, though the differences are largely moot). Also, Paul has left incivil comments in his edit summaries (again, see his contribs list) which is the specific reason he was blocked by the admin in question. I am not taking any formal stand on the issue, only to post this here per a request at Paul's talk page and seek further comment from admins.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the contribs before the block, but accusations of that nature towards the blocking admin should simply be ignored. People get upset by a block. I'm sure Tyrenius doesn't take it personally. If I had a penny for every blocked user who's told me I'm not fit to be an admin, I'd be, I don't know, driving an Italian car or something. Bishonen | talk 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Agreed with Bishonen. I've gotten comments and emails a lot worse than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted, in the interest of full disclosure, that Paul has done a quite a bit of good work here. He has created or substancially expanded a number of articles, his silly editwars over picture size and placement notwithstanding. If everyone involved could simply cool their heads and let things settle down, the stylistic problems can be hammered out later. However, none of that excuses the incivility and editwarring. I only say that if we can get the editwars to stop, on the balance Paul as an editor can be an asset to Wikipedia.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Crossed in the mail: Something I find disturbing in this recent block. If you look at the following chronology, both personal attacks by Paul venter (talk · contribs) took place before the first warning by Tyrenius (talk · contribs).

Time	User	Page	Edit summary
11:19, 5 April 2007	Paul venter	Otto Beit	Revert image shrinking by stalker
11:23, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius
11:23, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul ventner
11:24, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul venter
17:28, 5 April 2007	Paul venter	Charles Collier Michell	Repair damage by stalker
00:45, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	PERSONAL ATTACK WARNING
02:40, 6 April 2007	Paul venter	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul venter
03:34, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	Block for personal attack
03:44, 6 April 2007	Paul venter	User talk:Paul venter	→Block
03:58, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	→Block - If you follow the instructions in the block notice, another admin will review it.
04:02, 6 April 2007	Jayron32	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents	User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

Therefore, Paul venter was not ignoring Tyrenius' warning. He hadn't received it yet! --Kevinkor2 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is right - I got the times muddled. However, he had previously been warned about ignoring guidelines and consensus[116] and responded by attacking other editors.[117] He was also warned previously about leaving uncivil edit summaries and editing warring.[118] He has no excuse. He blanked an ongoing discussion on his talk page [119] and carried on with a belligerent attitude [120][121]. He continues to insist on his personal ideas about, particularly, image size, regardless of other editors, MOS or policy, which in this case Kittybrewster was attempting to implement. I'm letting the block stand. Tyrenius 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1 blocked for a week

AfterArigato1 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) continues to contribute in non constructive ways. In view of multiple prior warnings ([122], [123] et al) and incidents ([124], [125], [126] and the next several revisions, [127], [128], [129] in which he reverted an edit by a likely sock or meatpuppet and tryed to smear Valentinian with it, but a CU showed "not related" to that sock for Valentinian and "related" for other socks that consistently support Arigato1, [130], et al.)I have blocked for a week and explained my actions here. It is suspected that Arigato1 is just the latest sock of a persistent troublesome user, believed first seen as Comanche cph (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) who has a somewhat slanted POV regarding Denmark and Sweden, and who seems to have a grudge with long time valued contributor Valentinian (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email). Some CU checks have been performed, and there is a pattern of sockery and meatpuppetry associated with these accounts and other ones that are intertwined (see for example [131]). Many of the single (vandal or PA) edit accounts have already been blocked indefinitely. The next occurance of this sort of activity will likely result in me blocking Arigato and his IP (which should shut him down, as Danish IPs stay with the same user for a very long time if not indefinitely) indefinitely. As always, I invite review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the edits of Klovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), most importantly the first edit I don't really think a CU is necessary to establish that this is yet another sock. The dispute concerns exactly the same thing. Like Arigato, the user name is Danish. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Klovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Even if not a sock, this is still a WP:POINT account that has been trolling a couple of articles (and apparently decided to declare themselves an admin on their userpage).--Isotope23 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Isotope23, I concur with your action. I'm now inclined to block Arigato for more time for block evasion, especially if this stunt is repeated. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A CU confirms that Klovn and Arigato1 are almost certainly (as sure as it ever gets) the same user. Given the past history I'm increasing the block to 2 weeks, and added account creation prevention from this IP. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

user Iwazaki has violated the WP:NPA towards me. He has called me "Elalan" Elalan (talk · contribs)(a blocked user for sockpuppeting) and has also insulted me number of times.

If you see his contributions you can see in his edit summary saying "Reply to elalan" which is actually a reply to me. You can see it here. This is insulting me because I am a new user and to be branded a outlawed user is not the way I want to be treated. I have left warning on his user page but he has crossed it out with comment "removed useless remark". Link is here.

Here is another link where he calls me Elalan the first time to which I have clearly said I am not. here. You can see he has written this:

"Who ever wrote the above paragraph disqualified himself from writing anything regarding LTTE and related issues.With such a naive knowledge of Sri Lankan issues I would kindly ask this above person to study the issue before even start touching the article..And I would also like to ask this person to use glasses and see what's written on those posters properly"- Personal attack

"way to go Elalan, with your hilarious editing.They were immediately reverted.Actually I am kinda surprised that You talk about AGF here while condemning Our country,Wikipedia Admins, several of Wiki Editors before..I still remember what You wrote at your Talk page " - another Personal attack.

Here is another link where he has called me biased editer (violates WP:NPA).here

"And I am sure later, you would say even all the suicide bombings,mass murders by LTTE should also be under the GOSL section!! Even though I admit you have a fair good knowledge of the LTTE, some of your remarks made me(and very well the others too) speechless !! "- here he implies that I am a biased editor and that my remarks makes people "Speechless".

Please take nessasary steps thanks. Watchdogb 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page, telling him not to refer to you as Elalan. If he continues to call you that, despite the note, give him a warning.--KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

page move & history merge request

A newbie (JoeSanchez (talk · contribs · count)) has copied and pasted the contents of Abdalqadir as-Sufi al-Murabit to a page he himself created: Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi. Obviously, this ruined the edit history, but worse, naming conventions dictate that titles not be used in page names. The original name was therefore correct. Could a sysop please merge the histories (of the talk pages as well), and recreate the article at Abdalqadir as-Sufi al-Murabit?. Thanks! Errabee 14:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What I did is merely according to WP:HISTMERGE.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. You applied it to the wrong page. Errabee 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. The WP:HISTMERGE assumes that the new title is the desired title, which in this case it simply isn't. Application of WP:HISTMERGE therefore leads to confusion in this case and should be avoided. Errabee 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR block/possible puppet

I have blocked Anyone7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As well as inviting review of this decision, I invite closer inspection of the user's contribs as I suspect it might be a new account from some old "friend" or another. As a novice editor they sure seem to know what they're doing. --kingboyk 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody? --kingboyk 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the page got protected anyway. It's certainly possible it's a sock, but I can't tell right offhand who it would be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT User:Privacy on POV rampage

User:Privacy is on a rampage of re-organizing anything and everything related to China according to their (and I say they because of puppet allegations) POV. There's no discussion at all, it is entirely contrary to any previous discussion, and this will take forever to discuss and fix. Other editors are already bowing out with "ah fuck it, i'm not going to continue in this pathetic war" [132] because Privacy does not discuss and comes back over and over on the same revert. Hey, that revert warring behavior on China articles sure does sound familiar. Can someone put a stop to this until it can be sorted out, it is incredibly distruptive to watch hundreds of articles being robotically changed. SchmuckyTheCat 16:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick listing of the contentious edits he has created so far is listed here, with many of the last few categories created just a few minutes ago. He appears much emboldened by the results of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_18#Category:Economy_of_mainland_China--Huaiwei 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits are easily reversed. If this editor isn't responding to attempts to communicate, consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Global edit summary

Privacy made 250 edits re-organizing everything related to China without consensus. I'm not putting up with that. I'm using the browser modification twinkle to revert most of them. There is no way I'm taking the time to make 250 distinct edit summaries. If Privacy wants to global changes, he needs to make big big discussions and get big big consensus. Others (*cough* he might be the others *cough*) have tried to make this argument for organization and entirely failed. He can't just impose it by fiat. SchmuckyTheCat 15:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASSIST

WP:ASSIST is far from being a helpfull unit. I have followed the proper procedures for commencing a discussion in regards to WP:RM moving WP:ASSIST to WP:AMA. But that was removed by Kim Burning.[133]. And the comments\discussion page was also removed.An editor has vandlized and removed this procedure. If WP:ASSIST trully is here to help they are not doing a very good job at respecting wikipedia procedures. My comments and other peoples comments: all removed. A TOTAL disrespect for wikipedia and the work. Doing this as per WP:VAN is vandalism and mocks the entire Concensus building on which wikipedia is built upon. Instead of trying to have a discussion he has threatened me "not to do this again or he will report me to AMA!"[134]. They have even removed the template that the page be moved.[135] Even most recently, that I am disrupting the process of WP:ASSIT... when in fact they are disrupting the process for building concensus. All I am doing is trying to gain concensus on what people want and I believe that their click of friends, because of my suggestions that WP:ASSIST is a WP:FORK of WP:AMA teams feel threatened and think I am perhaps a WP:TROLL. I think they are the ones that a disruptive by removing my edits. I would like to revert the vandalism to my last edits... however there will be some lost edits. I need some help from an admin. --CyclePat 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, thanks for bringing this group up, I now know about them and can send people there. But we did discuss this a while back, AMA is (was?) problematic, the assistance team should be much better as a result of being much less bureaucratic. Don't call Kim a vandal, please. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is completely a non-issue. If a group of editors want to start Wikipedia:Editor assistance and have no desire to be in any way involved in WP:AMA that is their prerogative. If they don't want to merge, then it might be a good idea to stop adding a merge tag. If there is a concern of duplication of effort, then perhaps an informal discussion should be started on the talkpage before tagging and claims of vandalism.--Isotope23 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• You say that "All I am doing is trying to gain concensus on what people want...." Do you realize that you are doing is not what people, at least those participating at WP:ASSIST, want? Multiple WP:ASSIST editors have suggested that we do not want to be adversarial with WP:AMA, and I agree. Furthermore, Kim is not a vandal. The diff you provided is disingenuous, because the next diff is Kim scubbing that threatening message and entering a more appropriate message. Please stop making this an issue when it appears, at least to me, to not be one. --Iamunknown 17:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved outside party, the thing that I see here is that the first clear interaction on this page is an attempt to move this under the canopy of WP:AMA with no prior discussion. This is probably not a good start to some good faith discussion between these two wikiprojects. I'd suggest for now, any proposed cooperation here be discussed civilly on a talkpage without tagging, moving, or other provocative actions.--Isotope23 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I did indeed start WP:ASSIST as a distinct process from AMA (and, if AMA had ended up being disbanded or deleted, a possible replacement to address the concerns raised). Even though AMA did survive the MfD, though, I believe it would work best as a separate project, as its structure (or lack thereof) and function are quite different. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, no stress. This is User:CyclePat, he's inclined to be a bit overeager. Patient explanation usually works with Pat, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes stress, Guy. For once I disagree with you. CyclePat's behaviour is disruptive: edit warring in this manner against consensus is just wrong, especially with edit summaries like this. Quite apart from anything else, the AMA is a beached whale of bureaucracy-enmeshed inefficiency and despair. Something that is new, funky, cool, non-bureaucratic, non-elitist, and that might actually work should not be derailed by disruptive edit-warring and undiscussed moves. This continues, we should start handing out the blocks. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have had long and frustrating arguments with Pat. He is not evil. He is not a POV pusher. He is pretty committed to the project. But by God he is vexatious at times, and this is one of them. Yes, that's an inflammatory edit summary. I said once before that when one has only a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. Pat has a hammer, a screwdriver and a wrench, so he sees every problem as a screwboltnail. He throws everything he knows at every dispute, and he has boundless energy, almost no patience, and a positive genius for pissing people off, especially me. But despite that he is a nice guy, wants to do the right thing, is genuinely anxious to help. His English is eccentric, mind, I believe he's a French-Canadian. I will talk to him some more. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I've now got some more food in my belly and take back that last part as somewhat hyperbolic. Seriously, though, this has to stop. The last thing a vibrant new idea wants is to be associated with the failure of the AMA, and edit warring and evil edit summaries are disruptive regardless of context. But OK, Guy, I'll leave this one for your gentle care to sort out. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:BOLD... do the move. I moved it. You guys opposed by reverting. I let it be and I followed the instructions atWP:RM but my comments have been remmoved. No. I am pissed off at whoever took my comments off. Removing other peoples attempts for a discussion, my legitimate attempt to start a proper discussion on the touchy issue of merging, is totally unaceptable. Now! On top of that, Kim has created an extra stressor... all they had to do was voice their opinion and after 5 days the discussion would have been over. Probably in WP:ASSIST's favor. We'll never really know now that all the proper steps for such a discussion have been blatlantly reverted. Now for some reason the discussion on the merger seems to have ended up here on the WP:AN board when it really isn't the place. I have followed wikipedia's policies for RM and I will not appologize for trying to have a discussion in the proper location. I will neither appologize for pointing out the facts that Kim's removal of all my attempts and comments are all acts of vandalism as described in WP:VAN. I suggest you inform Kim and yourselfs that we want to get this over with quickly, instead of spending the next two weeks fighting over something which is totally trivial, that we concentrate on the main issue in the proper venue (the talk page); that my comments be return and that Kim and those that have assisted in her reverts appologizes for removing my comments and Good faith attempt to have a discussion. Even better, to mend bad feelings, it would be good to see the initial discussion I had started and my RM proposal, which I point out again was blatlantly removed, placed back on the talk page of WP:ASSIST. Perhaps then a proper concensus will be elaborated and in due time within a proper discussion... not some childish, deceptive and secretive styled conversation based on one or two editors POV's where "Words have lost their meanings and just become propaganda tools." ... There is still a problem... is anyone going to put my comments back or should I? --CyclePat 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:VAN, I have reverted the removal of my comments. I will follow procedures and place a warning on the users page. However, it deeply concerns me how WP:ASSIST will perform in the face of adversity and whether the talk pages their can trully be considered fair and reliable. Specifically, I am baffled by the mainstream of users at wikipedia's that have simply accept the fact that my comments could be blatlantly removed and that WP:ANI or WP:ASSIST appear to treat this issue as if it was the sole domain of a tin-hat conspiracy theorist or some WP:TROLL trying to cause disruption. --CyclePat 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You should read the first sentence of WP:VAN, specifically that the action must be "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Vandalism is not just a codeword for anything you dislike. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

c.f. Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" --Iamunknown 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As posted on my user talk page: ::Thank you for your suggestions but you may wish to specifically know that WP:VAN#Types of vandalism states that "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:" and it list many exemples of which pertinent to my case is... "Avoidant vandalism" and "Talk page vandalism". The later states "Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." My concerns regarding this issue and the expected appology are expressed at WP:ANI (historic link of change) and cover some other issues regarding WP:ASSIST --CyclePat 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, when someone removes an intemperate comment you've made, take it as a hint and put your point across more diplomatically. You are allowed to say stuff, you are just not allowed to stand an inch from someone's face and yell it. Above all, there is no way that Kim is a vandal, and you owe her an apology if you haven't apologised already. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I don't believe that you're trying to cause disruption. But here, on the talk page there, and everywhere else I've seen, there's already a pretty clear consensus in opposition. We don't do process for process' sake when the outcome is clear to start with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Guy, Good luck talking with Cyclepat. :-/ He'd also threatened to do some somewhat WP:POINTy things at the MFD. I'm not happy with his behavior, and really was about to do something about it. I'll hold and wait for your action. --Kim Bruning 16:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

1) There was no consensus for the straw poll/vote. 2) As soon as it started, the vote snowballed in opposition to the move. 3) Even if the requested move was the right way to handle the question, there are more civil and consensus-building ways to go about it. There is process, and then there is common sense and courtesy. The issue of overlap with other DR processes has been discussed on the WP:ASSIST talk page -- with the conculsion that there are significant differences, enough to maintain an independent process. -- Pastordavid 17:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking military servers

When blocking governmental IP's we need ot inform the foundation. Does the same apply when it is necessary to block the IP of a military unit (e.g. US Air Force Base)? Thanks. -- Avi 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I see it as being on a similar caliber as blocking a public school or public library. Obviously it can't hurt to inform the Communications Committee, but it's not necessary. alphachimp 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Government IPs are more likely to blow up in our faces. I would hope that the military would be disciplined enough not to vandalise - is there someone would should report these things to? A military sysadmin, say? Secretlondon 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Whois the IP, follow to the authoritative service providing whois info, and contact the DOIM address for abuse. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Has this happened before, to the best of anyone's knowledge? I would think it would be helpful to inform someone from the Foundation, as it would be much more likely to get a slownewsday article than blocking a school or library. Grandmasterka 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that it's happened, I couldn't tell you when or where (too long ago to remember). But yes, I've definitely fielded unblock requests from a military base or two. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has happened. I know that IP addresses for the Royal Australian Air Force have been blocked in the past due to vandalism. It should be no big deal...as stated above it really is no different than blocking a public school or library.--Looper5920 03:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that I've blocked a base before. I don't remember when or what, though. alphachimp 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Never blocked one myself, but I did come across an IP registered to the USSOUTHCOM editing about a week or two ago. Nothing questionable, just a slightly sarcastic remark about FFDOs. - auburnpilot talk 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• In this case perhaps an e-mail could be sent to the base in question's civilian affairs Point Of Contact? The military is quite a bit different than a school or library. They'll wanna know about this because perhaps this soldier was edit warring or whatever on government time. Anynobody 08:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Example Luke Air Force Base Public Affairs Anynobody 08:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not send an email to the base Public Affairs Office. There is no difference if a soldier of airmen is edit warring or an accountant with Grant Thorton is edit warring. Just block the I.P. doing the dumb edits. Are we here to ensure people at work making a few stupid edits are caught by their employers and made get in trouble. The guy/gal is on the computer while on duty over Easter weekend. Maybe they do not know the rules. To send that email is nothing but vindictive.--Looper5920 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Looper 100%. Getting in trouble in the military is a whole 'nother animal from getting in trouble in the civilian world. If there's a problem, just block the IPs or IP ranges in question. No need for a disproportionate response. A Train^talk 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Looper. Certain ramifications apply in this circumstance. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely as well. The only time somebody should be contacted is if there is long term abuse. We have no busy contacting employers/military bases/schools/whatever after minor incidents of vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)