Hello,

I gather that you're now mediating this, so hopefully I'm asking the right person. Shouldn't there be an RFMF tag on the Discussion Page for the Muhammad article, alerting editors that a Mediation is underway? I, and others, having been recently discussing this topic there to develop a consensus, unaware that a separate Mediation page exists. JGHowes 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mediating this, I think User talk:AndonicO is. I agree there should be a notice there. The mediation is taking place at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably sick of these kind of messages, but here your bot thought there was an IP left when there wasn't. -- Steel 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is rooted in an edit earlier today that wiped out part of the example, followed by an edit where a user messed with the example, combined with not-quite-perfect comment parsing. helperbot3 is actually running a test of some new comment handling code at the moment, and I've verified that it would have correctly reported no IPs left in this situation (well, actually, it had a slightly different bug in this situation, which I've since fixed). So, once that code gets out to all of the bots (probably later today), this particular issue will be resolved (as will, hopefully, many issues with reports in the wrong place causing further mangling because of the bots. Thanks for the report (and sorry for replying as if I were HighInBC, but I've been working on the comment parsing stuff, so I figured I'd take it :)) —Krellis 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, ya, what Krellis said. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O_o -- Steel 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Barnstar moved to user page[1]. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks! ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked betacommands contribs and he's blocked a couple of other users for inappropriate usernames that aren't blatant and I feel should have been commented on first. The users are;

• I Love my Cat!!! (talk · contribs)
• Wikipediasteve (talk · contribs) - we would allow wikisteve

I just can't see area's of WP:U that these names contrivene. Could you look into this for me? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest these be brought up at WP:RFCN, it could be a pattern that needs public attention. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought another question about one of Betacommand's username blocks to RFCN, so maybe he can comment on these too. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can answer this question, since you are an administrator. Why do we have a requests for comment user page if folks are going shoot first and ask questions later? You can't get much more innocuous than "Wikipediasteve". (jarbarf) 00:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can make decisions about a block without consulting consensus. However, the RFCN can be used by an admin or a regular user to check consensus. The RFCN can also be used to review a decision already made such as this case. I don't really understand the reasoning behind these blocks, but is seems that RFCN is working fine as these names reached it. Admins can make mistakes, and if these mistakes get reviewed then I think that is fine. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could unblock Alrite Darling U Gd? like you have the other usernames on WP:RFCN? To me, it seams like biting from Betacommand, these guys aren't going to edit again RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a copy of the module?--Balloonguy 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can find it here: http://highinbcgallery.com/mediawiki.rar

Let me know if you need any help with it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Balloonguy 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the save method in fixed yet?--Balloonguy 18:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the get routine that failed to get the proper information for the save routine, but they both work now. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for processing the User:Guest9999 RFC/N so quickly. The user now has an unblock request pending for an autoblock, with the IP number given—but the IP does not have a block log, and when I try to unblock it indicates that there is no block to lift. Since you have more tech-savvy and experience with this can you check out, and advise if either the user isn't really autoblocked or if I was trying to lift it incorrectly. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 17:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already got it, if you go to Special:Ipblocklist there is a link to a tool that tracks autoblocks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw you cleared it ... I guess that merely clicking "unblock" on the IP in the "unblock" template box, which is what I tried, doesn't do it. Newyorkbrad 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be to simple. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's happening there. I've reported a user who keeps vandalizing Paris Hilton and adding images. Acalamari 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to be handled by someone else, I don't feel like it now. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at your username and thought of a clever signature for you. Here it is → ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} Cheers. (→Netscott) 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I like it, you may just see me wearing it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd get compliments and chuckles. Take it easy. :-) (→Netscott) 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testing, testing, why didn't I think of this. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! LOL ! (→Netscott) 02:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, very nice. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please see this I did not place that username block. Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry about that. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But since getting it, he has also managed to vandalize my userpage from his IP 75.72.120.157. If you can fix that, you've got him. SBHarris 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a list at User_talk:Betacommand#RFCN. If you wanted either to use the templates yourself, or to suggest their use to others, please feel free to copy, save, and paste that block of text to other talk pages, as you see fit. -- Ben 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an Rfc on betacommnd now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand. Any tips on what I need to fill in? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally sure that is needed at this point, only a couple of attempts to communicate about this have occurred. However, I could be wrong. As far as practical advice goes, unless everything is filled in it is not likely to be accepted. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the RFCN of

Fatterwhales please see [2] Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I wasn't either, but then his number of RfCed blocks spiked, plus he's been deleting the user talk pages for those blocks that were overturned. Something is just not good here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the pages deleted was only the username block notice, unless I am missing something. This seems to be done in order to prevent the user from seeing it, perhaps to spare their feelings(in case they did not notice it before). I don't think it is any sort of attempt to cover his errors, as you use a block log to research such stuff, not looking through talk pages. Proceed, but proceed chanting "AGF AGF AGF AGF ...". ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in regard to the deletions of userpages, I routeenly go back and delete the pages that were tagged with username blocked templates. Since this was brought yo my attention I have since undeleted the pages in question. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see a problem also, but I would like to have seen a couple more days of talkpage discussion (or attempted discussion) before escalating to RfC. We'll see what happens. The additional information for the RfC is being filled in now (this is probably the first RfC to have had two outside views added before the initiator finished writing it :) ). Newyorkbrad 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I also agree that more attempts to discuss this matter happen first. Though not too much waiting, new users are being scared away. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested this is closed to give betacommand time to address the issues RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed and de-listed for now. Can be reopened if necessary and good luck in getting this resolved because I agree the situation needs to be addressed. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at this and then this. I see both these edits I have removed as exacerbating trolling. I just want another admin involved to look over my actions. I ignored the Baphomet thing since it was actually talking about policy. Neither of these even pretend to be part of the discussion of a solution they are just meant to 'show the gap between Islam and the West' or something. Apparently, I'm the Islam side O_o. Thanks. gren グレン 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these are intentionally seeking to gain negative attention. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's acceptable? Well, childish trolling > edit warring... and you are busy so I won't bother you about this. --gren グレン 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you go back to that section again? Rage is starting to build up. x42bn6 Talk 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is warned, if it happens again there will be a block. There is also WP:RFC/USER for requesting comments about a person from other people. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily honor the Wikipedia "real name" policy, but there seems to be a real fairness problem when Jance can accuse me of a COI, but then hide behind her non-anonymous anonymity when her COI is at least as problematic, and arguably more so. Is there a solution? Is there anything that can be done about the wikistalking, threats of litigation, personal attacks, and systematic violations of NPOV? -- TedFrank 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see dispute resolution. There is also WP:RFC/USER for requesting comments about a person from other people. Any further threats of litigation can be reported at WP:ANI, or to me, Jance has been warned about this too, and we hold legal threats in the same regard as releasing personal information. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to DR, and nothing is happening. Will you be a second for an RFC:User?

Question: is it fair to note Jance's sock-puppetry? She considers that a violation of her privacy to point to her earlier ID--her ANI links, with only one exception, consist entirely of places where I referred to her use of multiple usernames. -- TedFrank 02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: avoiding each other isn't an option. Jance has made literally thousands of POV-edits to civil justice articles, and every time I try to correct one with a neutral edit, she reverts and leaves a lengthy rant personally attacking me with the sort of rant we see above. -- TedFrank 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I will not second a RFC/USER, I am not really involved, if the user is that POV you should have no problem finding a second. DR has several options I find it hard to believe you have exhausted them all. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I tried a RFC on three different posts, and have gotten no response. This makes a survey impossible also. Not to mention the fact that Jance is reverting me on all of my edits, not just these three posts.
2. I can't use "third opinion", because that requires good faith that is absent here on Jance's part.
3. I tried a Wikiquette alert, and got no response.
4. There isn't a relevant Wikiproject page that I'm aware of.
5. The wait time on a request for assistance is 12-18 days.
6. Can I use arbitration? It seems "too soon."
7. Does this harassment rise to the level of ANI?
8. I can't use RFC/USER, because no one is coming forward on these little-trafficked articles that even I wouldn't care about except I saw a reporter in my field mistakenly rely on one that had erroneous information pumped in by Jance.

I would like to know if I can make the sockpuppet allegation without being accused of violating the real-name policy, because, as Jance's comments (and the improper threat of a block from administrator Sarah) indicate, the allegation is considered "harassment." Jance has evaded a permanent ban by creating a new username while promising to disappear from Wikipedia. -- TedFrank 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is not now and there never has been sock-puppetry. please tell me how long this man is going to be allowed to smear me. all over wikipedia? good god what will stop this? go look at what sarah had to say. no i am not "friends" with her outside of wikipedia. that is one more asinine lie. Jance 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to WP:RFCU to check ip two users are sock puppets. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet. Jance 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, if you are not a sock puppet then WP:RFCU will show that, you can request one yourself if you wish to clear up the allegation. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is the only one accusing me of being a sockpuppet. As Sarah said, the admins know who I am. There is nothing to be "cleared" up. I challenge TED to prove his allegation.

I repeat. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet.

I want to know if you are going to knowingly allow this man to continue harassing me? Go read his talk page. Sarah (an admin) knows my history. I do not hide who I am. I do resent any admin allowing this abuse to continue . Jance 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message as to how we handle these things, this is not the place to discuss your problems with another user. This is my talk page. I don't have time to investigate your or his claims of abuse. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given all the advice I intend to on this matter. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but it took precisely 24 minutes before Jance threatened litigation. -- TedFrank 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any threat of litigation. The user may be planning on taking my advice of using WP:DR or WP:RFC/USER. The section directly above the section you linked to indicates this. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly construe it as a threat, and lawyerly written to try to get that sort of response from administrators.

NB also "Next time I won't threaten" in response to others' statements telling her not to threaten litigation. -- TedFrank 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(note: "he/she/it" is not intended to be offensive. It's just... as gender is personal information and threats of bans are being floated about, one can never be too careful)

Can you explain your (frankly baffling) decision to support a user in suppressing his/her/its past history on wikipedia because he/she/it doesn't want to be identified with the name that is on that account? The rest of this is somewhat justifiable under the privacy policy, but can you imagine if the banned user User:Amorrow came on with a sock puppet and demanded not to be identified by that name because of privacy? An interpretation of the privacy policy that defines wikipedian usernames qua usernames, particularly when the username in question is clearly not actually the person's legal name, as "personal information" is in my opinion ludicrous. --Random832(tc) 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(as an aside, claiming "i am not a sockpuppet" while at the same time claiming the username of the account of which he/she/it is alleged to be a sockpuppet is personal information is contradictory and one claim or the other to be summarily rejected) --Random832(tc) 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of these circumstances justifies revealing personal information. That policy is to prevent physical harm in the real world. If there is any evidence that this is the same user then fine, but there is no evidence provided, and that user in question has filed for her own RFCU to disprove these accusations. People are allowed to change their account name to avoid exposure to their name in certain subject, from the WP:SOCK#Segregation_and_security policy: "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area." Perhaps she denied being this account to protect her identity, perhaps not, I don't know. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TedFrank&diff=next&oldid=109260007 is quite damning - why would he/she/it say this while simultaneously claiming on this very talkpage that he/she/it is not the same as the other account in question?

I will repeat, "That policy is to prevent physical harm in the real world", and "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area." The revealing of personal information is not acceptable. This user has the right to hide her identity. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definition of personal information, nor any interpretation of the privacy policy, that justifies considering usernames qua usernames as personal information. _especially_ when the username in question is clearly not anybody's legal name. --Random832(tc) 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the edits that gave out the personal information were deleted(and oversighted so even admins cannot read it), this may be the cause of some confusion. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression that you were supporting his/her/its claim that the association between User:Jance and the other account in question was personal information; which seemed reasonable since he/she/it has clearly [3] made that claim, and you have not refuted it while supporting him/her/it otherwise. And, checkuser is NOT the only way to find sockpuppets, it's the LAST resort. And, were it not for the waters being muddied in this way, I would bet real money that the Checkuser response would be "obvious, no checkuser needed" (even if not for the fact that the data's probably stale). The proper venue would be WP:SSP, except since she's asserted (and no-one's refuted) that any association between the two accounts violates the privacy policy, it's potentially dangerous to file one.

And filing for a checkuser to "disprove" that he/she/it is the same person when he/she/it has [4] acknowledged that he/she/it IS the same person as the other account in question is clearly frivolous, and might be read as an attempt to take advantage of staleness to cast doubt upon that. --Random832(tc) 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend assuming good faith in this matter. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)}

There are two different allegations. I did once incorrectly use Jance's first name in addressing her; I did not realize that she was anonymous, because she had publicly identified herself on a weblog, and I mistakenly thought she had publicly identified herself here as well, given that she acknowledged that she was the same person. I apologized for the misunderstanding, and will not do that again.

But Jance also claims that my identifying her earlier account (which does not give her name, though it may be identified with her in other ways that I don't know about) violates her privacy and will subject me to a lawsuit. Random832 is correct: Checkuser states that it is a last resort. If Random832 is an admin, perhaps Random832 can take his or her own action against Wikipedia abuse, because I am bound by the warning.

It seems to me, however, that Random832 has the better of this argument. It's easier for Jance to use the change-name feature than for other editors to dance around Jance's evasion of a permanent block by misrepresenting her intent to leave Wikipedia. -- TedFrank 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not and have never claimed to be an admin. I've merely stated that it is obvious that usernames (especially usernames that are not anyone's legal name) are not personal information. And allowing User:Jance's claim that it is to go unchallenged while supporting her other more reasonable complaints lends the impression (i certainly thought you did, it never entered my mind that you might not) that you agree with her. --Random832(tc) 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument has been brought up on WP:ANI. A consensus will form there. My opinion has been made, and I stand by it. I will take no administrative action in this case. Good night. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to defend my reasons for wanting privacy and not having my real name and the real name of my husband linked to on Wikipedia, by some political blogger who doesn't like my politics.---- Anyway - I think I can take a guess as to what Ted wants - I don't even particularly agree, but this is not the place to have that fight. If he's represented the facts correctly, what he wants is for a user who avoid being banned by promising to leave forever, to either keep that promise or be banned. That's not a particularly unreasonable request, under the banning policy. Has he represented the facts correctly? If so, why are you back? If you think that you should be given another chance, you should make a case for that, rather than creating a smokescreen to forbid anyone to confirm or deny if you are the same user who was nearly banned. --Random832(tc) 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHy don't you look at the history before jumping to conclusions? And also look at the rules of Wikipedia.

I wouldn't even ask for that if not for the fact that Jance is engaging in the same conduct that got her banned the first time. What I really want are NPOV articles that accurately reflect both sides of the issue, rather than just the side Jance agrees with; more personally, I want Jance to stop relentlessly attacking me and trying to get me banned and blocked; I want Jance to stop reverting all of my edits out of spite; I want Jance to stop threatening me with lawsuits. I've documented the POV and civility problems on my Talk page. -- TedFrank 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Jance 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the dispute resolution page, this is my talk page. Please don't use it to argue with each other. I am finished with this matter. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd lost sight of that. I'll leave this page alone now. --Random832(tc) 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, peace. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]