User:Peter McConaughey created Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule last week and declared that it's a Wikipedia guideline. The first version was completely absurd, so I changed the tag to "proposed" and cut out much of the nonsense. [1] Thus far, not a single editor has shown support for this as a guideline. Peter is now insisting that he can create Wikipedia guidelines without obtaining consensus [2] and has been telling other editors to follow his made-up guideline. [3] Ironically, he's been reverting my attempts to change the page back to a proposed guideline. I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is neither a guideline nor a proposed guideline - it's an essay. It is not seeking to gain a consensus of editors, nor does it have a widespread consensus that it is mostly the right thing to do. It's just a commentary. I've tagged it accordingly. Phil Sandifer 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation this is a proposed guideline. Perhaps we should have started voting for it on its talk page just so it would be harder to harrass (move to userspace) a proposal that had begun voting. zen master T 18:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was the page's creator that didn't want it to be a proposed guideline [4]. It's more of a personal essay/guideline so user space seems more appropriate. That course of action seemed better than nominating it for deletion. If there turns out to be wide support for it as a Wikipedia guideline, let's move it back to Wikipedia namespace. How's that sound? Carbonite | Talk 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Though I think wikipedia's distinction between "guideline" instead of "policy" is exactly appropriate as it relates to Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule or any "personal essay/personal guideline", quoting from the {guideline} template: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. A proposed guideline is exactly an "essay" that only has the support of a handful of editors, it should be given the chance of garnering community support through prominent exposure, though do I assume correctly you would vote against it Carbonite? Maybe Peter wanted to refine it before proposing it as a guideline or some such. zen master T 18:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you take a look at the guidelines in Category:Wikipedia guidelines, you'll find Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:POINT, WP:CITE and WP:BITE, all very widely accepted. To me, the difference between an official policy and a guideline is that guidelines generally aren't enforced with punitive measures, while official policies might be. The "zero-revert" rule didn't have any acceptance as far as I could tell, certainly not to the point where "...many editors agree with in principle...". I put a "proposed" tag on the page, but Peter didn't wish to have it go through the porcess of becoming a guideline. Since I figured the page could still be useful in some way, I moved it to his user space, rather than nominating it for deletion.

There is the possibility that there was still refinement in progress, but before you reach that conclusion, take a look at the first version. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't look like a very serious guideline. I was also concerned that the guideline was being referred to [5] before other editors had even seen this "rule".

I think the best way to proceed here would be to refine the page in user space and gauge the level of acceptance. If it turns out that "...many editors agree with in principle...", a move back to Wikipedia namespace would be appropriate. If not, it can remain a personal guideline that any editor can choose to follow. Carbonite | Talk 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How does a proposed guideline go about garnering acceptance other than by existing as a proposed guideline for a long while to measure community acceptance and solicit comments and suggestions for improvement? For comparison, I don't think WP:POINT was ever forced to move to an editor's user namespace, especially not a few days after it was written... zen master T 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Most guidelines are unwritten rules that turned into written ones. In the case of the "zero-revert rule", I can't say that I've heard of it as an unwritten rule. Making this a guideline is more akin to creating a rule from scratch rather than writing down what is already accepted. Please note that I attempted three times to add the "proposed" tag onto the page [6] [7] [8], but was reverted each time. After other admins chimed in Peter stated "Why don't we just remove the tag altogether? I have no interest in subjecting the limits that I impose on myself to the acceptance of the Cabal." [9]. Given that the "zero-revert rule" wasn't generally accepted and that there wasn't interest in making it a guideline, I felt a move to user space would be the best move. Carbonite | Talk 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should give Peter the benefit of the doubt and allow significant time to pass to see if the Zero-revert rule garners community support. I think you are putting the cart before the horse, before something becomes a "guideline" it has to be a "proposed guideline". Just because initially it seems like it doesn't have much support doesn't mean it won't eventually. The proposed guideline template is exactly for signifying proposals that seek community refinement and suggestion prior to general acceptance. zen master T 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the three times [10] [11] [12] I tried to make it a "proposed guideline" by adding that template. Carbonite | Talk 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because there is a disagreement over whether it is a guideline or a proposed guideline doesn't mean it must be moved to userspace. I think Peter is (correctly) inferring WP:0RR from WP:1RR and NPOV (which does indeed make it a guideline). The inferred guideline is recommending instead of "reverting" or removing someone else's content that you don't like (when not obvious vandalism) we should give the benefit of the doubt and include the other content in addition to our own content to avoid the possibility of censoring information, which I think succinctly summarizes the advantage and essence of collaborative editing. zen master T 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're still misunderstanding or misreading what occurred. Let me recap, one last time (you can follow along with history :

- The first version was a mess.

- I changed the tag from "guideline" to "proposed guideline" [13]

- I did a major copyedit to make the page coherent [14], including removing language about using pizza as rewards. Without this rewrite, it almost certainly would have been a candidate for deletion.

- After the tag is reverted to "guideline", I again modify it to {{proposed}}. [15]

- The tag is again reverted to guideline and I once again change it [16] to {{proposed}} (this is thitd time I've attempted to make it a proposed guideline).

- I posted a notice [17] on WP:ANI requesting that other admins review this page.

- User:Lord Voldemort (an admin) changes the tag to "proposed" [18] (this is fourth time it's been tagged as a "proposed guideline".

- User:Snowspinner (an admin) removes the "proposed" tag [19].

- User:Radiant! (an admin) [20] adds a notice that the "zero-revert rule" is "''is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. There is no "zero-revert rule" on Wikipedia.

- Peter adds a self-made template [21] that states that "This page is not approved by the Cabal."

- On the "zero-revert rule" talk page [22], Peter states "Why don't we just remove the tag altogether? I have no interest in subjecting the limits that I impose on myself to the acceptance of the Cabal" and " don't consider this to be a proposal. It is a guideline that I follow. If the Cabal has a monopoly on what can be called a "guideline," then I will call it something else. The Cabal's official approval process doesn't interest me".

- I move the page to Peter's user space. [23]

OK, that's about all the info I can provide. I made every attempt to make this a proposed guideline. Other admins attempted to make this a proposed guideline. There was agreement that this was not a guideline yet. I'm not sure what else I can say. You may disagree the move, but I believe there was certainly justification. Carbonite | Talk 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A guideline that only a handful of editors follow is still a guideline for them. How is a disagreement over whether it is a guideline or a proposed guideline in any way justify moving it to someone's user namespace? Perhaps a compromise header can be worked out with the content at WP:0RR, something to the effect of "this is a new guideline that the entire community may not be aware of" or some such? Peter seems to have valid concerns with the wording of the {proposal} header, for example, guidelines don't require "consensus" -- voting for a guideline just signifies that editor agrees with the principles of the guideline and will try to follow them. zen master T 20:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• A page that only a handful of editors follow is not a Wikipedia guideline, should not masquerade as such, should be clearly tagged as 'essay', 'rejected' and/or 'historical', and most likely belongs in userspace. This has been pointed out several times before. Radiant_>|< 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:0RR is a new and not yet official guideline as most of the community is not yet aware of it, if a critical mass of editors end up following it hopefully one day it can be officialized. How can something possibly be labeled "rejected" if most community members are unaware of it? zen master T 23:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Leongmig23 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) recently blanked Trinity Repertory Company, an article I am the main contributor of [24]. Given that this username is similar to Leonig Mig, and we recently had a spate of Leonig Mig impersonators [25], and I have been involved Administratively with the Karmafist/Pigsonthewing/Leonig Mig/Scottfisher controversy, this seems like it might have been a focused attack rather than random vandalism, so if someone with Checkuser woulnd't mind seeing if the user has any relation to the previous Leonig Mig impersonator, I would be obliged. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Leongmig32 (talk · contribs) is editing from a rather interesting location which I will not identify further. I don't believe any of the other Leonig Mig family of editors have used this address or any other address at this organization. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, thanks for your reply. Would you be so kind as to note if there is any connection between Leongmig32 and Karmafist, Pigsonthewing, Leonig Mig himself, or Scottfisher? Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of a connection based on CheckUser evidence between Leongmig32 and any other editor. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. What is it about the location that the user is editing from that makes it interesting? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be telling. - David Gerard 13:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the location, I was asking why she chose to describe it as interesting. Was it interesting because it correllates to someone particular? Or was it interesting because it said the user was coming from an ISP based on Mars? Was it interesting because it was blinking in bright colors? That's all. If sharing that would violate privacy, by all means don't. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at Conspiracy theory in regards to Zen-master (talk · contribs)'s probation [26]. I don't consider myself to be a neutral admin since I've edited the page recently and have an unrelated dispute with him. I think Zen-master's recent reverts and edits have been disruptive to the article and may be grounds to consider banning him from the article for a month or so. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite seems to be implying edits he disagrees with are "disruptive". What specific edits of mine violate any wikipedia policy or are applicable to probation? Since becoming aware of it I've been following the WP:0RR which encourages editors to include other people's content in addition to my own, instead of reverting which can stifle contribution and can inflame confrontation. zen master T 21:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring is still disruptive, even if you're avoiding simple reverts. Just in the past 10 hours, you've been reverted by three different editors. Carbonite | Talk 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note here that the only reason why Zen wasn't already blocked from CT was because of a technicality. He was blocked for violating 3RR on December 12th and his probation was extended on December 14th. And the 3RR violation was on Conspiracy theory as was the violation on November 24th that caused him to be blocked. So this isn't new. It's just the latest chapter. And btw, zen is still reverting other people's edits. They are not strictly reverts but that have that effect. And he's doing it without discussion. I hope he is blocked from CT. Like I said, this isn't new behavior. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree I was "edit warring", the other side in the dispute is the only one that has been reverting the article recently and removing relevant info and clarity. I don't think it is unreasonable to strive for a superset introduction of all viewpoints and presentation methods until we work out a bipartite version on the talk page. My most recent edit cleaned up a ton of NPOV violations on its own. zen master T 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Woohookitty that this isn't even close to new behavior. Zen-master has been edit warring on "conspiracy theory" articles for nearly six months, including Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories, Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Words to avoid and 9/11 conspiracy theories. He already been banned from editing the Race and intelligence article due to similar behavior. This widespread disruption is the reason his probation was expanded to all articles. Carbonite | Talk 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What "behavior" of mine actually violates any wikipedia policy? Are you citing any of either? All those articles have/had fundamental bias problems with them. I accept that the apparent majority disagrees with my interpretation but that is not justification for direct censorship, obfuscation, and mischaracterization. Also note, I am not "banned" from editing race and intelligence (which I consider to be a racist and racism inducing article), my edit restrictions probation originally was specific to race and intelligence but a small and highly coordinated group of editors have apparently conspired to expand the scope of my probation/edit restrictions to include all articles. Pay no attention to the people behind the curtain surrounding the Wikipedia. zen master T 22:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that it would have been more accurate to say that you were banned from editing Race and intelligence. Carbonite | Talk 22:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The page you refer to is an individual admin imposed "ban" of race and intelligence that expired on Nov 26. Though, if you read the entire thread there was and is controversy over that "ban" because of that fact the "banning" admin falled to include a rationale as to how adding the {npov} tag to a fundamentally disputed article could somehow be construed as a "disruption". The admin in question seems to have clearly violated the WP:Probation policy: "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". zen master T 01:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring is silly. Revert warring over something as inane as a meta tag is *INCREDIBLY* silly. I don't know, maybe go write an encyclopedia? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So[edit]

Can a neutral admin look at this please and make a decision? Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very well. Considering that Zen-master's edits on Conspiracy theory have in the past week been reverted by a number of different users, including Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Harald88 and Carbonite, and on the talk page several people, including Cberlet and Sean Black, state disagreement with Zen-master's edits, I must conclude that his edits run against consensus, and that his repeatedly reverting to the version he prefers is disruptive. Thus, Zen-master is hereby banned from Conspiracy theory until January 1st. He is welcomed to propose any changes to the article on its talk page, and seek consensus from there. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• The word "consensus" does not mean "majority". Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy was specifically designed to ensure the inclusion of all viewpoints, it is not being followed in conspiracy theory and other articles such as race and intelligence. If a small "majority" of editors revert additions to an article, rather than changes, that is perhaps a sign of censorship. To avoid the possibility of even inadvertent censorship editors should try to follow the Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule which frees editors from thinking in terms of "reverting" and does not have the effect of stifling contribution. The 0RR has the advantage of encouraging editors to be bold while at the same time being inclusive of other editors contributions. Articles should be a superset of all viewpoints and sources. Also, if a highly coordinated group of editors repeatedly revert additions or clarity improvements from an article, without making a competent argument for exclusion, then any censorship or obfuscation is increasingly obvious... zen master T 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a very nice rant, but does it have a point relevant to the issue at hand? Radiant_>|< 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, perhaps if you read it without pre-judging it to be a "rant" you would glean the relevant points, or are you trying to dismissively label it a rant? zen master T 23:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, like I asked I was wondering if you have a point and whether it's relevant to the issue at hand, because neither is obvious from the comments you just wrote. Radiant_>|< 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The issue at hand is apparent censorship and obfuscation. A small majority has labeled contributions they disagree with as "disruptive" instead of debating the merits of those contributions. They do not seem to value retaining all information and viewpoints but I can give them the benefit of the doubt if they assure me that is not their intention. zen master T 00:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, the issue at hand is that you have been banned from that page for disrupting it. Radiant_>|< 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a note of forewarning -- C.f. both the URA page and this arb case, [27]. It looks like the usual suspects are getting into a argument over the placement/lack of BRACKETS. That is, is it 'Hong Kong, PRC' or 'Hong Kong, (PRC)'. Potential trouble spot there.

This is a notice that User:Pigsonthewing is banned from editing the Administrators' noticeboard and all subpages of said page, including WP:AN/I for a period of one week. Andy's RFAr has a clause which allows for any administrator to ban Andy from any page for good cause, and as such I have activated the probationary remedy. I have informed Andy of this ban and am asking that all administrators take notice. If Andy violates this ban, he may be blocked for 24 hours. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Place To Ban POTW from[edit]

POTW has been Wikistalking me again [28], if sees him doing it again, please do me a favor and block him. Pretty much all he's done after the arbcom case has been harrassing me, complaining on the Admin Boards, and causing revert wars at places like Jeremy Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). David Gerard is right, it's time that POTW was just indef blocked once and for all, as he contributes far fewer positive things in comparison to his vast amount of negative contributions. karmafist 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? These edits came after I posted here. [29],[30]

He isn't contributing anything, he's just looking at paricular article histories and user contribs and swooping in to try and intimidate. As usual. Will someone please just follow David Gerard's advice and just stop his nonsense once and for all? I can start a straw poll if you'd like to see if there's a consensus for doing this so whoever does it can feel like they're not going too beyond Be Bold/WP:IAR. karmafist 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As much as I think that Andy is more of a pain than a help, I am strongly against having a straw poll for this. This is more of RfC material. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that Andy is abiding by the ban on him here. As he has abided by the bans on Jeremy Clarkson and Longbridge. Saying that he 'caused revert wars' there is a bit disingenuous given that the wars, in both those cases, involved Locke Cole following Andy to pages Locke Cole had never edited before and reverting Andy's changes. There's a term for that. I can cite more than a dozen examples of Locke Cole and you (prior to being banned) doing that. This doesn't qualify as "leaving him alone". Nor does repeatedly reporting him here, making gratuituous negative comments about him to others on a daily basis, et cetera. Yes, Andy is aggressive and disruptive. Yes, he makes negative comments. Yes he keeps track of edits and says 'look what HE did!'... all just like you and Locke Cole. If you want him to stop then step one is doing so yourselves. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw polls of this nature risk being just >this< far off hanging parties. And, BTW, WP:BOLD, otherwise known as Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, has to do with editing articles and has no force when it comes to interpreting policy or ArbCom decisions. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Filocht, if the past few months have taught me anything, it's that the important part of policies and guidelines are the intent, not the actual words there since they can be changed with a click of a button and there's no real way to change them without trying to force them through or dealing with endless talk pages and cajoling. karmafist 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Kmweber has thoroughly gotten under Karmafist's skin. I've left a note for Karmafist.

Unfortunately, we can't block people just for being INCREDIBLY ANNOYING. The problem with Kurt is that he is of the school of "if you can't prove me wrong to my satisfaction, then it means I am right, and can continue to behave this way". Zephram Stark and zen-master are other examples. They are incredibly disruptive and annoying, and basically drive normal editors insane. Kurt got under Snowspinner's skin on #wikipedia and under Karmafist's skin on the wiki.

I've left a note for Karmafist, unblocked Kurt for now, and suggest admins keep a very close eye on him. Repeated 24-hour blocks for disruption may teach him empirically what behaviour works and what doesn't - David Gerard 16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So you don't think it is necessary to dysysop Karmafist? Fred Bauder 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I submit that if you had Kmweber and Pigsonthewing stalking you, you'd blow your top too. I've asked Karmafist to please try to ignore Kurt's existence and leave him to others - and you can be sure many regulars of this page will be watching his every move - and I'm leaving a corresponding note for Kurt - David Gerard 16:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Could all interested monitors please see User talk:Kmweber. I've pointed out that my suggestion above to keep the blocks to 24 hours carries no more force than being a request, so to please cool it however possible - David Gerard 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What's going on with his block log? It looks like a bunch of blocks stacked on top of each other. I don't know what's going on here, so someone more familiar should probably fix it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There was apparently an interesting discovery made that it is possible to block a user using the lowercase version of their name (i.e. kmweber in this case) and for that block not to show up in the appropriate log because the logging mechanism forces the initial letter to UPPERCASE (i.e. Kmweber). So if you check the logs for all those admins, you'll probably find references to user:kmweber interleaved…try this for example. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And if the 1 week block Snowspinner imposed expires, doesn't the 1 month block Zoe imposed expire with it? Aecis ^praatpaal 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it already expired with his first 24 hour block, I think. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist has just blocked Kurt indefinitely [31]. Even if Kurt deserves to be blocked, it's been well established that Karmafist should not be the one to do so. I'm not going to unblock, but someone more familiar with the situation should take a look. Carbonite | Talk 17:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Not only should he (as someone directly involved in the situation) not be the admin to block it, but Kurt clearly doesn't deserve an indefinite block. --Deathphoenix 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• we should have a policy for blocking people for being incredibly annoying. not indefinitely, of course, but for a couple of days. So much time is lost to the project by random fools, and sometimes valuable editors. We need a clearer phrasing of the "disruption" clause, allowing admins to block users who evidently refuse to, or lack the intelligence (or English skills) to adhere to basic policy. dab (ᛏ) 17:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am shortening this block. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

David notes we can't block people for being incredibly annoying, but the question I would like an answer to is can people be blocked if they are clearly not here to contribute to the encylopaedia AND are incredibly annoying? (and I haven't looked at Kmweber's contributions to see whether he falls within this description, so I make no comment on him), jguk 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You can block people -- even indefinitely -- for being noncontributors, but not if anybody (with administrative rights, at least) objects to it. We've blocked quite a few people permanently for being total losers, and nobody seems to mind all that much. In this case, though, there are plenty of objectors to an indefinite block of Kmweber, and so nobody is entitled to block him permanently (except Jimbo and the Board, and they haven't gotten involved). Basically, Kmwember hasn't yet convinced all 700-odd administrators that his participation in Wikipedia is without value. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, but I have to agree with David Gerard that desysoping Karmafist for making a hasty decision is a unwarranted. We have the power to overrule and Karmafist has been dealing with a lot of badgering for sure. Other admins have already blocked Weber for long periods of time...so at most, Karmafist is guilty of acting unilaterally. But if things keep up the way they are, the ban may end up permanent anyway at some point.--MONGO 19:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a more serious matter (than the fact that the block was indefinite) is that Karmafist blocked a user he was very involved with. David Gerard had already asked other admins to keep an eye on Kurt, so he (Kurt) was being closely monitored. I don't support desyoping Karmafist, but he does need to take a step back and let other admins impose any future blocks. Carbonite | Talk 19:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See my talk page. Karmafist is understandably extremely dispirited about the whole project at this stage, and at about 11 on an anger scale of 1 to 10. Kurt seems to do that to people, he certainly had that effect on me. Everything should look less worse tomorrow - David Gerard 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Andy and Kurt are extremely annoying people. That's not the point here, though. We can't keep, as an admin, someone who can't deal with annoying people in a reasonably responsible way. Karmafist has shown that he can't deal with annoying people with enough cool for us to continue to extend the trust of adminship to him. If he had been acting responsibly, he would have refused to use admin rights against him, or he would have taken a wikibreak. He did neither of these things. The private communications that several of us have had with him suggest that these problems will continue to recur for as long as he remains an admin. I don't think it's in the interests of the Wikipedia for him to remain as an admin; if this causes him to leave the Wiki entirely, that's too bad, but it will have been necessary.

I also agree that Kurt has completely earned his blocks and that we, as a community, should consider whether Kurt is someone we want to continue to be a participant in this project. But that in no way excuses Karmafist's excesses. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see an editor be bombproof and have seen admin actions worse than Karmafist for much less provocation. I fully understand and agree that he shouldn't have tried to permaban Kurt, and he also shouldn't have blocked any editor he was directly involved with in any content dispute. I think that it is a rather severe punishment to desysop him unless their is evidence that he has done this in the past. Can we ask him to not use his admin tools for a couple of weeks and then monitor it after that?--MONGO 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I can't comment on WP:RFAR, I also agree that desysopping Karmafist at this stage is a little much. --Deathphoenix 22:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think all admins should remember that although it seems Karmafist's actions were a bit extreme, Kurt definitely had it coming. I am quoting him from the mailing list [32]:

Yes, I have been blocked twice before for the same behavior. I resumed it because, both times, after giving the

involved admins plenty of time to explain why my behavior was wrong, I got no answer; thus, I made the conclusion

that they had conceded defeat.

This guy just doesn't get it. I would suggest we chalk this one up to rightfully extreme frustration, correct Karmafist's mistake for him, and move on to dealing with Kurt. He's the real problem user here, I think. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On User talk:Kmweber he says he'll try to play nice. I don't know what will happen, maybe by next week he'll be indefinitely blocked by community disgust. Though I hope not, but we'll see. In the meantime, I'd hope blocks will be loving and educational - David Gerard 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. As of right now (19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) there are no active blocks on User:Kmweber. Let's see how things go. Note that I won't be doing further unblocking - David Gerard 19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I should note that when "being incredibly annoying" crosses the line into "being disruptive", it would be a plausible reason to block. For instance, someone who responds to every single comment on a talk page with a lengthy ten-line diatribe, is disrupting that talk page. Radiant_>|< 22:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If he makes one more comment about "deletionist vandalism", he's out of here. Zoe (216.234.130.130 01:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

This discussion has been moved to [33].

The RfC discussion regarding this issue can be found [34] here.

I've just blocked this charming fellow indefinitely as I believe he's EnviroKainKabongTheScion's latest account. Witness the same choice of topics, the same abusive edit summaries and talk page posts (including the trademark accusation that anyone who disagrees with him is an "Islamist" or an "Islamist wannabe"), and the general bad manners. Comments? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if this person isn't Enviroknot (unlikely, but someone could with CheckUser access could see if the IP resolves to the University of Houston), it's unacceptable behavior.--Sean|Black 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. As Sean says, even if he's not Enviroknot, he was clearly up to no good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He's in IRC right now, telling us what a sack of Muslim bastards we all are. And yes, his IP address resolves to a Roadrunner account in Houston. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it does seem to be Enviroknot. Unfortunately, Robchurch has unblocked the ApeAndPig account and unprotected the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My initial suspicions were correct. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

EnviroKainKabongTheScionAmouse seems incapable of realising that if he edits like a dickhead in a particular way, people will spot the edit pattern unerringly. It's like watching a retarded hamster headbutting its wheel - David Gerard 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite this users rantings I decided to investigate the block at his request and I see strong evidence that either it's an Enviro sock or that it's just another troll and possibly a sock of any of a dozen other malcontents who have been perm banned. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I would like to understand better why the Fortune Lounge Group article keeps on being deleted, as I have tried as much as possible to re-edit the article so that it is less promotional. It would be nice for the Group to feature in the Wiki and I do not mind re-editing the material once again, but I do not understand the grounds for deletion.

I see you have a number of online casinos and poker rooms listed in the Wikipedia and these articles have external links so if this is not ideally the factor for deletion - please could you give me some tips as to how we can feature in the wiki without breaking the editorial rules per se.

I'd really like some feedback and will await a timeous response.

Regards Lil

PS- Please could you reply >>email removed<< instead of the email address given above, as this is an urgent matter. Thanks

• WP:DRV is the place to ask this. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Just got his message today. WP:BITE springs to mind in this case. lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the email address to save you from spam. 86.133.53.111 16:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

24 hours for disruptive obnoxiousness and his continued stalking campaign against Karmafist. I've also suggested to the AC an injunction confining him to his AC case pages and his user talk page - David Gerard 16:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What good would that do? I'd like him to at least be free to do some constructive editing, whether he choose to or not. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Find some evidence first that he has ever done constructive editing. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Snappy line, but pointless on its face. How could someone who hasn't ever done constructive editing possibly amass over 19,000 edits without being blocked? Not good enough? Well, here are some difflinks from the evidence against him in the ArbCom case... [35] [36] [37] [38] all of which look like constructive editing to me... and those were identified as some of his bad ones. :] If you still think there's some question here I could dig up a few dozen of the articles he started... --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of "not getting blocked"...Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The good it would do is having him not try to drive his opponents off the wiki. He appears to be under the impression that Usenet flamewar-style interaction is the way to go. Good actions don't make up for unacceptable ones - David Gerard 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ranting time[edit]

Whoa whoa whoa. Wait a minute. This just hit me not thirty seconds ago.

As much as I'm all for forgiving and reforming abusive users, there has got to be some type of line that we've got to draw. Andy is taking us for a ride with this crap. Look:

1. Refuses to acknowledge/participate in RfC regarding his disputed behavior
   • Including ignoring talk page notice not just once but twice
2. Refuses to acknowledge/participate in RFAr regarding his disputed behavior

Look. Anyone who refuses to abide by established and accepted Wikipedia policies (not guidelines, but policies) is not a martyr but a troll. If someone doesn't like the established policy, they have every right to contest it, but no right to hold them in contempt.

Andy frequently removes what he considers to be personal attacks on his user talk page. However, according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which happens to be an official policy page...

If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead.

According to Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes (an official policy page)...

If the issue is decided by Arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result.

And, my favorite (bold emphasis added by myself)...

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. ...Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies. For additional ideas, see Wikipedia:Negotiation.

Do I really need to go any further? Has my rant made any impact? If Andy is unwilling to go through with our established dispute resolution policies as well as hold the ArbCom in contempt, then why, pray tell, are we still debating about what to do with him? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, since he was banned from this page he has abided by that ban.... despite you and several others taking the opportunity to "rant" and malign him extensively here while he is forbidden from responding. Gee... what possible reason could he have for complaining so much? What has he really done wrong since the ArbCom case? Make a couple of extra reverts after someone followed him around to block his edits? Complained (extensively) about that and the other ongoing viciousness against him? He has honored every single page ban placed on him. He has shown a willingness to apologize for mistakes while those attacking him have not (the one exception being Nandesuka apologizing for her most recent mistaken block). If he is so irredeemable and unwilling to follow the rules as you clain why does he apologize? Why does he abide by bans? Why does he accept blocks he could get around? And still the abuse continues. Anyone here ever read WP:NPA#A_misguided_notion: "Kicking_them_while_they_are_down"? Can anyone here actually claim to have been the subject of negative comments from Pigsonthewing without having first made such about him? Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe he wouldn't complain so much if he weren't constantly being insulted? Has anyone bothered to count up the number of times this guy has been blocked against policy with no apology forthcoming (again save Nandesuka's most recent)? Wouldn't you be ticked off under such circumstances? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that all further discussion please move to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation or its accompanying Talk page, to prevent further forest fires appearing all over the wiki, and as Andy is allowed to comment there, but not here at the moment. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed ban[edit]

I propose that Pigsonthewing be banned from Karmafists User and Talk space, and all subpages, per the recent ArbCom ruling placing Andy on probation. Please see this for discussion, and I would welcome your input there. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a history of taking advantage of loopholes in these and other restrictions, even while under injunction, to carry out the same activity without technically violating the rules. For example, he will stir up trouble on karmafist's talk page, and when karmafist tries to ignore him, Pigsonthewing forces the issue by repeating the same charges in public (such as on this page or the village pump). That makes it extremely difficult for any kind of peace to be kept, and I suggest we ban Pigsonthewing from stalking behavior, which behavior to be defined in the judgment of any uninvolved administrator. Demi ^T/_C 18:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I support that wholeheartedly. I suggest that motion be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, and all future discussion be relocated there, so that we don't have forest fires cropping up all over the Wiki. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

While it is unfortunate that it has to come to this, I feel compelled to point out that I was mildly shocked to discover moments ago that the above user was actually an admin. My experiences with him when it comes to content disputes in Talk:Chinese New Years greetings/Talk:Kung hei fat choi/Move Discussion which led to his attempt to what I deem as an abuse of the arbcom process above [39] (and which a fellow admin felt appears to be "an attempt to smear someone without having to follow the certification requirements at WP:RFC"), and his behavior in Talk:MTR/Move discussion, which led to quite a shocking exclaimation in [40] of "revert: yes i am an admin, check for yourself. you are the only who voted in favour. the consensus is definitely to NOT MOVE. DO NOT REVERT." leaves me wondering if he is capable of exercising restraint and displaying maturity and impartiality when he is involved in content disputes himself.

It appears from his self-nomation Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enochlau, that there is little evidence of his ability when it comes to resolving disputes. Rather, they have been centered on his factual contributions to wikipedia. I am of the impression that admins are here mainly to help mediate and carry out duties for this site. Not a badge awarded to massive content contributors alone. The above experiences with him leaves me wondering if he truly understood what being an admin is, and if he worthy of remaining as one.--Huaiwei 06:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Err. You really are making a fuss out of nothing. The result of the Requested Move was definitely a "no move". You were the only one to vote support. My comment was motivated by your misunderstanding of the Requested Move procedures. Once the discussion has been closed, you don't go and add it back to the talk page! I admit I should not have used capital letters, but I was quite surprised at why anyone would want to undo a standard administrative procedure. enochlau (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And as noted, this does not belong here. All of this discussion belongs on RfC. I will move it there when I get time this evening, otherwise you may do so yourself. enochlau (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint, waste of noticeboard space. Enochlau is to be commended for not flaunting his adminship in the naming dispute on the article talk page. I note that Huaiwei brought up his assumption that enochlau therefore couldn't be an admin in a sarcastic manner ("enochlau, if you have just become an admin, let me know"); that Enochlau's "shocking exclamation" in response would fail to shock most readers, especially if put in the company of Huaiwei's own pugnacity and personal attacks on the article talk page; and that Huaiwei (scraping the bottom of the barrel) seeems to want to suggest above that there's something negatively noteworthy about an RFA candidate self-nominating. No, there isn't. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

His failure to state his adminsthip can either be interpreted as a case of "humility" in your books, or a case of "nonchalance" in mine. I think we have room for alternative views here, and no one should be in the position to chastise others for their "wastage of space" just because of these disagreements. You are free to speculate over the intentions behind my behavior. However, I would just like to remind, that as stated in WP:RFA, "Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably as showing initiative and desire to serve the community." You choose to consider his move as showing initiative or what have you. I choose to see it as someone who considers himself worthy for adminship purely based on his efforts in adding content to wikipedia, and not based on his abilities in dispute resolution. You are entitled to your views, and so am I.--Huaiwei 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That section of WP:RFA is referencing applying higher standards to the vote to make someone an administrator, not their actions afterward. Self-nominated administrators who have successfully passed RFA are not held to a "higher standard" or put on "Administrative probation" or whatever you wish to call it. I haven't seen anything that Enochlau has done that is out of line; in fact, in everything I've seen, he's done exactly what's expected of him as an administrator. Your claim that it's a case of "nonchalance" (as though this is a bad thing) is ludicrous — where do you propose Enochlau inform you that he is an administrator? Had you bothered to spend less than 5 seconds checking whether he was an administrator, you would have seen that clearly stated in the first section of his user page. He isn't hiding it. Had Enochlau bragged about being an administrator, you likely would have filed a complaint about his lording it over you. What, exactly, is your complaint here? That he reverted your reversion of standard administrative fare? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And true as you say, I was refering to the "higher standards" perculiar to the voting process, which I note as lacking in discussions over his ability to handle disputes, especially those he was personally involved in. If I may remind, I posted this complaint over his poor dispute management, and not over his failure to declare his adminship status. My illustration of my shock over his behavior when it came to light that he was actually an admin demonstrates my point. How do my failure in checking his position (and why should I do that, unless, perhaps, I am looking to be personal against him?) absolve him of his behavior? My complaint is well documented above (and below). You have every liberty to take 5 seconds or more to read it.--Huaiwei 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For those who are interested, this discussion was continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei as suggested. enochlau (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment Bishohen quote underscores my point over the suitability of the above as an admin. "enochlau, if you have just become an admin, let me know", is precisely how I felt at that point, for I did not even realise he was one, for if he was, he certainly didnt give me the impression he was. Enochlau's dismissive attitude is certainly a cause for concern, and he appears to miss the point behind my complaint. I am concerned over his overall conduct, his inability to keep this cool when under stress, his inability in being inpartial when he is involved in a dispute (Such as requesting for a page protection in a dispute he is involved in when its purpose is debatable), and his apparant lack of initiative in helping to resolve disputes. These are qualities are deemed very important for every admin, and I see none of these qualities in him by his behavior thus far.

The opening paragraphs of this article clearly states, that "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both. Please try to discuss things with the admin before bringing the issue here." This is precisely why I am choosing to post it here. I am not demanding an RFC, for I dont think the misbehavior thus described has reached that magnitude. But I do see a need to remind, that a self-nominated admin is not immune from the same expectations applied to all admins, if not more.--Huaiwei 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A need to remind that a self-nominated admin is not immune from the same expectations...? Huaiwei, your original complaint wasn't well-considered, and your posts slide steeply into utter unreasonableness. A little well-meant advice: the smart thing would be to stop arguing. You're the subject of a recently opened RFC, and that's not a well-chosen time to make yourself a laughing-stock on the admins' noticeboard. A lot of people read it. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An RFC seemingly done more because its nominators cant decide for themselves which is the best way to win a content dispute rather then a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute is of little cause of concern to me. If I will be laughing stock, so be it. I time my comment based on what has just occured, independently from what others wish to do with me. I do wonder if your advise is well-intentioned anyhow, or it is more reflective of (or bears similarity to) collective bullying by a group of wikipedians from the same geographical area (or in some way or other related to it) against anyone who dared speak up against their continued persistance in introducing bias into wikipedia. If my comments are not "well-considered" or "slide steeply into utter unreasonableness", tells us why. They arent so simply because you say so.--Huaiwei 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If more than one person are starting to consider your comments ill-considered or unreasonable, perhaps you might like to take a step back and think about whether they could be right for once. Other people can be right, you know? enochlau (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be delighted to know that I am fully aware of the likelihood of others being correct. Your statement above somehow demonstrates to me your tendency in assuming that others are being stubborn, hardly a demonstration of assuming good faith. I would like to see how you could actually mediate when you cant do that, or fail to recognise the need for impartiality and to consciously rid oneself of prejudice when handling disputes (such as in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei)?.--Huaiwei 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Sea level rise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Reverted to:

Revision as of 02:04, 20 December 2005

• Violation:

09:17, 21 December 2005 William M. Connolley m (rv to Vsmith, losing all SEW's changes. May have time to go back and see what they were)

• User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. Although AN/I states 3RR should not be reported here, it has been stated that such parole violations should be reported here. (SEWilco 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Supplied talk page comment does not cite nor request a source, merely states deletion of content and reference material and asks for changes; the changes which he just deleted. (SEWilco 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

"I've rm'd:

Over the last million years the sea level has changed by tens of meters many times, while many fewer variations of as much as 100 meters have taken place. Although during the past million years the sea level has generally been lower than it presently is, over geologic time scales the sea level has often been 100-200 meters higher than in recent times.

I don't think this belongs in the intro of the page as it stands. Maybe it belongs in the split up version as per DF's idea.

SEW: I don't know what you've done to improve the refs. But whatever you do will all be lost if you persist in pushing against what everyone else wants. I certainly don't have the patience to go checking through a pile of minor changes. How about listing whatever cleanup the refs need, that would actually be a useful service. William M. Connolley 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)."(diff)

• Um, is this part of SEW's edit war with WMC over citation styles? That seems to be the major change reverted, aside from the article content which WMC did describe in his talk page comment. I thought there had beem some sort of ceasefire on cites—was I mistaken? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco is still trying to nail WMC on absolutely anything he can come up with . WP:ANI is of course absolutely the place for this - David Gerard 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still trying to nail violators, yes. I happened to notice this one because someone added incorrect information (diff) to the article. I corrected (diff) the information and added citations, as required by WP:CITE and WP:V. As a major contributor to the article, I then also invited a peer review (review) to help further. Rather than also help improve the article, WMC deleted the changes because he doesn't have time to participate in Wikipedia. I don't see that listed as an acceptable reason for reversion. (SEWilco 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

• My two cents. I do not believe that it is violation of WMC's parole. His edit and the accompanying talk page note suggest that he deleted the paragraph out of a concern of the structure of the article. He did not express a desire to remove the content from public view; he just wanted to place it elsewhere. That does not need a reference in my opinion. enochlau (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He also refers to his deletion of references. Look at the above violation diff for the deletion of 42 citations at the end of the diff because he doesn't "have the patience to go checking through a pile of minor changes". Apparently he owns the article and changes require his approval when he has time. (SEWilco 03:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Um, it appears that WMC reverted the references back to inline citations, undoing SEW's conversion to footnotes. A brief glance at the diff would seem to suggest that no references were deleted outright; rather it that their style was changed. Correct me if I am mistaken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes that looks like the case, another part of their constant battle with references. Did the ArbCom rule on citation format? If not, there's really nothing we can do... enochlau (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken, TenOfAllTrades. The deleted citations contained more information than only a URL. Try to find a replacement for a 404 link with only the URL. As WP:CITE repeatedly states, full citations are needed. The style (numbered links) was the same, but additional citation content existed before the deletion. (SEWilco 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

The Arbcom closed the case see ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 WMC parole lifted, SEWilco placed on probation. SEWilco seems to have been blocked for something - although I haven't been able yet to determine just what. See his talk page. Vsmith 18:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a dick, whatever form the manifestation took - David Gerard 23:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems SEWilco created a new bot User:RefBot which was blocked by Curps as a precaution. Now the question: is this new bot an attempt to bypass the arbcom decision? 3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles.[41]. Vsmith 01:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Conditions are per person, not per username. Using a bot to do the edits is a ban evasion and eminently blockable upon - David Gerard 18:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Resources:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latex&action=history
• Talk:Latex
  • Special:Contributions/208.176.61.219
    • User_talk:208.176.61.219
  • Special:Contributions/69.216.131.22
    • User_talk:69.216.131.22
  • Special:Contributions/68.159.82.23
    • User_talk:68.159.82.23
  • Special:Contributions/65.184.55.76
    • User_talk:65.184.55.76
  • Special:Contributions/199.248.185.2
    • User_talk:199.248.185.2

Anonymous IPs with no contributions previously keep appearing out of nowhere to remove the picture - As I said on Talk:Latex it seems very likely these are the same person. The other IPs have been warned before but they refuse to discuss and just keep deleting the image using different account/IP sockpuppet each time... I would have listed this on vandalism in progress but the problem is more complex than that - there are several different IPs being used and the vandal seems to know how to change theirs again and again --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Jesustoldme. The user claims to be Maoririder who "forgot his password." Maoririder is blocked until Dec 28. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. Thanks for letting me know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This guy has been blocked[42] by Woohookitty in the past for making personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring. He operates under 212.18.228.XXX and 195.82.106.XXX ip addresses, which all originate at the same Amsterdam-based ISP. We are certain that it is the same person posting in all instances.[43] He is back again, and up to his usual behavior: rapid reverting and insulting edit summaries,[44] personal attacks,[45] and wikistalking.[46]0 Can someone do something about this? Thanks, Skinwalker 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please check out User:Commtesting and the one edit to GWB. I think we may have a sock/copy cat. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and it looks like WisC has just confirmed that the "new user" part of semi-protection doesn't quite work yet. --Deathphoenix 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Indef. blocked by both me and Curps. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Brion has confirmed on wikitech-l that he made a typo :-) The semiprotection should work ok now - David Gerard 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• The anonymous user 205.188.116.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly making POV edits in the article, and personal attacks against other users. - Mike Rosoft 20:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dammit, it's an AOL IP address. From my understanding, blocking it won't help because AOL traffic goes through proxies that change every time? enochlau (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's correct...you have to block the range...not something to do without careful consideration, and should probably only be done for a hour or two.--MONGO 03:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • IIRC, AOLol blocks should last about 10-15 minutes, but even then, expect for the blocking admin to get emails of users getting nailed by autoblocks. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This one is a little tricky since it's in a SBC range I believe to be dynamic. However, all the edits from this IP are program vandalism, so I'm going to block it anyhow.

• 68.122.239.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Commtesting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Wwwiiiccc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jake the Snake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • VAANDALTRON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Good Game (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • WIC wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Muevelocito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jarrodthesurfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • GALLIANS BACK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jingle on Bells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Golbez in Heels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody take care of these, please? Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

The anon just erased an entire article[47], not once but twice [48]

He also vandilized the following: [49] [50] This anon has been warned before (see User_talk:152.163.100.204), please block him. Travb 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. This is an AOL IP. Just revert. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, you should use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for requests like this. -- SCZenz 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the edit in the history which contains her address and phone number? Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Done. The history looks a bit strange but I have to leave the reversions in even if what they're reverting has gone, just in case they changed anything else at the same time as reverting an edit. -- Francs2000 00:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Francs. The idiot keeps coming back with various anons and logged in accounts. I've protected it for now, but he's apparently been doing this for months. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are still some versions of the article, stored in the history, that contain that personal information. Should we wipe the page and start a new? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An admin can delete the article then go back and undelete all edits which do not contain the offending information. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

My first undeletion! I deleted the revisions with personal information. I would appreciate it if another admin could go look and make sure I didn't screw anything up. Hermione1980 16:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything looks good Hermione, good job. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the delete/restore wiped the protection out and he re-added it. I deleted that revision - does it look right now, or did I leave some of the historical ones still in? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it now. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

RK is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

He is fully aware of these limitations see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RK&diff=prev&oldid=12148085

Unfortunately, he has not kept to the terms of his RFA and has repeatedly violated them. I am asking for enforcement of the ArbCom decision an for them to take appropriate action, which based upon the Remedy would seem to be a 1 week ban and a resetting of his 12 months of restrictions. The following is evidence of his violations.

Violations of Revert limit:

• He violated the 3rr rule and got blocked for 24 hours. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive7#User:RK That is 4 reverts which is 3 more than what he is allowed.
• In the Tzadik article he has violates his 1rr limitation He has reverted to his version which is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&oldid=30128298

First revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=31891268&oldid=30951309

2cd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=31899916&oldid=31891623

• In the chabad article besides for the 3rr violation listed above, RK has a version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&oldid=29942559

1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31891037&oldid=31870263

2cd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31899609&oldid=31891606

3rd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31907630&oldid=31907508

4th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_Lubavitch&diff=31907906&oldid=31907778

Violations of his Personal attack parole:

• “Eliezer is a bald-faced liar, and his non-stop personal attacks leave me no choice but to request that he be banned for bad behaviour.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChabad_Lubavitch&diff=29941161&oldid=29940993 This was in response to my writing that he was using a sockpuppet to evade his limits on reverting. In his 3rr block above he and the ip address posting was found to be the same person.
• He has repeatedly accused me and other users of personal attacks when no personal attacks were made.

--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)--

User:RK blocked for parole violations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Would someone look at [51] and decide if that counts as commentary on non-editorial actions, and if so block according to EK's parole? Thanks. Phil Sandifer 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no provision for a block that I recall, even if you accept that it's a personal attack (I would call it a bit of an impolite nudge intended to prod him into answering me, not quite a personal attack). Everyking 05:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

When paroles are announced without an enforcement, they are assumed to be enforcable by a 24 hour block. Phil Sandifer 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume that. Is that policy? If the ArbCom intended that they would need to say so. Everyking 06:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps I should make a request for clarification then. Phil Sandifer 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable than taking it here and asking someone to block me, I'll grant you that much. Everyking 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. And Neutrality has now replied confirming that I was, in fact, right. I repeat, would someone please actually enforce this parole so that it provides some semblence of its intended purpose of relieving me of the constant harassment Everyking seems to feel it is his duty to subject me to? (A duty that he has, astonishingly, undertaken with even more zeal since the arbcom told him to stop) Phil Sandifer 06:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours for violating the parole. If you repeatedly nudge the electric fence, you shouldn't be overly surprised when you get zapped. Ambi 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Lox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just marked a bunch of template talk pages with {{db|It's blank and not useful}}. Could an admin clean this up and then spank him? ^BlankVerse 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yuber (talk · contribs) and myself CltFn (talk · contribs) have both violated the 3RR rule in page Islam in the United States. We should therefore both be blocked according to Wikipedia policy.--CltFn 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I am concerned by recent edits of John Baez and Jack Sarfatti by 71.139.97.67 which suggest this may be a sock. Note tha the IP appears to correspond to dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net; apparently this anon is using a DSL line operated by Pac Bell in the San Francisco area. (Compare an email addy recently used by Sarfatti in recent UseNet posts). I have noticed a consistent pattern of WP:NPOV edits expressing views favored by Sarfatti from IP addies registered to this ISP. The recent edits to Jack Sarfatti mostly speak for themselves. The edit to John Carlos Baez repeats almost verbatim a mischaracterization (the alleged surpisingly candid comment) which has been made by Jack Sarfatti in an UseNet posting (sorry, don't have the link for that, but you can Google for it). AFAIK, User:JackSarfatti has been blocked indefinitely for misbehavior. The edits I have noticed so far seem to be non-NPOV, not vandalism, but I am concerned. (I reverted the changes to John Carlos Baez, but I leave it to others to try to keep Jack Sarfatti protected from partisan edits.) ---CH 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I\'m back and I just edited Jack Sarfatti to WoW under the sockpuppet User:Galzaga AKA JackSarfatti. I will continue using sockpuppets full stop. User:JackSarfatti signing on as JackLaesMyres 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Indef. blocked as per policy regarding sockpuppets by indefinitely banned users. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone do a checkuser on that account? From my experience, whenever a edit replaces all instances of ' with \' it's because of a misconfigured PHP cgi proxy (magic_quotes_gpc is enabled but the script is not unescaping). If so, it should be indefinitely blocked as an open proxy (before it causes more quote damage). --cesarb 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

GourangaUK (talk · contribs) has shown extremely erratic behaviour on Hare Krishna and Gouranga. His edits are borderline to however, and I did consider rolling them back to be 3RR-exempt. He will argue a single point, which would make for a valid content dispute, and change ten other points. These articles were so far below par that I didn't expect anybody to be watching them, let along consider them in some sort finished or adequate. I do recognize now that this person is serious, and I am unsure how to address this. From his editing behaviour, the user is borderline to troll and/or vandal. From his talk behaviour, he is just extremely clueless in both WP matters, and the subject matter (non-ISKCON Hinduism). If his edits improve to at least correspond to the point he makes on talk, I will consider him bona fide, even if his demands for an ISKCON-only pov are still totally unacceptable. If he continues his erratic behaviour, I will think it admissible to issue short warning blocks. If you get to look into the case, please advise. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? He vandalized my user page. -- Bonaparte talk 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that goes against Wikipedia:Privacy policy, but this user is certainly blockable as a Wikipedia:Doppelganger account an impersonator. --Deathphoenix 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte has listed the same request on AN as well, it is against the privacy policy and checkuser policy for the IP address to be revealed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

user:ßonaparte has been blocked indefinitively for impersonation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I know but I need to find out from what area is the IP of user:ßonaparte! I guess I know who it is but I need proof. Bonaparte talk 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we will not supply that proof I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) has contacted me by e-mail indicating s/he has been inadvertently blocked, likely part of an AOL range block. This seems to have happened before to Rtkat3, reading their talk page. I'm unfamiliar with unblocking a specific user in these circumstances, so if someone more familiar with range blocks would look into this, I'm sure Rtkat3 would appreciate it. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a way to unblock Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) IP address. If it is an AOL IP, hpefully admins would have blocked only for short periods. You may want to advise the user to ask User:David Gerard if the block is not lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This user violated the three revert rule today on Joan of Arc. He also created a fictitious artcle Forward-looking statement and three nonsense templates based on the fictitious article. He has been attempting to use the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a usage manual for copyediting medieval history. Durova 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He's reverted a fourth time. Durova 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody deal with the edit warriors and 3RR violators on TV.com? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Another one. This one shows the same badly written PHP proxy bug:

• 209.120.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Galzaga AKA JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Jodew9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • K8Whitaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • DickWrighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And here's a second one, just because:

• 67.18.52.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • JackLaesMyres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Gobbiozi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Has blanked several pages after several of his articles got placed on AfD yesterday. Has also made numerous personal attacks, both to those warning him about the blanking (see his talk page) and to others on the talk pages of "his" articles. Due to his not taking any warnings in, I've gave him a final warning. If he blanks another page or makes another personal attack anytime soon, he should be blocked. He's had plenty of warnings. Hedley 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Piecraft was eventually blocked. Hedley 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There's currently a revert war between two anons, 24.7.290.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.156.143.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at Islam in the United States. 70.156 claims on the talk page that 24.7 is actually blocked vandal Yuber. Kurt Weber 04:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page, and blocked the two IPs involved for 3RR violations. --bainer (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

and I have warned blocked vandal CltFn, that his behavior at the WP:3RR is totally unacceptable--172.142.133.250 04:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Gojistomp has repeatedly posted copyrighted material to articles, despite warnings on his talk page. He added copyrighted content to Giant Monster Varan, Akki Kumo, and The Mysterians, and was subsequently warned for each. Recently he reposted copyrighted material to Giant Monster Varan, despite the article having been deleted the first time he posted it. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

He was blocked for 18 hours last week after creating a string of articles all copied from the same website (which I went through one by one confirming their status before flagging them for speedy deletion). I have left several messages about copyright violation on his talk page but I'm not sure he has read them, let only understood them, and he certainly hasn't taken notice so far. I expect him to create another flood of new copyvios soon. --Whouk (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[52]
[53]

Here, Gibraltarian (as 212.120.225.93) says he attacks Ecemaml simply because "he is [a troll]". He doesn't even list any diffs to support his claim. He even calls Woohookitty "unworthy for adminship" (once again, not showing any "meat" to back up his claim). He even goes a step further in defacing Ecemaml's user page [54]. I think he has just proved to us that he shows absolutely *no* respect whatsoever to whomever he disagrees with, and it's about time a *long* range block be implemented. --TML1988 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sir. My carefully constructed contribution to the topic of Subd have not merely been delteed, i have not had them returned-in order to edit or adjust them

It is necessary, in any situation, to analyse as well as document the subject. My experiences, which contain the evidence for a critique of a Subud failing, are a vital part of the history of Subud, and do not merely conern myself-just becasue I was involved. The problem of discord in Subd is a theme which is an undercurrent that needs to be addressed publicly, and there is a place in an encyclopedic volume to cover it, with appropriate neutral reporting and observation. Removing ALL of my comment was not EDIING of the topic. It was removal, or sanitising, of a vital factor which has a need to be included in any documentation of Subud.

You do not want personal stories-the "I did this" here, despite several people naming themselves as they edited their Wikipedia contribution. At this time, I do not wan to be the character in the story either. Just the story-or factor, or problem, is al that matter in th Subd topic. Bronte Grivell

This is not the place to bring up content disputes. Nevertheless, looking at your contributions to Subud, you should have made those comments at Talk:Subud, not in the article itself. Commentary written in the first person belongs in the discussion page, not in the article page. -- Curps 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:66.225.247.182 was blocked on December 19 for vandalism. On December 26 they continued and vandalized 3 more pages. Qutezuce 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not an administrator, I'm pretty sure such reports go at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism, that being where I've always reported my vandals.Tommstein 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I blocked him for a week, since he continued to vandalized Wikipedia, with pretty much no edits except for vandalism -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellows (and female fellows), the above section requires the attention of some administrator, pretty much any administrator: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet needs attention. I was going to ask some random administrator directly, but this seems better.Tommstein 07:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fellow" is a nonsexed term and can refer to either male or female persons. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "fellowette". Radiant_>|< 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to say "I prefer <something else that sounds kinda like that...>"  :-) That said, I'm a bit confused regarding what the specific attention request is here... Tom<font color="#008000">er^talk 05:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There was apparently some page move fun going on just a little bit ago at Bill O'Reilly (commentator), and the talk page has become seperated from the article. Can an admin please put them back together? Redirects are currently in use which are at least keeping people from talking in the wrong place, but it shouldn't be left like this. —Locke Cole 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Handled by RedWolf24. :P —Locke Cole 13:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Tony against AfD in single combat again. It's that time of the year.

Recently someone pained himself and nominated a stack of entries on Snoop Dogg mixes for deletion. The articles were nothing more than track listings. In the ensuing discussion quickly consensus emerged that mixtapes and bootlegs are a dime to the dozen and generally too ephemeral to warrant a place in an encyclopedia, except when the material released there had a bearing on the artist's career. Bob Dylan comes to mind.

Now the material is back, cut-and-pasted into one single article. It doesn't fit the letter of CSD-G4 as "a substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy", because the old stuff hasn't been deleted yet - the listing will continue a few days more, but it certainly fits the spirit.

Someone made the point than an encyclopedia article on Snoop Dogg mixes might be a good idea, but this copy-and-paste-job of track listings isn't it.

As a result of the failure of the quality control process in Wikipedia a prolific and competent editor has left the project. [55] Pilatus 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

THe articles are subject to a mass listing for deletion. As an alternative to deletion of material on this significant body of work by a major rap artist, I am producing an article into which the material can be merged. This is normal editing behavior and I take except to Pilatus' patently false characterization of my activities as "It's Tony against AfD in single combat again." This is nothing more than a personal attack. I also take exception to your false statement that "the material is back". The material has never been deleted, so it cannot be "back". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The material has been rejected as unsuitable altogether for Wikipedia. Merging unsuitable material into one entry doesn't make it more suitable and is disrespectful to all participants in the deletion discussion. Your sustained disregard for AfD (and by inference, for the people who participate in the discussions there) has been noticed and criticized many times before. Pilatus 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone needs to calm down. I would like to reiterate that Tony is right that works by major artists like Snoop Dogg merit inclusion, regardless of AFD's opinion on the matter. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- we do not stick blindly to rules or the logic of process here. I think we should all take a few deep breaths and talk this out. Getting personal isn't going to help. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ryan, the albums discussed in both AfD's are mixtapes, where other DJs re-issue the Dogg's material. The original nomination makes that very clear. Pilatus 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate compilation of information. And Wikipedia works by consensus. If consensus says that something is not encyclopedic, then Tony should learn to respect the fact that he isn't always correct. There have been occasions where there was a good argument that AFD had overlooked, but as Pilatus states this isn't one of them, and Wikilawyering doesn't cut it. Pilatus's first remark isn't particularly friendly, but Tony's response is also incivil. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  I would agree if I viewed AFD as in any way representative of consensus, or a means of determining consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If you mean to say that AFD is caustic, factionalizing, and generally contributing to bad atmosphere, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I've been meaning to do something about that, maybe now is the time. Radiant_>|< 00:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are often cases where material that doesn't justify several articles can be meaningfully compiled into one. The present article doesn't strike me as terribly interesting -- it might be more worthwhile if it were used as an example to discuss the phenomenon of DJs putting out mixtapes. Nonetheless, I don't think that compiling a bunch of non-notable stubs (each eligible for deletion) into a single possibly-notable article is any kind of abuse. It's part of the ordinary operation of Wikipedia. Just because the individual stubs are deletable doesn't mean that consolidating them into an article is some kind of evil nasty disruption. Better to have all this material in one place than in a dozen. --FOo 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. Good work, Tony. Phil Sandifer 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps blocked this user indefinitely for repeated vandalism, but I feel most of his vandalism was not malicious enough and although his useful edits are sparse, I think the user is showing enough interest in the project to be given another chance. Blocking him indefinitely based on only Curps' judgement seems rather rash.

However, I do agree with giving him a longer than regular block to get his attention. Would anyone oppose if I shortened it to say a week and give him a final chance to behave? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked, it was excessive. -- Curps 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking through the vandalism in progress page, I notice there has been some rather odd vandalism over the last few days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32868173

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32867168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=32870231

I notice User:Mike Rosoft said: however, they appear to be a part of a vandalism spree by multiple sockpuppets and may need to be blocked.

All have been hit with the {{WoW}} template and are suspected Willy on Wheels socked. Can someone look into this? I'm suspecting another line of open proxy vandals.... but I could be wrong. --Sunfazer 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:HSPMV has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, 5 years from now, Wikipedia will be nothing but bots at this rate...karmafist 02:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Playing around with a live template/infobox (Template:Superherobox) and breaking it in the process. I've used up my three reverts begging him to test in userspace already. - SoM 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at his upload log you will see many creations. You will also see that very few have sources. When I asked him to give sources he would say things "promo photo, fair use" without giving a source. He has also removed many no source tags on his images put up by other users. He has done this on many images I have added no source to and I have warned him. When I noticed it happened again I fianlly looked at his recent changes with images and deleted the ones he had recently removed things from. This is endemic and I see no sign of respect for copyright. On the Walid Shoebat images he told me it was from a TV network and he took the screenshot but he got it from copies he found online. He does have to cite where he got it since it wasn't a direct take form a TV. But, that's the least of the problems as I can see. I have warned him again and I wanted to run by the idea of a 24 block and progressively stepping it up if he continues to do this. He has been warned at least three times by me. Most most recent warning is User talk:CltFn#Images. Is this appropriate? gren グレン 04:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say so -- did you happen to see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.2Adrew? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely Fluterst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pending resolution of his legal dispute with Wikipedia. This will prevent any further damage to either Fluterst or Wikipedia. Please see his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:Fluterst for confirmation. Fred Bauder 15:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ridiculously tolerant, but we're not actually stupid. User:RachelBrown has been leading several Wikipedia admins (notably Dan100 and Zordrac [not an admin -Calton | Talk 15:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)]) a merry dance. Kelly Martin and Jayjg checkusered the bunch and found notable links and a lot of lies about locations and grossly inconsistent "explanations". I had a look just now and have blocked the lot. 1 week block on Rachel Brown for gross sockpuppetry, and indefinite on the Poetlister, Newport, Taxwoman and Londoneye accounts. If anyone can credibly dispute this sockblock, please leave me a message or email me and we should ask for an official AC clarification, because that would beat a wheel war. Merry Christmas - David Gerard 17:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I support this action. It's worth noting that all of those accounts were extremely active in a select number of recent AFD debates. This might be sufficient reason to re-AFD those issues, or perhaps more properly bring them through Deletion Review. Nandesuka 17:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for WP:DRV to me. I also suspect everyone there will agree with you on what needs to be done. -- SCZenz 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I should probably mention this on AFD talk too - David Gerard 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. See User:Zordrac/Poetlister#AFD discussions where 2 or more of the above users were involved and User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Additional articles that should be nominated for deletion as part of this dispute for articles affected in this dispute. All of these should be renominated, due to the User:Antidote sockpuppets and the suspicion of User:RachelBrown socks. Whilst they kind of cancel each other out, it does mean that all of those votes should be redone. I have taken the liberty of researching everything, since everyone seems to be too busy to check things out themselves. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's straighten a few things out. First, sock puppetry per se is ok: see Wikipedia:Blocking policy and m:CheckUser policy. It's only the (quoting CheckUser policy) abuse of sockpuppets use (and in particular voting twice under two different names) which is severely frowned upon. I question whether that's happened here: have a look at this, where the socks actually voted against each other. In other cases, it's a matter of debate if the votes influenced the final outcome of the AfDs directly.

Balanced against that is the contribution history of the various accounts. I guess they were created to contribute to specific areas of the 'pedia (although why I don't know). But the fact remains that until they were used for voting they have contributed a lot to Wikipedia. It does seem a shame to potentially end those contributions over this.

The thing I'm most disappointed about though is people with CheckUser access saying "I think they're socks, I'm banning them, and my word is enough". It's not. {{sockpuppet}} doesn't have a "evidence" parameter for nothing. Dan100 (Talk) 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dan, the accounts weren't voting against each other; quite the reverse. RachelBrown voted to keep List of Jewish jurists at 20:57 Nov 18 [56]; Poetlister voted to keep at 09:38 Nov 19. [57] RachelBrown then changed her mind at 17:53 Nov 19 and voted delete "due to the weird attitude of Mr. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" [58]; Poetlister promptly changed her mind too and voted delete 17 minutes later at 18:10 Nov 19. [59] Londoneye then voted delete at 08:56 Nov 20. [60] Then RachelBrown changed her mind again and voted to keep at 22:52 Nov 21. [61] Perhaps she forgot to change the other votes back again, or didn't want to draw attention to them, or more likely realized they'd make no difference to the outcome. Given that the technical evidence shows they all edited from the same IP address(es), the above is a violation of WP:SOCK. Whether the end result was actually influenced is irrelevant. The person operating the accounts appears to have tried to influence it and that's all that matters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This "evidence" is faulty. If you click on the links it proves the opposite to what SlimVirgin suggests it proves. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that producing the checkuser evidence in sufficient detail for a third party is generally likely to be a violation of the privacy policy. That's why there are now three people who went over it; three looking and going "wtf" should hopefully be enough. I looked after Kelly emailed the AC list saying she and Jayjg had looked at it and thought "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" so I did too and went "wtf, sockpuppet theatre" - David Gerard 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

NO IT ISN'T A VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY POLICY - not when requested by the user. Not only are you permitted to present it, you are obligated to. And I think it is safe to say that they are giving you permission to do so. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered that the users concerned might be friends who use the same IP address as a consequence of visiting one another's houses? People do that, you know. Did you consider the remedy of suggesting that they not use the same IP to vote in AfDs or that if one votes, the others cannot? They insist they are different people. Their track record would imply that they are, as Zordrac evidences. This looks a lot like vindictive action on the part of admins who couldn't get their way, Dave, in the absence of any actual evidence. You have ignored the other evidence that they are not sockpuppets -- no previous suspicious collusion, different editing interests etc. Can you not unblock them and give the admonition not to vote the same way on AfD -- admins to block indefinitely if they do? If they are socks, that will hurt in the way desired, and if they are not, you are not blocking useful contributors in error. Please consider it. There's a bad habit here of using blocking as a blunt weapon to punish those who get on the wrong side of admins. -- Grace Note.

...in the absence of any actual evidence Oh, there's plenty of actual evidence -- the CheckUser thing -- though there's no evidence for the rationale you're making up. And I do mean "making up", since you're not connected with these people/this person, are not not acting as their agent, nor are you passing on what they've told you -- it's all the product of your creativity. Occam's Razor ought to be sufficient. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I know I'd do better trying to teach a mule to tango, Calton, I will spend a sentence or two on explaining it to you. These are mainly users who have been editing Wikipedia for several months, with different interests, not colluding. Suddenly, they all vote together on one issue. Does Occam's Razor really suggest that they are all one user who has been using different usernames solely to create a false impression in one vote? Rhetorical, dude. I've never yet seen you admit you're in the wrong, and I don't expect you to start now. -- Grace Note.

Well, I should have known better than to expect rationality from trolling fishwife such as yourself, "Dr Zen": what's the proof that they are, in fact, several different users and not one (or two) compartmentalizing his/her/their edits? Are you trying to provide some examples for the Begging the question article? --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Newport said on her user page she was based in Newport, Wales. Given that the technical evidence shows she was posting from RachelBrown's London IP address, Grace Note seems to be saying she popped over to London from Newport, a distance of 200 kms, whenever she wanted to make an edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

People often say they are "from" somewhere when it's their hometown, even if they don't live there anymore. That said, I think the sockpuppetry is quite obvious. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm "from" Cornwall, but lo and behold, here I am with an Australian IP. Must be magic! And Morven, do you really think it makes sense that a person sets up several user names, pretending to be their own friend, just so they can collude on one particular vote, which was not even in the offing when they first set up the username? Why not assume good faith, accept their explanation and suggest that they don't collude on any more votes? Why the blunt instrument of blocking, always and for every "crime" here on Wikipedia? -- Grace Note.

just so they can collude on one particular vote Big assumption there, assuming one specific vote is a target, as opposed to, say, an insurance policy for whatever vote comes up -- or even one vote picked randomly for the purpose of screwing around. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course! So for 7 months they waited "just in case", right? And, wait, on that actual vote they didn't actually collude at all. You forgot that bit. You'd think they'd have gone to a better effort given the 7 months of lying in wait, wouldn't you? There's someone here believing some ridiculous conspiracy theories, and its not me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its premature to call the locations a lie, since the CheckUser info has not been released. From what I can gather from what User:Kelly Martin has said, they only used the same IP address twice - I am going to suggest somewhere in the period from 17-27 November 2005. And from what she said, on one of those occasions 3 of them used it, the other occasion there were 2. So I am going to go with a theory here - Poetlister visited RachelBrown's house every couple of days, and on one occasion her cousin Londoneye did as well. Whilst I guess its theoretically possible that Taxwoman might have, from what I can gather they didn't really know each other. Of course, it might be more than that, but until they release the CheckUser info WHICH THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO DO per Wikipedia:Privacy policy, then I think that we should wait before making conclusions. All that we know at this stage is that they are different people and that there was no collusion. We don't know why these admins are insisting that CheckUser says that they are sock puppets. Until they present the evidence, we have to wait. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The so-called collusion[edit]

See User:Zordrac/Poetlister#The_so-called_collusion. This is their collusion. Per User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Creation of accounts, accounts were created on 15 April 2005, 12 July 2005, 10 August 2005, 28 September 2005 and 3 December 2005. The only time when edits were on the same articles was from 17-27 November 2005. So for this fanciful theory of sock puppetry to be true, it would mean that from 15 April-17 November, a period of 7 months, they all laid in wait waiting for this 1 occasion when they would collude. And what was the collusion? Oh, it was to vote to keep a few List of Jews articles - in which they all voted on different AFDs in a different manner on totally different days. Is that collusion anyway? Oh, but on top of that, User:Poetlister and User:RachelBrown both edited the talk page of List of Jewish jurists (only RachelBrown edited the actual page, apart from one very minor edit by Poetlister). And the so-called collusion was solely related to Poetlister criticising User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for his abusive editing process. Oh, and for the record, she was right. He was engaging in abusive editing practises. I detailed that here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister#Lulu_Bad_Editing_timeline. So we are trying to suggest that this "collusion" made any difference. THERE WAS NO COLLUSION! Not only that, but even if there was, IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE! Oh, wait, do you believe that their contributions were somehow hiding what had really happened? I mean, I looked through EVERY EDIT EVER MADE BY ANY OF THE 5 ACCOUNTS. Was there something I missed? Something that a quick CheckUser can tell me that Wikipedia's detailed logs missed? Oh, and so you know, Wikipedia's privacy policy Wikipedia:Privacy policy DOES PERMIT YOU TO RELEASE THE INFO if the users concerned ask for it. I think its safe to assume that they are asking. So release it already! Or else we will know that you are LYING, and that this is all a set up to protect an abusive user. Which is more logical? Yes, Occam's Razor applies. Occam's Razor tells us that this non-existent collusion didn't happen. Occam's Razor tells us that they could not be the same person. Perhaps they had a party one day mid-November and all got on to the computer together. Perhaps they visit each other? Maybe they use the same ISPs. Who knows. But they can't be the same person. It is fanciful nonsensical logic to suggest that. Nobody who has looked at the investigations could conclude that. Or, wait, do we just blindly trust admins? Wait on, according to User:Kelly Martin, I am violating WP:AGF if I dare to suggest that an admin ever made a mistake. Bad me. Yet, in the same breath, she is allowed to violate AGF by not asking the people for an explanation for the CheckUser responses, and not having an Arbitration or anything. Why is it that User:Antidote had for himself a Request for Comment, even after it was already proven that he had sock puppets that were manipulating the votes (in the exact same issue)? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. Indeed, it seems that, thanks to the ban on User:Poetlister, Antidote is going to get off. Wow - no suspicions there! LOL. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its safe to assume that they are asking. No, it's not "safe to assume" anything of the sort, especially since you're not in charge of deciding that, either. They would have to, you know, actually ask, wouldn't they? Not just go by whatever you happen to think is reasonable in your own mind.

Yes, Occam's Razor applies. Dude, I don't think you actually understand the term. Hint: it doesn't mean "Whatever *I* think is reasonable". --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you misunderstand things. When something is as plain as the hand in front of your face, that's what you believe. And this is extraordinarily obvious, especially considering the people involved. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. Go educate yourself. User:Marsden, User:FuelWagon for just 2 similar examples. Just because you're ignorant doesn't make you right. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Zordrac/Poetlister (new discussion to resolve issues not covered so far)[edit]

A lot of information on this issue can be found here, including some quite shocking examples of use of admin to silence other people involved in the same edit war by User:SlimVirgin, as well as some very dodgy vandalism by a mysterious anonymous IP (example) who may well be a sockpuppet of one of the users involved here..:
User :Zordrac/Poetlister

I have not seen ANY evidence that they are the same person, it's all been circumstancial guesswork and blocks made by friends of people involved in related edit wars anyway. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IP evidence is not revealed publically so David would be able to see much more evidence than you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have evidence you don't - see m:Help:CheckUser - and I'm not only not going to tell you what it is, I'm not allowed to. Call it a manifestation of this being a project to write an encyclopedia, rather than e.g. an Internet democracy - David Gerard 20:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. Not only are you allowed to, according to Wikipedia:Privacy policy, you are *OBLIGATED TO* if the user concerned requests it. I think its safe to say that that has been done. So release it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that that has been done. That's your opinion -- which doesn't trump actual facts. --Calton | Talk 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering they've sent 10 or more e-mails approving it, YES it is safe to assume it lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's clear a few things up[edit]

Under a nice big header so people will notice :-)

• Sock puppets are fine unless they're used to disrupt Wikipedia (eg multiple voting) (See Wikipedia:Blocking policy and m:CheckUser policy, which was agreed by the Board as being the governing policy for CheckUser access).

Now, let's look at this case. Yes, all the accounts are sock puppets. However they were blocked by Mindspillage with the only evidence being an edit summary of "used for edit warring/vote stacking/etc." The "evidence" parameter of {{sockpuppet}}, when left on each user page, was conspicuously blank.

SlimVirgin, above, finally points out to me how these accounts were, for sure, being disruptive and are therefore blockable. Yes it needed spelling out to me, but that's because these accounts had made some damn good edits, and I hold the goal of writing an encyclopedia above all else. This presentation of actual evidence is what should have been done at the very start of this whole saga. Dan100 (Talk) 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and regards the whole CheckUser evidence thing - some people made a right pig's ear of presenting the "evidence". That didn't help matters. However, it's entirely beside the true point (which I just outlined above), so I'm not going to say any more about it (unless poked).

I mean, Mindspillage and Kelly only wanted these accounts blocked because they felt that they had been used for disruption, not just because they were socks... right? ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What disruption? The links SlimVirgin provided prove the opposite to what she claims. If you want disruption, go and have a look here: Talk:List of Jewish jurists and see if you can tell who is being disruptive... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

65.241.54.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 206.170.106.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 66.77.127.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have vandalized the Mandy Moore page almost everyday. I have been one of the few users who updates the article, and for that the page has been blanked and i have been labled a perdophile. I believe all these users are the same person. I ask you all to atleast ban one of these users. They have clearly abused the site. Parys

One has been warned only once, and the other has not been warned at all. Please apply the templates {{test1}} through {{test4}}, one at a time, for each incident of vandalism, before requesting a block. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked them all. Multi-day vandals can safely be blocked without touching ninteenth base. Phil Sandifer 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes the {{test}} templates pretty pointless, if people will get blocked without their use. People need to understand that vandals should be warned first, and blocked only when absolutely necessary. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I block people all the time without using the test templates. Know why? Because I write my own warnings. I came across an IP's talkpage last night that had nothing but two identical warnings, side-by-side: one from early January, one from late December. And that's just ridiculous. Let's not swoon too much over those silly templates, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that when we see someone who vandalizes the same page every day for several days, it is a safe bet that they have figured out what they are doing. Phil Sandifer 02:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. When I come across a vandal who obviously knows what they're doing (and I try to set the bar for "obviously" high), the standard for "patiently warn" drops accordingly. Sometimes it drops as low as "oi, pull your head in or you get blocked". As, I hope, it should. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. Parys is an editor in good faith whose time here has been made very unenjoyable by a repeat vandal. He was desperate for help and got it. I think that's a good outcome. James James 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for aiding me. I work so hard on the Mandy Moore article. I added a article for almost every single, and every album. And these "fans" come here and disrupt. With fans like those, who need enemies. Thank you all again Parys

So basically, we block without warning at all now, if they've done it more than once without ever being warned. Got it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan; if their vandalism is such a frequent problem (and this was all fairly slow blanking vandalism, that I could see, nothing egregious), then it should take next to no time to give them a few escalating warnings and then block. Obviously a number of these accounts were the same guy (close IP numbers make it clear) so warning each and every one of them wouldn't make sense, but promoting an attitude that says we block multi-day vandals without warning now is a very bad idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one has said that. I assume, because I respect you too much to think you might be making a stupid sarcastic comment in defiance of the facts, that you've just misread what I and (especially) Phil have written; if so, please re-read it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I understood what you said, fuddlemark, and agreed — especially with the notion that the test templates aren't the important thing; the warnings are. (Though I'll note that the test templates do a good job of giving non-hostile, calm-sounding warnings, something some people might have trouble composing on the spot.) I guess I agree with Phil that we don't need to get to "nineteenth base", either — fourth would seem sufficient. Phil seemed to be calling the runner out somewhere between home and second, though, which I didn't agree with in this case, and he seemed to be advocating that we should all do so: a bad idea. Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted anything. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm in awe that we have four whole test templates that must be applied in sequence. We block when someone is obviously doing it deliberately, because we don't want to block over random experimental vandalism. When someone comes back EVERY DAY to vandalize an article, it's pretty obvious it's not a test. Phil Sandifer 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OMIGOD! AN EDITOR WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT COMMON SENSE IS! RUN! HIDE! Kelly Martin (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's obviously a tension between efficiently dealing with vandals and having standard operating procedures designed to avoid biting newbies if a judgement call proves faulty. Different editors are going to fall along different parts of the spectrum between the two views. Do we need the sarcasm? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Sandifer 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner - Please see WP:CIV. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly never apply all four test templates in sequence. For obvious vandalism I apply, say, 2 and 4. Writing your own is good too. I think some people get hung up on the procedure—this applying all four in sequence is nonsense—but at the same time it's vital that people do remember to issue some kind of warning before blocking people. I think we're all in agreement on that. -- SCZenz 06:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The test templates are good in that they're well-written, and perfect for slowly introducing the clue-stick to an anon newbie vandal, who may get bitten if the cluestick is too-enthusiastically wielded. There's nothing wrong with what they actually say; the problem is when you get nine or ten (or even more than one!) identically-worded warnings on the one talkpage, any vandal with half a brain will start to wonder about just how serious we are ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't need nine or ten. You should need four. Then block him. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to use the test templates. They're just an easy way to warn people. Blocking someone without warning them in any capacity is not okay. I don't particularly care how you do it, but I suggested the test templates because they are the easiest way. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-read the thread, and I owe you an apology (and one for User:Bunchofgrapes, too, who thought I was sniping at him) for my needless sarcasm above. I had thought you were expanding Phil's "don't give too many warnings" to "don't give any warnings", without any justification. However, the thread began with someone getting blocked without warning, so I can see why you were harping on that. I'm sorry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think you were sniping at me; I just happen to agree with Ryan. (Except for the unneccessary sarcasm). I'm very glad some of the miscommunication got cleared up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

206.170.104.27 (talk · contribs) has been making strange accusations and legal threats on my talk page, as well as the Once Moore article (which he/she blanked) and its talk page. I've left him/her a warning, but I thought I'd leave a comment here as well as I'm not sure if this kind of behaviour could lead to punitive action or not. Extraordinary Machine 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This user seems to be coming perilously close to violating the WP:NLT rule. While, if I read him right, he isn't actually threatening himself to sue Wikipedia or anybody associated with it, he does seem to harp quite a bit on the alleged class-action suit that's being worked on against it, and insisting that we all have to clean up our acts or we're likely to lose everything we own. This hence appears to be an attempt to use the legal system to bully away the opposition to the changes he wants to make. (His conversations are extremely hard to follow due to the propensity on both his part and those he's talking with to leave their respective comments on the recipient's talk page instead of all in the same place as part of a conversation thread, meaning that anywhere you look you only see one side of a conversation like eavesdropping on somebody talking on the phone. *Dan T.* 19:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This user has now written nasty comments directed at me on both his own talk page and mine, and deleted comments I left on his talk page. He also has made false, defamatory comments about me in his edit comment when he deleted my comment from his talk page: [62] There, he claims that I sent him threatening e-mail, when in fact I've never e-mailed him and don't even know his real name or e-mail address. *Dan T.* 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This user has knowingly evaded a block imposed for violation of the 3RR. He continued several edit wars, including the one that led to the block itself. See a related RfC, which indicates a history of disruptive behavior and lack of appreciation for due process. Although he is relatively new to Wikipedia, he should be no stranger to Wikiquette by now. Jbetak 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I was accidentely blocked for 48 hours instead of 24 hours. I emailed the admin about this because I could not find two instances of a 3RR violation. If there were two instances, than they went unreported and hence I could not have known. This left me to assume I was blocked twice for the same incident. Plus I had trouble logging in to the username and was surprised to learn I could edit under the IP, which at first I took as meaning the block was taken off. This can be confirmed by the edits under the IP; harmless misinterpretation Thanks. Antidote 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems that the investigation is going well, I'm going to unblock *drew. There should not have been a block/unblock war, but of course Jtkeifer's heart is in the right place here. There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

23:24, 27 December 2005 Jimbo Wales blocked "User:*drew" with an expiry time of indefinite (blatant copyvios)

Both copyvios mentioned on User talk:*drew are almost a year old; none of his recent edits appear to be bad. Was this block appropriate? User:Vaoverland did similar copyvios a while ago (for instance this one, removed here by the owner of the site it was copied from), and is now an admin. When Jimbo was on IRC, I asked him if he could find any more recent copyvios, and he said that he would keep *drew blocked pending explanation. He doesn't seem to have been warned about what a copyvio is, and why it's bad to copy plot descriptions from IMDB. I'd explain it, but I'm bad at stuff like that, and if he's going to remain blocked it would be pointless. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If he demonstrates an understanding of copyright law and says he won't do it anymore, I'll unblock him. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...how's he going to demonstrate anything while he's blocked? Tomer^talk 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing his block (and several other editors have reviewed and can back me up on this) there is good reason to believe that this user made some honest mistakes but since then has tried to rectify those mistakes including even dealing with copyvios and so I have unblocked the user. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... no, let's not overrule Jimbo's blocks, actually. Phil Sandifer 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Backing Jtkiefer up here - I've gone through a couple of months of *Drew's contribs and I have not found any recent copyvios. He has uploaded many dvd covers and the like, with proper tagging. He has reverted other people's copyvios. I am convinced that he knows not to do it. FreplySpang (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's seem like irrationality wins again, and people wonder why all the good editors burn out and leave the project. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reasonable course of action here is to ask Jimbo to review the block. Tomer^talk 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been done, and he's working on the review. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo is one of the sources from which user bans may come. At [63], Jimbo banned *drew. Admins simply do not have the jurisdiction to overturn this. Phil Sandifer 06:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. Admins have the jurisdiction to use common sense. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And common sense says "When Jimbo says "banned pending further investigation" and sets the criterion for further investigation as his own satisfaction, you wait instead of wheel warring with Jimbo. Phil Sandifer 06:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotta agree with you there. Reverting a block placed by Jimbo doesn't seem very likely to be a good move. --FOo 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to revert a block, but I don't think asking Jimbo to review one of his blocks is such a ridiculous idea. Anyone up for asking him to do so? Tomer^talk 07:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good spot to apply WP:IAR. It seems like he's learned from his mistakes, keep an eye on him for sure but it looks like the offending edits were from some time ago and Jimbo doesn't lack common sense. He'll chime in if he wants to. Rx StrangeLove 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo is aware of the age of the edits, and still specifically chose to leave the block in place while he investigated. Phil Sandifer 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he did, but that's all he knew. After investigation we know that he probably didn't continue the violations. Jimbo admittedly didn't know if he was still doing copyvios, we know that he isn't. It's not unreasonable to use our judgement. Rx StrangeLove 06:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo trusts our judgment to moderate blocks as appropriate. We collectively have far more time than he. If the community of administrators and other editors wishes to monitor this situation, then I think it's quite reasonable to remove the block. We're not defying Jimbo's authority; rather, we're using our good judgment to carry out actions which previously might have seemed ill-advised. Plagiarism needs to be dealt with strictly, but I don't believe this specific ban will be productive. We can be reasonable and still produce a great encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Jimbo also trusts us not to veto him. Phil Sandifer 06:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can think of several users who have continued to disrespct copyrights (both on images and text) and have been warned for months, should these people finally be blocked?--nixie 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me a list and examples and I'll do it myself if no one else will. --Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably should, since I remember Jimbo blocked a user in September over copyvio photos. Jimbo blocked this same user from de. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He is is the block I was mentioning: "19:53, 22 September 2005 Jimbo Wales blocked "User:MutterErde" with an expiry time of indefinite (banned already in de; persistent copyvios after repeated warnings)" [64] Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if Jimbo says he's banned, then that's that. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for the troubles I've caused to Wikipedia and fellow Wikipedians. I'll keep in mind of the copyright rule and work together to solve the issue. *drew 08:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[65]

Thanks to whichever admin gives me 24 hours peace this time. Phil Sandifer 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. Looks like you two one-upped each other into a pissing match. That kind of thing doesn't leave either participant smelling of roses. --FOo 05:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, when he reliably wikistalks me onto any talk page in the Wikipedia namespace I post to, it's unsurprising that pissing matches will occur. The point of the ruling is that he wasn't supposed to start shit like this, and he's been consistantly trying to duck out of the ruling since it was made. Phil Sandifer 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe reread Sam Spade's comments there. I think he's got a few good points. --FOo 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 12 hours...I'll be back shortly with an explanation... Tomer^talk 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's my explanation to Everyking including my rationale for the block as well as the reason for its duration, and the contingency upon which the block is for only 12 hours instead of 24. [66] Tomer^talk 06:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate (or hope I do) the difficulties Everyking has caused you over time, but I'd like to respectfully suggest that you take a back seat to any discussions of him. Don't comment on his behaviour (except here, I guess, if he violates his parole), and don't try to push other admins (or, God forbid, the ArbCom) into making decisions regarding enforcement of his good conduct. Everyking is extraordinarily easy to bait — you know this, and indeed have exploited this fact in the past. I would like to see him agree to TenOfAllTrade's proposal (that he keep silent about you), but that will not work if you are involved, especially if your "involvement" consists of predictions as to the success or plausibility of various measures. It's equivalent to ordering someone to shut up, then asking them a direct question. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All of my discussions with Everyking since the ruling have been initiated by him. I've tried on a couple occasions to completely ignore him - he begins pestering me to know why I haven't answered his questions/addressed his concerns. He does not want to be ignored by me. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil, I have a suggestion for you. Just once, when you see Everyking post something somewhere, don't reply to him. Let's just try this as an experiment for a while, ok? Thanks. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[67] [68] is what happens. Phil Sandifer 15:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, ok, thanks. That tells me what I need to know. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh...from what I'm seeing at Special:Contributions/Everyking, either my blocking of Everyking didn't stick despite what it says here. Ideas? Recommendations? Tomer^talk 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it did to me - remember that blocking doesn't stop admin privaliges such as rollback WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...thanks. My dumb. Thanks to everyone on IRC who pointed out the obvious to me :-) Tomer^talk 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of the modification of the ArbCom decision regarding Everyking, I have decided against implementing the 2nd half of the block I promised him, which was set to start in about half an hour... details Tomer^talk 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo (talk · contribs) edited WP:FUC [69][70] then protected it to try and win the edit war he was in [71], claiming "consensus". I'll head over to WP:RFPP now with this to get someone not involved with the debate to remove the protection. karmafist 09:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't OK to use protection to engage in an edit war. Carnildo should have asked for another person to review it. But you initiated the edit war by deleting a section of a Wikipedia guideline without even so much as an edit summary, and persisting in deleting that section even while the issue was being discussed on the talk page. That's also unacceptable behavior. See unclean hands. --FOo 10:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What would you have had him do? Unprotect it himself, furthering the offense? He was bold and removed a passage; as the talk page has demonstrated, this passage is highly disputed. He did the right thing by taking it up here and at WP:RFPP rather than further escalating the situation by unprotecting it himself. What's the problem here? —Locke Cole 10:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about, not engage in an edit war? That's the underlying violation of good practice & respect for others here. --FOo 10:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It takes two to revert; and I think karmafist did the right thing in this case rather than escalating it further. Moreover, if you look at the history for WP:FUC, you'll see a few people have removed the disputed passage, not just karmafist. As it's disputed, the correct course of action should be to reach consensus (or show that there ever was consensus) for the passage before re-inserting it. —Locke Cole 11:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you that posting here was less bad than escalating to wheel-war. I also agree (as noted above) that an edit-warring admin is not permitted to protect a page they're edit-warring on. However, "less bad" is not "good".

My points remain: First, edit-warring isn't OK, no matter how many people do it. It is bad behavior for each person involved; "jointly and severally" as the lawyers would say. That includes you. Second, it is not OK to delete a Wikipedia guideline without discussion. Even before anyone was reverting, Karmafist's initial act of deleting without comment or discussion a guideline he didn't like, was itself a bad thing to do.

(By the way, WP:BOLD is about updating articles. It does not extend to deleting guidelines without discussion. Didn't this get hashed out when someone decided to "boldly" destroy VfD?) --FOo 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to show me the policy/guideline you seem to be quoting Foo, WP:EW has to do with articles, not project space, and I never mentioned WP:BOLD. Given the state of policy/guideline refinement nowadays on Wikipedia,if you can tell me the policy/guideline you're talking about, i'll just change a few parts around, click the edit buttons, and find some people who agree with me to claim a "consensus". Reform is absolutely needed, but until then, i'll do what I have to do with a smile. karmafist 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My problem with it is, I've asked twice on the talk page for a link to the discussion around this passage (and where consensus was formed to add it), and have both times not received a response. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The actual discussion has taken place in many locations, particularly on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use and User talk:Jimbo Wales. One discussion I was able to find was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use/Archive1#Fair use outside of article space --Carnildo 08:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are a good start; as it seems we're reaching a consensus on a partial rewrite of the passage on Wikipedia talk:Fair use, this is good to know. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus to remove a long-standng part of the policy, I reverted to the status quo, then protected to stop further edit warring. --Carnildo 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be a question as to whether there was even a consensus to have that in the guideline to begin with. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus by default, if nothing else. It's been in there in one form or another ever since UninvitedCompany's re-write of August 31, and in the current emphatic form since September 24 --Carnildo 08:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As above, thanks for the links, and let's continue this at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. karmafist 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody just block Innaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now, please. It is adding faux AfD tags to pages. u p p l a n d 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Now checking if he has any legit edits. Radiant_>|< 10:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be revenge for having the article Hans Ove Skau nominated for deletion (the user repeatedly removed the afd tag and was reverted). Morwen - Talk 10:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Interestingly (or, perhaps, not): User:Innaa nominated Beez von Beezen for deletion. User:Innaa was the original author of that page. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems Innaa returned via his IP 193.216.36.184 and started adding more AfD notices. After blocking him earlier today I got some extremely strange emails from him which seemed to have very little to do with the reasons for his block. He appears to be Norwegian which might explain his unfamiliarity with English. David | Talk 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This user has just started editing lately, see contributions. Between that time and now, the user has been warned a few times: by Sherurcij for possible ban evading, for personal attacks by Eliezer and finally by myself for the inappropriate username.

3 possible infringements need attention and an immediate action must be done, especially that the user denies all the charges and accuses me for being a Muslim suppressor. I am still standing on the same basis of my notice; that the username should be changed according to Wikipedia:Username. It is no coincidence for me to see that the user defends two banned users and edits the same articles they edited while having such a username. Cheers -- Szvest 17:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

An explanation, that Sharia is the basis of law in some Muslim circles, so I guess the username ranks somewhere between FuckThePolice and AnarchyDude or something...but combined with the fact he is clearly very anti-Muslim, inserting known falsehoods, greatly POV statements, insults and similar into articles, and acknowledging that he is the sockpuppet of the banned User:Absent on his talk page, I think it's a pretty clear-cut case. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have perm blocked this user since it is an obvious sockpuppet of User:OceanSplash who is currently blocked for personal attacks and blatant racism. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked Tina M. Barber for one hour due to personal attacks. The user has been warned many times over the past month during the dispute on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog. Feel free to unblock if you think this was an error. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not to sure if this guy is just obsessive, or what, but he's been harasssing karmafist a lot lately; he filed an RFAr (which was rejected), and has basically injected snipes or attacks anywhere he thinks he can. With his latest example, here, he calls Karmafist an "asshole". I seriously think something needs to be done before this escalates further; whatever Karmafist may or may not have done to this user doesn't justify this response. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We just had a vandal rapidly IP hopping and hitting User:Doom127, User:Hinotori and their talk pages. I blocked 201.29.0.0/16 for 15 minutes. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's like the wiki equivelant of a TKer, swat it with a blocked proxy notice, I hate TKers—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Said IP (201.29.1.26) comes from 20129001026.user.veloxzone.com.br which means its Brazil4Linux.  ALKIVAR™ 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not be so quick to come to conclusions; Velox is simply one huge Brazilian ISP. A lot of people I know use it. --cesarb 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you think the likelihood is of there being someone else on a Brazilian ISP (however huge it may be) who has the same exact vandalism targets as User:Brazil4Linux. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably some form of web-footed waterfowl. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely, and deleted his userpage as well as the article's talk page, for the suspected stalking of Carly Kirkwood. El_C 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Looks appropriate. Can we kill the images as well? They're no particular use to the project and appear to have been uploaded as a personal filestore... Shimgray | talk | 01:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Done. -- Essjay · Talk 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Essjay, my friend! You're back!! El_C 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why, yes, yes, I am. But shhhhh, we don't want the vandals to find out! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your secret is safe with me. Hey look everyone, Essjay is back! Sorry, still safe! :D El_C 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there is no "Moving review" (heh :)), I guess this is best place to mention this. Basically, there was a request to move to/from (it's kind of involved due to "out-of-process" moves and multiple requests) Hindu-Arabic numerals to/from Arabic numerals, with the result being Arabic numerals. It had very high participation, around 40 users or so, and was quite controversial. So, in an effort of full disclosure I'm listing it here in case other admins want to review it (the discussion was on the talk page Talk:Arabic numerals), and/or reverse it if they so desire (try to avoid a wheer war though :)). Happy holidays! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)