I'm not sure what can be done of if action is even merited, but I want to bring attention to a certain user whoseems to be just charging ahead without actually knowing what they're doing. The user in question isUser:Lt. Col. Cole (talk/contribs). I noticed some pretty bad grammar in one of this users contributions so I corrected it then did a little poking to see if this was a one time thing or it was consistent. When I looked over this users contribs I found that there is a history of uploading images without proper tag (several of which have been deleted), and a few cases where he/she is just duplicating content which is eventually redirected by another user (I did one). See these...
This user is fairly new but much has been posted to his/her talk page. Not listening I guess, or just doesn't know how. What to do? Anything?(Admittedly, I might not even be in the right place posting this concern here, but I think I am.)—Thernlund(Talk |Contribs)22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I’ve gone throughSpecial:Log/Lt. Col. Cole and tagged the images. The user is either acting inextremely misguided good faith or vandalising (the warning about not uploading images from websites is hard to miss…). The text contributions seem to be in good faith, though. Would somebody talk to the user? —xyzzyn16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
…And the user has reverted my tags, blanked his or her talk page and uploaded more non-free images with bogus tags. I’d say this means the user doesn’t want to care about copyright issues, which would be fine if he or she wouldn’t upload images. Suggestions? —xyzzyn21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How in the world can one be asock puppet of the other, when a sock puppet, by definition, is "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name"? In this case, there isn't evenone username, let alone two? What's more, there's no evidence provided of any attempts to avoid a ban or other disciplinary action, nor an attempt to increase the perceived support for any particular campaign. In short, there is no sockpuppet there.
By the way, even if they're the same person, there's not even any reason to assume that they're trying to appear under a different IP address. They're both simply coming from Road Runner accounts. It's my understanding that Road Runner assigns dynamic IP addresses, no?Bladestorm01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The "many friends" in question include an admin and a well-known user. In fact, I think those are the only two who "follow" him "around", warning him against his disruptive editing practices. As for me, I have the Shelby Young pages that on my watchlist, hence I'm able to view any changes he and others make. The whole issue stems from a credit, which was disputed by myself and some others. I spoke with a few editors, did a Google, and was satisfied Shelby had, in fact, been involved in the film. A sort of "silent consensus" has been reached, in the fact that no other user has tried to remove the credit and the fact that the actual Shelby,Shelbyyoung, has, in fact stated her involvement in the film. He has moved on, all right, to trashing Shelby's usertalk page, claiming it's not her, and that the photo she provided (now not in existence in Wikipedia) was photoshopped. The identity ofShelbyyoung was confirmed here by bbatsell a few days ago.
To address Bladestorm's statement, yes, a sockpuppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. However, IP addresses here are treated as usernames. Yes they are both coming from roadrunner accounts. However, a reverse DNS of both shows they come from rr.res.carolina, or something to that effect and, doing an IP check on www.ip-address.com, they are coming very close to one another. The original "puppetmaster" was trying to avoid disciplinary action per his constant edit warring, and I beg to differ on the "increased support for a particular campaign". He has tried to have the credit removed several times, claiming that "because IMDB doesn't list the credit". IMDB also didn't have a page for Emma Fenton, an actress who worked on the same film as Shelby. They had AN Emma Fenton, a producer who began producing when the OTHER Emma Fenton was a mere toddler, and listed the actress Emma Fenton's credit in with the others, until an eagle-eyed contributor (hi!) brought it to there attention. In short, his argument about IMDB being an undisputed source in this matter is faulty. Also, he has tried, in his own "unique" way, to have others agree to the credit removal.
I don't know what he has against Shelby, but two things remain certain:1. Unless there is good reason to remove it, the credit stays.2. I don't know what he's trying to accomplish here. Regardless of whether or not the credit is on Wiki, it's on her resume. No casting director is going to turn her down for a role on the basis of a Wiki page. It's not harming her or her career in any way. It just harms the encyclopedia. Put it this way. I have writing credits. I also do not have a Wiki page. Does this mean I don't deserve credit for what's on my resume?Ispy198114:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks
User:West Bank Boy describing changes he'd made toAl-Nas, used the word infidel. Because the previous edit was made by me, I have the right to suspect that this word was a reference to me (I believe in Allah, so this word is the worse offense to me). The user is also keeping on making wxtremely POV edits (such asthis one).Al-Bargit15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm that edit is highly POV and that name makes me suspect the account is here to make a point. I'll look a little deeper into this. ---J.S(T/C/WRE)16:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've also had concerns about his behaviour, after seeing his edits atBattle of Baia today. Myself and another user have raised these on his talk-page today, and I was thinking about going to RFC if this does not produce any change in his behaviour. He's not been here long by the looks of it, so it may just be that he needs sometime to absorb Wikiquette.David Underdown16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
InvaderSora(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was previously blocked for revert warring and 3RR, and was warned against inclusion of un-attributable material. The block length was 48 hours, and during that time InvaderSora abused the unblock command, adding it in at least 6 times after being declined, and then arguing with the administrators over that rather aggressively. InvaderSora refuses to admit error, and refuses to listen to reason. After an AFD on an article he had contributed to was closed and deleted by me, he recreated the article. Note, he'd been warned before about removing AFD tags and interfering with AFD process on another article, which I noted. I left a message on his talk page to try deletion review and re-deleted the article. He then said "why was it deleted" (what do you think AFD is for?) He then recreated the page once again. I deleted for a third time, then protected and salted. Given his past history of tendentious editing, edit warring, AFD manipulation (he tried to vote twice), AFD tag deletion, and complete lack of any attempt to understand wikipedia policy, I felt that a block was warranted to allow him time to read up on and understand wikipedia policy before continuing editing. As the prior block was 48 hours and he did not learn anything from that, I therefore blocked for 1 week, with the stipulation that I'm very much open to rescinding the block sooner than that if he shows an attempt to edit acceptably. I also left a warning that if he continues to abuse the unblock template, he will lose the ability to edit his talk page for the duration of the block. Therefore, I'm asking for a review of the block here.⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Block looks good. Wikipedia is not a children's playground. Next time, feel free to issue a block that is set to expire sometime after puberty.Sandstein22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh whoops, apparently I actually didn't protect the school page, I just added the template and forgot to actually protect it, thanks for the catch Centrx.⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and semiprotected the article for a week (it can be unprotected earlier, if necessary), but for future reference, requests for protection and unprotection should go toWP:RfPP. Thanks!Flcelloguy(Anote?)00:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Controversial page move proposal now afait accompli
One user (X) made a polite request atTalk:Sinmiyangyo to moveSinmiyangyo. I disagree with his/her reasoning, but reasoning was provided, and the request was entirely proper. There were one or two short, polite, but unreasoned reactions one way or the other. There have also been longish, reasoned, and I think polite objections from two users (Y and Z), one of them myself. X on the one hand and Y and Z on the other appear to be talking past each other. Well, these things happen, and I (sorry I mean Z) thought we could keep talking a little longer and reach agreement. But X has just gone ahead and moved the page.
As an admin, I could easily reverse this move, which I'm certain was improper to make before obtaining what WP calls consensus. But as Z, I think the move was wrong at any point; I recognized that I'm interested and may be biased, so I'm "recusing myself" (ah, such grand language). Could somebody else look at what has transpired on the talk page? Thanks. --Hoary05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Y, and I'd like to hear views from other editors/administrators regarding themove discussion onTalk:Sinmiyangyo, which I certainly don't want to see take a turn for the worse. There's no reason this dispute can't be resolved amicably. I hope the intervention of others can help to set things straight again. Thanks.Pinkville14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Abusive blocking of Frater Xyzzy by Blnguyen
This is really bugging me, for all sorts of reasons. It's an example of a user that has been proven innocent being blocked obsessively by the same admin.
Blnguyen has now blockedFrater Xyzzy 3 times now. The first block was "23:53, January 18, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock of Jefferson Anderson, by RFCU)" (That RFCU does not exist, more on that below)
Xyzzy then moved accross country, took a wikibreak while traveling, and edited on an anonomous IP (from his new home) while waiting for his main account to get a new RFCU on it, and get unbanned. That RFCU wascompleted on February 4th byJpgordon who established that the first RFCU (which I cannot find) was faulty, and that they are infact different people. Using that RFCU result, Xyzzy Requested an unblock and it was granted "10:35, February 4, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) unblocked Frater Xyzzy (contribs) (Unblock as per checkuser)"
Now this is all 100% ok and how wikipedia should work. Now is when it gets fun.
Immediatly after Xyzzy was unblocked due to the RFCU showing that him and his suspected sockpuppet were unrelated users,MSJapan began admin-shopping to get Xyzzy re-blocked. He asked|Jpgordon,WMC, andYamla (the unblocking admin) stating on Yamla's page "I don't care that Frater Xyzzy is not Jefferson Anderson. Xyzzy stated clearly he moved - of course it's not going to match." all 3 admins declined to re-block Xyzzy, they didn't agree with MSJ's argument that Xyzzy should be re-blocked since he was using a anon-ip to evade his block that later turned out to be based on incorrect information. When MSJ couldnt' get any of those 3 admins to block Xyzzy for block evasion, heasked Blnguyen to re-block him. And Blnguyen did sostating "Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway.". The block reads "00:49, February 5, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (proclaimed block evasion)".
User:Theresa knott noticed this odd block andasked why Xyzzy was re-blocked. Blnguyenresponded "Ah, he was originally blocked afterWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username." Blnguyen blocked Xyzzy originally as a sockpuppet due to circumstancial discussion and analysis of editing patterns there was no Check User done as he claimed in the original block. He then re-blocked Xyzzy for evading his original block, even after a RFCU proved that Xyzzy was not a sock, and that the original block was invalid. This is in Blnguyen's own words.
Now the 2 week block on Xyzzy lapsed and he was unblocked. Blnguyen couldn't stay away and once again blocked Xyzzy, this time perma-block with the block "21:00, February 22, 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Frater Xyzzy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Ekajati/999 sock) "
What's wrong with this? How about the fact that the new checkuserWikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/999 didn't show that Xyzzy was a sock of Ekajati/999, infact it showed exactly the opposite.User:Fred Bauder ran theCheckuser and "Checkuser shows no connection.User:Fred Bauder23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)". So somehow Blnguyen decided that even though checkuser shows no connection that he would ban them all as socks anyway. This is unacceptable behavior from an admin.
To make the situation worse, Xyzzy posted a Block Reviewrequest on his talk page. With the reason "Arbitrarily blocked by Blnguyen on a witchhunt. Multiple checkusers have been done which show that I am not a sock of anyone. This is getting ridiculous." Which is 100% accurate. Multiple checkusers have been done, and all have proven that Xyzzy is NOT a sock of anyone. Why is the situation worse? The block wasreviewed byUser:Ryulong and DENIED with the reason "I trust Blnguyen's discrepancy."
This is rediculious. How many times does a user need to be cleared??? What's the point of Checkuser if the results of it are completly ignored by admins? And what is the point of a Block Review if the reviewing admin doesn't look into the block, but instead simply says that they trust the blocking admin? Talk about a breakdown of the system. Personally i'm disgusted by this, and it needs to be addressed.Seraphim03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Your post above contains a lot of false information. I asked Dmcdevit to do a RFCU, and he said that they were the same guys (early January) - and when I looked again Dmcdevit had recused from the case, so I asked UC to reconfirm the date for me. He noted the connection atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop that both JA and FX were related. Thus, they were blocked, with the on-wiki certification of a CU being run. The claims by Seraphim that I invented the sock data are false. Thus, my reblock of FX for block evasion was not a second punishment for an innocent user, since the CU already showed that he and JA were related. I did not state that I was justifying the initial block due to my instincts alone. After a few IPs from open proxies and TOR hosting machines started swamping an AfD in the general topics of these editors, I asked Dmcdevit to do another careful dissection of the data of 999. The results are here ->User_talk:Blnguyen/Archive40#User:A_Ramachandran.27s_block, after I have IP addresses left lying about by the aforementioned editors, it yielded a match. It also showed extensive use of anonymous proxies, TOR etc, by the parties. In February after another spate of socks turned up, I talked to another arbitrator and checkuser and he checkusered the accounts, and they revealed widespread use of proxies and tors from right across the world in one day. From the discussion, it was agreed that the chances that multiple honest new users all popping up on the same obscure topic with TOR and proxies was very unlikely. Added to that the fact that they had the same religious ideology with strong knowledge of wikipolitics, arbitration cases, and instantaneous use of popups tools makes things very obvious. Given that I had already noted at the Starwood evidence that HD, Ek and 999 had interweaved edits despite being in the same timezone, that the latter two were created or became active 3 hours after the first was blocked, etc, they were blocked. I went back and checked FX's record as well, and it shows perfect overlapping as well with the other four. This is in addition to the use of subversive technology.Blnguyen (bananabucket)02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So where are the checkuser results for the indef block posted? The only checkuser results that are up on wikipedia now after his first block, all show no relation. Basically what your saying is, even though the public checkusers showed no relation, somehow you decided that since people have the same religious ideology and knowledge of wikipedia they are obvious socks? Even though for example, the Frater Xyzzy account has NEVER edited the Starwood pages that the people he was blocked as a sock of obsessively edited it? The lack of transparancy in this case is kinda scary. I don't want to be blocked sometime in the future because someone else in my city starts editing pages that I edit and some admin comes around and decides to indef block me even though the RFCU shows we aren't editing from the same IP. The checkusers on the site clear Xyzzy every time. You might have found another sock group, that's great, however the Xyzzy account NEVER edited Starwood. Never ever ever. There was no reason to block him as a sock of those other users. The fact that nobody from the starwood case is pushing for him to stay blocked, instead his case is being pushed by people who edit the freemasonry related pages that he was active on. The lack of transparancy in this case is simply a complete failure of the wikipedia system. Don't block someone saying you blocked them because of a RFCU if a RFCU doesn't exist. And don't just deny block reviews stating that you trust the previous admin. That seems to just be common sence.Seraphim05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The results weren't posted publicly, they were discussed by arbitrators. The results showed that the editors used the same techniques of technological obfuscation. I have been advised that the percentage of honest editors who use these techniques are very low. Then the second user also has the same editing interests as the other on many obscure pages, has the same POV, and seems to have instantaneous knowledge of wikilaw. The user is blocked because he is the same guy evading his block, and editing the same articles that the master wrote. If these guys have nothing to hide, then they would edit cleanly. The RFCU does exist, although only the checkusers can see it.Blnguyen (bananabucket)05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So basically to sum up. People went through the official channels to get socks checked, the results of the official sock checks were that the users were unrelated. Then some arbitrators discussed the situation and decided to block the users anyway, and run a new checkuser because apparently the people that ran the 2 checkusers before, the official ones, apparently don't understand how to interperate checkuser results? I cannot understand how 2 admins with checkuser find no connection, but then somehow on a secret checkuser all of asudden there was an obvious connection. Also you don't seem to be understanding my other point. "user is blocked because he is the same guy evading his block, and editing the same articles that the master wrote" Xyzzy NEVER EVER EVER edited the Starwood page. He has ZERO edits on the starwood page. If he was a sock puppet and the guy was making socks to evade blocks then he would have been editing the page on his sock! "If these guys have nothing to hide, then they would edit cleanly." What is Editing Cleanly? How does someone edit cleanly? I wasn't aware there was such a thing. Plus I am not the only one disturbed by the idea that RFCUs that only checkusers can see exist. The idea of people running checkusers without a proper RFCU filing kinda defeats the whole idea of checkuser.Seraphim05:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a FISA warrant RfCU, and it's a need to know basis. (joke.) I agree with Seraphim. When did wikipolicy start permitting secret actions by people outside the real wikia offices? (other than like, Jimmy Wales' actal paid staff?). This is sort of troubling behavior, and can easily lend creibility to accusations of 'cabalism'. better than caNIBBbalism, but only slightly.)ThuranX21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually RFCU was started as an outlet for people to put a request in conveniently. It never stopped arbitrators or checkusers from just doing it themselves if necessary. As for what the report is, there is no magic machine which prints the result or conclusion from the data, so there is no difference between what an arbitrator says on a Wikipedia report and what they say via email, unless they tell different stories.As regards to the CU, it depends on how closely one is looking of course. As I pointed out above, I found instances where IP addresses were left lying around after the initial check, and with the extra evidence, Dmcdevit certified that the users were indeed the same. As for the second point, if a user is subverting the system by violatingWP:NOP, then there will be no connection at all just by numbers, unless someone verifies to see if the numbers are from illegitimate editing means. And FX did edit the same articles as 999, who is currently blocked. The fact that he does not edit all of them, eg Starwood, still does not mean it is not him.Blnguyen (bananabucket)06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As amused as I am by the Freudian slip of Ryulong ... I looked at the second block while going throughWP:RFU a few weeks ago. I was unimpressed with the block and I was unimpressed with the behavior of those supporting the block who felt the need to harass the user while he was blocked. I trust Blnguyen, but would like to hear a good explanation. From my own research then and now, I haven't seen anything to justify it. (I'm not saying that there isn't justification - just that I haven't seen it, but would like to.) --BigDT04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My best advice, from the outside perspective, is email the ArbCom mailing list. Fred, jpgordan, and Blnguyen are all on there and two of the users ran the RFCU. I certainly cannot check on the IP information and what might be causing this confusion, and they might best clarify their actions. It's an interesting case that you've presented, but what is there to say if there seems to be private conversations taking place concerning abuse? We don't know both sides, and we may never in the interest ofbeans. AGF that these long-standing editors have some kind of clue, I say.Teke (talk)04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I was doing a normalCAT:RFU check. I looked at the block log, saw that he had been blocked before for other reasons, and I trusted Blinguyen's block, as checkusers are not definitive at times and for all I knew, he could have asked for a checkuser off of Wikipedia. I do that from time to time to close down sockfarms that I come in contact with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A clean checkuser is "definitive" in the sense that it is (supposedly) the last resort, so the fact that a case is accepted means there is no other evidence sufficient (via edit patterns etc) to establish that the user was a sockpuppet. To suppose "oh, well, he might be a sockpuppet anyway, despite there being no sufficient basis to say so, because it's unprovable that he's not" is a blatant violation of AGF. On that basis, you might be a sockpuppet, and you can never clear your name of that - AGF, in this case, implicitly means innocent until proven guilty.
And for someone who had already _had_ one checkuser run on them establishing nothing, there should _not_ be a presumption that another checkuser with different results was conducted in secret - any further checkuser should be done openly. And, regardless of anything related to this particular block... if you "trust" the blocking admin, you should leave the unblock template for someone else not so trusting to look at, otherwise we might as well just delete it. --Random83213:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that assessment of Checkuser utility, it's a last resort confirmation if nothing else is conclusive, but it doesn't prove a negative, particularly when there is a lot of behavioural congruence.
In this case one C/U indicated a link, a second was inconclusive inasmuch as it didn't show enough to confirm a link. jpgordon, who ran the second, did become aware of this debate the last time Seraphim raised it and took no action.
A recent SSP case regarding this link was closed without action because of the onging starwood arbitration, rather than because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a link.
There appears to be a lot ofdoubt about this incidence of puppetry.
I didn't say it proves a negative. It is conclusive in so far as it is final, since there is nothing else that comes after it. It doesn't prove a negative only because a negative cannot be proven. If there's "a lot of behavioural congruence", then a checkuser is unnecessary. If there's not enough to make a checkuser unnecessary, and a checkuser is negative, there is NO valid basis for considering the user a sockpuppet. --Random83215:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that it's part of the ongoing Starwood mediation, which is a pretty bloody and unpleasant affair, then it's clearly not as simple as Seraphim has sought to make out above. That's really about all I'm saying.ALR18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to second the concerns ofSeraphim here. It seems like, recently, there've been several people blocked as socks ofEkajati by Blnguyen that have been done without enough transparency and that seemed dubious to me on the surface. First999 was blocked as a sock of Ekajati, which struck me as wrong because a) I don't know too many socks thatdisagree with each other and b) like Xyzzy he had previously been cleared by checkuser of connections to Ekajati. However, my doubt about the block was lessened when heresponded with his reasons. But, I'm particularly incredulous about this block, just because Xyzzy and Hanuman Das (another person blocked as a sock of Ekajati) seem even less like the same user than 999 and HD did. I would like to see these blocks reviewed beyond a simple "I'm going to go with whatever Blnguyen has decided." I don't know if it's a systemic flaw in Wikipedia admin practice, but at the very least I thinkWP:SSP cases should be opened, because it doesn't strike me as right that long-time contributors should be blocked for life without a formal presentation ofwhy. --notJackhorkheimer (talk /contribs)21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You can seeWikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chacor 2 which documents the use of two confirmed and confessed sockpuppet accounts that voted oppositely on one occasion. Only the most incompetent (or short-term usage sockpuppets used for temporary swamping) sockpuppeteers do things obviously - like use the sock for voting and reverting only. As for the rest, see above. A CU was done.Blnguyen (bananabucket)02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
And SSP case was opened in this instance,here, but the admin closing it copped out of acting because of the ongoing arbcom case.ALR21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The admin also closed it because JA was no longer going to be editing wikipedia. Also a Sock check was already done between Frater and JAhere, so running the check again 2 weeks later would have once again shown no connection.Seraphim04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah, there was that SSP, but it was basically unrelated to Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati. From what I saw of that, it was edited for a while with accusations re: Xyzzy and JA, then let sit for a while, then the closing admin saw Xyzzy being blocked as a sock of Ekajati and went, "Oh, well this is irrelevant now, Xyzzy's blocked. So, closing this." What I wish would be done is for there to be SSPs for long-time editorsfor the block in question, basically showing why a block was done. Yes, it involves more process, but IMO long-time editors deserve this before being indefinitely blocked. --notJackhorkheimer (talk /contribs)07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I also have concerns in this case. The evidence and rationale behind the indef block is way too thin, or there is a serious lack of transparency. Either way, more process is required to substantiate an indef block. I'm also disturbed by the actions of Ryulong in reviewing the block with such apparent superficiality. —Doug Belltalk07:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I would hope in the future that the evidence supporting a indef block of a longtime user would be presented at the time the user is blocked instead of after the fact. Transparency is important and should not be lightly tossed aside. The reasons can be summarized, as you have done above, without the need to expose confidential information. —Doug Belltalk00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the major problem with not presenting the evidence, is that it's impossible for another admin to review the block. How would in this case any admin beable to review his block properly? You blocked him as an admin not an arbitrator since it was not an arbcom ruling. Are we to assume that somehow your blocks are not reviewable?Seraphim01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If another admin wants to review a block and the reasoning isn't clear, he/she can simply email the blocking admin and ask for information. All blocks are reviewable.IrishGuytalk01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is prefereable that actions such as that are simply transparent. Asking questions about it off-wiki is not transparent. —Doug Belltalk09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone took the archive off. I don't know who. But I would like to comment that this is more than of a content issue. Review the case if you are interested.AQu01rius(User • Talk)02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely had it withCertified.Gangsta (talk·contribs). He constantly revert-wars and refuses to discuss. When he does discuss he doesn't listen to what anyone else says and ignores consensus. A quick perusal of his contributions will show that he completely reverts any edit he doesn't like, without thinking about why those edits were made or whether he can productively fix the more controversial parts while retaining the good parts. In hislatest adventure he has reverted an edit I made to a talk page that removed some posts that were using it as a discussion forum for general issues related to the subject of the article, but not to improving the article itself.
Inthis edit history you see him revert the talk page something like eight times.
Agreed. I have no (substantive) interest in Michelle Marsh, but his persistent, unrepetent, and endless edit warring on that article has come up on my radar. Since I've reverted him, there, it's not appropriate for me to intervene administratively. But someone uninvolved should definitely take a look.Nandesuka22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this user can beassumed good faith anymore. He denies any sort of communication, and insists that his opinion is the only correct one. User have been edit-warring rather inappropriately for half an year.AQu01rius(User • Talk)17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"You may recall his edit-warring and stubbornness] over the deceptive banner on his userpage". Yes, I recall the brouhaha and the bullying. If four editors care so much about a harmless joke on somebody else's userpage that they spend three months of "edit-warring and stubbornness" to "get him to stop", it suggests to me that they need something more constructive to do. And LionheartX, who has just been blocked indefinitely, is hardly a neutral voice here.Bishonen |talk14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Please note that I am not referring to the joke banner, which I have never cared nor posted about. What I referred to is how this user constantly uses extreme Pro-Taiwanese tone in various articles and claims all editors (mostly fellow Taiwanese) who tried to adjust his edits "POV pushing". This user never displayed a sense of understanding on theWP:NPOV policy, and the consistent edit-warring over the Taiwa-China subject matter is becoming very distruptive.AQu01rius(User • Talk)17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I undertand that, and it's to your credit that you weren't one of the Four Musqueteurs. But please note that I was replying to Ideogram, not you. That's why I quoted Ideogram.Bishonen |talk23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Do you really think the banner incident was that important to my case? How can I get you to focus on the important issue here without (my) making a personal attack? --Ideogram00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Certified.Gangsta isat this very moment engaged in revert-warring onCulture of Taiwan and ignoring the comments we have made on the talk page explaining our edits. It isimpossible to get him to discuss and cease revert-warring. --Ideogram01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Bishonen, since you are friendly with Certified.Gangsta, can you please try to convince him not to continue this unproductive behavior? --Ideogram01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize that they're supposed to follow thespirit of the policy, and not the letter... but still, 4 reverts in 28 hours? That hardly seems like a 'revert war'. Especially since there's still a note on his talk page about how someonewasn't blocked in spite of literally violating 3RR, gangsta getting blocked when he didn't violate the letter seems a bit heavy-handed. It certainly appears to present an inconsistent application of policies."If you violate the policy, you may go entirely unpunished. But, even if youdon't technically violate it, you still may get punished. Just because."Bladestorm01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Excuse me. I hadn't realized. The person who actuallyreported the "edit war" was, in fact, the same editor who avoided being blocked for literally violating 3RR. Seriously, what sort of message does this say? Ideogram clearly violates 3RR, and isn't blocked. Gangsta doesn't technically violate it, andis blocked, when he's reportedby Ideogram. Does nobody else see the inconsistency here? "Do as I say, not as I do"? (For reference, I'm not saying that ideogram should've been blocked either. But it's certainly a double standard, and a disproportionate application of policies; especially for very-much related cases.Bladestorm01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Any previous block (or lack there-of) had no bearing on this one. 3rr is not a right and 28 hours is four hours past the normal 3RR deadline, however I that agressive editing style is very disruptive and hence he earnt the block. If an uninvolved admin wishes to review this and remove or shorten the block (24hours) then feel free. Application of policy is entirely up the the administrators discretion, as paticularly noted onWP:3RR.ViridaeTalk01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bladestorm, I am not sure if you have reviewed the original case.User:Certified.Gangsta have a long history of advocating pro-Taiwanese point of view, which violates theWP:NPOV policy. His reverts are mostly reverts against the consensus version of the article, that is agreed by most sides to be politically neutral.User:Ideogram merely performed reverts that changed back the version with questionable point of view to the consensus version. This should be within the scope ofWP:3RR#Exceptions.AQu01rius(User • Talk)02:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, first off, you really did more to prove my point than you may realize. The action was taken for who he is, rather than what he did. Being pro-taiwan, and occasionally lacking neutrality doesn't provide license to nudge the rules around. And no, that is absolutelynot covered by the exceptions, and intentionally so. Content disputes, even when stubborn, misguided, etc, arenot allowable exceptions for 3RR. I wish I could remember where I saw an admin explaining that very point.
I still stand by my initial protest: rules should be applied as consistently as possible. When two people clearly have issues with eachother, admins should endeavour tonot take sides. What's more, if editor A reports editor B for a verifiable violation of 3RR, and then editor B reports editor A for a violation of the spiritbut not letter of 3RR, it's grossly inappropriate to punish B, but not A.Bladestorm03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever been warned that if you use your third revert again you will be blocked? I have. Gangsta consistently reverts up to his third revert on multiple articles,every freeking time. I strongly suggest you review hisentire edit history and then see what you think. It's not about the letter of the law here. --Ideogram03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to Bladestorm) Whether the admin's decision on blockingUser:Certified.Gangsta for 24 hour due to violation ofWP:3RR without acknowledgingUser:Ideogram's possible violation of the rule was inappropriate or not? Um, First, I don't thinkUser:Ideogram have reverted more than three times today, correct me if I am wrong. Second, this is not really an dispute between two editors, but between a editor with disruptive history and a whole community. However, you are right on that we should not take the user as who he is.AQu01rius(User • Talk)04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, for the sake of reference:[9],[10],[11], and[12]. Four edits within just under 22 hours. And, in this case, even if other people have issues with gangsta, this is still very much a matter of a dispute between two editors.
First gangsta reports Ideogram's actual violation. Then Ideogram reports gangsta's violation in spirit. That doesn't sound like a dispute between two editors to you? (Since I don't remember which page I said this on, I'll say it again: I'm not saying Ideogram should've been blocked either. I'm only saying that there should be consistency with how rules are applied.)Bladestorm04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Those 4 reverts you showed were the ones reported by C.G as there is a self revert a couple of edits after the last one. Yes, 3RR was broken, but it was self reverted. Consistency between admins is very hard to achieve. I personally try to apply consistency among all my actions, and in an attempt to be fair to the parties involved, I have above asked that any admin who feels the block was unjustified to unblock or reduce it as they see fit. However without hard and fast rules (which 3RR is not) you cannot be totally consistent between different admins as we all approach the situation differently.ViridaeTalk05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, seeTalk:List of Chinese Americans#Chinese Americans .3D Americans of Chinese descent for an example of User:Certified Gangsta persisting in so-called discussion where he repeats the same mis-guided personal opinion over and over again no matter what other editors put forth as evidence or argument. I would submit that this is an example of non-good-faith discussion, which is merely a delay tactic by which he justifies continued edit warring on the article page. --Sumple (Talk)05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, that's a content issue. And maybe a civility issue. But those are beside the point. I have no specific allegiance towards gangsta. To be frank, my only interest is in both fairness, as well as theappearance of fairness. When A reports B, and then B reports A, if A is the only one to literally break the rules, then B shouldn't be the only one punished. Simply put, it doesn't inspire confidence.Bladestorm05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) did you look at Gangsta's edit history or not? There is absolutely no point in talking to you if you aren't capable of looking at the whole picture. --Ideogram05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no point in talking toyou if you aren't capable of addressing my actual concerns. I'll say it again. I don't give a flying crap if he was generally uncivil, beligerant, or even radioactive. If the admin position is to haveany credibility whatsoever, then it needs to be presented as a fair and unbiased position. Using an evaluation of an editor themself, rather than the specific action you're addressing, is a step in the wrong direction. When two editors are in an edit war together, and only one of them actually directly violates 3RR, then punishing theother is inappropriate. And it annihilates credibility.
I don't care what you think of gangsta. You don't need to convince me that he isn't a saint, because I couldn't give a flying crap if he was a deranged giraffe pretending to be a human editor. Frankly, at least half the articles on my watchlist are topics that I have relatively little interest in, but where my only concern is that they are approached fairly and neutrally. Two editors involved in the same dispute, with similar 'crimes' should be treated similarly. If one editor has alesser 'crime' (or none at all), then he certainly shouldn't be treated worse,regardless of who he is.Bladestorm06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(I stopped reading at your first flying crap.) I don't give a flying crap about your concerns. You only care about the letter of the law which is the perfect definition of wikilawyering. If you can convince an admin of the validity of your concerns, more power to you. So far you don't seem to be having much success. --Ideogram06:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram, don't mess with my comments. Not only does it make it harder to follow what people are saying (signed or not, if it's inline then it becomes harder to read), but it's also terribly rude.
Next, announcing that you didn't even bother reading a point, but still felt the need to reply to it is the height of "disruption". I'm now going to request that you refrain from commenting at all. If you're going to admit that you don't feel like reading before replying, then there's no question that you aren't even trying to accomplish anything.
Next, I'm not wikilawyering. Nor am I only concerned with the "letter of the law". There's a difference between wikilawyering and asking for consistency and fairness. If you don't know the bloody difference, then you shouldn't be announcing that fact to everybody else. Incidentally, I think that's ignoring the whole AGF thing; attributing false motives to everything I do? Remind me again,who was the disruptive one in that dispute?
If anyone wants to actually discuss the issues, then I'm game. But if you once again announce that you don't feel like reading before replying, or that you don't care about people's concerns (but will still belittle them), then I'll expect an admin to immediately blank such comments.Bladestorm06:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(stopped reading at "disruption") You don't seem to understand how things work around here, what requests you can credibly make, and what admins are likely to do. You seem to think that it's ok for you to remove other people's comments based solely on your judgment that they constitute personal attacks, and you don't care that it makes it harder to follow what people are saying. I think you have a lot to learn before you will be effective at convincing others here at Wikipedia. --Ideogram06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, well, I hope you can see by reading the link I supplied that it's not simply a matter of (1) a content dispute, or (2) two editors warring with each other. A user's behaviour in what starts as a content disupte, beyond a certain point, becomes an issue of disruptive editing. Secondly, its not just Ideogram who has had, and continues to have, problems. --Sumple (Talk)05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanna add my two-cents here, having dealt with him rather recently mostly on Culture of Taiwan. I have to say it is wrong to say it's a content dispute, about pro-taiwan vs. pro-china. Based on my interaction with him, he shows that he basically knows little about the issue and when approached on discussion pages generally writes a lot of nonsense, things that even an extremely pro-taiwan person would not say. He also reverts and accuses everybody opposed to it of being "pro-china" and has accused me of being of "community banned sock puppet". It's one thing to be back and forth with reasonable arguments on the talk page, but it's another when he's totally inaccesible and "just don't get it".Blueshirts16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Second that. It's not just a matter of having a strong opinion or putting in wrong/unsourced/improper content. Its a matter of refusing to discuss, and using inappropriate tactics to advance said content. --Sumple (Talk)01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Separate Dispute between Bladestorm and Ideogram
Well, this has officially entered a new chapter. Previously, I had been proceeding on the assumption that gangsta was exaggerating, at least a little bit. However, Ideogram has nowjust started stalking me as well. Take a look at this edithere. In a long, drawn-out problem with whether or not to include references to richard gere cramming small rodents up his butt, there was a problem with someone choosing not to address the actual issues at all, but rather accuse editors who care about the policy for bios of living persons as being "rabid Richard Gere fans" whoa re "unable to cope" that "feel the need to suppress them at every opportunity." Since this wasn't directly about the article, and was an accusation of bad faith, and was a direct personal attack, I removed it. Maybe the right choice, maybe the wrong choice. But that's not the issue here. Here's the issue. In addition to proclaiming that he wouldn't read my arguments (but would still belittle them), Ideogram actually traced back my contributions to try to find something to report. And, sure enough,take a look here. Notice that, when he was unable to address my arguments directly, he instead tried to find another method of getting to me. Not only is this rude, and disruptive, but it also throws out any possible arguments that gangsta is a strictly disruptive editor, while Ideogram acts in good faith. Normally, I don't comment on contributers. Only content. However, I don't know how else to interpret this.Bladestorm06:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think anyone seriously believes that this one block is going to make Gangsta change his ways. If people are willing, the next step is to file an RFC against Gangsta to show that the community disapproves of his actions. If that doesn't work, the next step would be ArbCom. I am not eager to take it that far, but I really don't know how to convince him he needs to change. If anyone can propose any other solutions I would like to hear them. --Ideogram08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you've been upset enough to do all this on ANI and then the spinoff into my talk page, please take the time and effort to do a RFC. The value in showing someone that there is a community consensus feeling, not just a couple of people picking on them, is enormous. Much more so than a single block. And it takes less effort than last night's arguments here did...Georgewilliamherbert18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I did file an RFC already but no one else certified it and it got deleted. I am quite willing to file another but I need someone to certify it. --Ideogram20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Similar behaviors toward Bladestorm as well who disagree that I should be for 3RR when I didn't violate it. It's blatant double-standard.--Certified.Gangsta18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Btw you claimed I edit war. Well, it takes 2 people to edit war. From what I'm seeing, you're the one who's edit warring and stalking my contributions. You also stalk Bladestorm just because he disagrees with you. Stop now or we go straight to arbCom.--Certified.Gangsta18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not you taking me. Me taking you since you're the one who is stalking, disrupting, bullying, and POV pushing all over the place. Bishonen made that quite clear. You called me a vandal and a dick before. Now tell me who's wrong in this dispute?--Certified.Gangsta18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't realize that there is no real difference between you taking me to ArbCom and me taking you to ArbCom. And you don't get to decide who's wrong, that's what ArbCom is for. (PS Please supply the diff of where I called you a vandal. And referring you toWP:DICK is not the same thing as calling you a dick.) --Ideogram18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you condone Gangsta's statements and actions or not? Try to concentrate on the issue here instead of what you believe my relationship with Tony is. "you're the one who is stalking, disrupting, bullying, and POV pushing all over the place. Bishonen made that quite clear." Do you believe that or not? If you do believe it, speak up, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning. Do you think it would encourage me if you corrected his misconceptions? Do you think it would exacerbate the dispute if you "encouraged" me? --Ideogram21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The real question here, Bishonen, is, are you ever willing to admit that a friend of yours has done something wrong? --Ideogram21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Note fromthis that Gangsta knows perfectly well when consensus is against him and when it isn't; he just chooses to ignore it. --Ideogram19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You're not in any position to accuse me this way since you're the one who is crusading to have me blocked and advocating a pro-China agenda. Your accusation is bogus. You use article talkpages as forums to gather support for your Rfc against me. We all know Taiwan-China relation is a delicate topic and the most important issue here is presenting encyclopedia reader with a neutral point of view. You need to cut the talk about consensus because in this case, a few people who endorse your change don't represent consensus. Of course, Taiwan vs. China is like David vs. Goliath so if we talk about consensus rather than content factuality than all Chinese editors will probably make these articles uneyclopedic and unreadable. At one time, you successfully obtained a 3RR block on me by presenting blatant lie and false accusation on this page (not to mention it's misplaced, it shouldn't be on AN/I). The blocking admin didn't do enough research. Then after another neutral and uninvolved user Bladestorm voiced his objection on my block above, instead of discussing constructively with him, you make veil threat and stalk his contributions and reported him for something that is uncalled for. A heated dispute occured soon after between you and bladestorm above and on Georgewilliamherbert's talkpage. You claim you represent consensus but all you're doing is stalking me all over the place, even in article you don't care about (John Profumo for example, you better apologize for your actions) Therefore, intentionally instigating me to edit war with you. Being incivil to Bish doesn't help your cause either. (especially watch what you're typing into the edit summary) With the way you edit right now, I'll be surprised if you're still around in the next couple of months.--Certified.Gangsta21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing you ever say is relevant. You're showing a lack of respect for me, bladestorm (when counter by something you didn't like, you said you stopped reading), bishonen, and wikipedia as a whole.--Certified.Gangsta21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The real question is who started this mess? The answer is Ideogram himself. He now forces me to keep his preferred version while showing no effort to either discuss or compromise. Ideogram will no doubt edit war again if his preferred version is not kept.--Certified.Gangsta22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I see is you don't think other readers will be appealed to click in on the relevant articles. Blank statements serve no purpose here. I did respond. Stop making misleading accusations on AN/I.--Certified.Gangsta22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Just want to point out something here, the issue at hand hasabsolutely nothing to do with pro-China vs pro-Taiwan. It has to do with "gangsta"'s repeated reverts without any reasons that are convincing or even "debatable". Say, on the culture of taiwan page, if he were to write up some examples that show "dutch and spanish" influence on Taiwanese culture, then that'd be great, because now we can argue about how much influence is there, is the influence long lasting, how relevent it is to present day taiwanese culture? But NO, gangsta doesn't do anything like that. He just automatically reverts and then labels anyone of being "pro-China" and writes egregiously blanket statements about taiwanese people. In essence, gangster hides his own refusal to discuss competently by resorting to playing name attacks and identity politics. To the outsider, our arguments with gangster might look like yetanother china vs taiwan issue, but in reality it hasnothing to do with the issue. So, please don't be played into thinking that the argument is about content dispute, this is a very important point here.Blueshirts23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I restroedthe RfC, but note that it will be redeleted in 48 hours unless there is a 2nd certifier and until theevidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute has diffs instead of simply links to article talk pages. It would be in Certified.Gangsta's best interests, I think, to respond.El_C00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[13]User:Tropicaljet accuses me of committing a personal attack on user Ikeda Nobuo. While I usually think it's silly suggesting somebody is committing a personal attack by saying sb is committing a personal attack, I feel these comments are purposedly dishonest and misleading. The intent is only to miscredit me, not to stop actual personal attacks.
Also please have a look at this edit by an anonymous user to this page.[14]
While I have nothing against those links being posted here, I'm irritated an anonymous user is trying to botch up me request.Mackan23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
(diff) This user's talk page was invaded by an IP editor of dispute-related pages, who outed him. This invasion occurred during an ongoing, simmering debate with another user, who was pressuring the talk page's user to admit some kind of prior involvement with an anti-cult organization off-Wiki. I request adminstrative deletion of the outing from the page history, protection of user's talk page from further editing by the IP editor, and whatever else is normally done to IPs in this situation. (I was a page debater, but not part of this debate, and don't know this IP# editor.)Milo08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes,delete, toute suite, block IP and semiprotect user talk. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to determine the user behind the attacking IP.Proabivouac08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
User page scrubbed,WP:RFO sent. Scrubbing THIS page will be a nightmare. Let's hope that since there is no last name for the aforementioned individual here, you'll be safer. --Avi05:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all who helped resolve this issue, promptly and effectively. This part of Wikipedia user protection is working.Milo02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Sluzzelin suspects thatUser:Leasing Agent (who signs himself "Diligent", not to be confused withUser:Diligent) is a sock of indef blocked antisemiticUser:Barringa. Sluzzelin has notified EL C, the blocking admin. NBUser:Jfarber has oddly confused my name with Leasing Agent. Leasing Agent has made a post at the Humanities Ref Desk that seems antisemitic and has so far declined to retract it (he made a minor amendment). His pattern of behaviour to date is similar to, but more subtle than the more obvious trolling of Barringa. Sock or not, Admin intervention gratefully received as there is (at least) disruption to the Humanities ref desk and some discomfort being experienced by a number of editors in good standing. --Dweller11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
For now, I'm only capable of adding two special pages showing the contributions of71.100.171.80 and71.100.166.228. Other version of71.100... posting similar questions and comments on the Humanities and Miscellaneous Reference Desks can be found. Thank you, Dweller, for posting this notice. ---Sluzzelintalk13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This user is the great Shape-Shifter himself, coming in manifold guises. I have encountered him in the form of Barringa or Nocterne or Rabbi Benton and now Leasing Agent/Diligent, that is if he uses any name at all. But it's always the same relentless and tiresome manifesto.Clio the Muse14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask the opinion of administrators if it is OK to nominate the article for deletion 5 days after the previous AfD closed with "keep"? This is what happened here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction (March 14, 2007). I was the one who nominated the article for deletion first time, but then deletion did not get a consensus because of the position of users, who nominate the article for deletion now:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khachkar destruction After that the article was expanded, and apparently some are not happy with the outcome and renominated it for deletion 5 days later, claiming that both sides agree to deletion, why it is not so. I don’t know if this is the right place to ask, but is there a certain policy on how often an article can be nominated for deletion and is it OK to renominate the article for deletion so soon after the previous AfD closed?Grandmaster20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It is discouraged to quickly relist, with two exceptions. Those are when the closing admin of the first AFD decides that a relisting is needed or when the first AFD is taken to DRV and the article is relisted there. I've generally maintained that the delay needed after a no-consensus AFD is shorter than the delay needed after a keep AFD. The usual thinking is that a second nomination ought to be a few months after the first. If the new AFD is better interpreted as challenging the close of the first (your description doesnot sound like this), then closing the second and taking it to DRV would be the thing to do. But if it is those who opined keep in the first that think it should be deleted, what the heck, let them change their mind, it doesn't cost that much.GRBerry22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is my fourth appeal at this noticeboard for attention to the above user - seethis,this, anda mention here - previous reports have all been ignored and archived. User creates nonsense pages, is self-publishing work, pushing some sort of POV. It's beyond my ability to handle and numerous editors have had problems, see the talk page. Will someone please, please, please not make me return here a fifth time? I really appreciate any attention that can be spared here - thanks!RJASE1Talk01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I already gave him a final warning for creating pages (even that page specifically), but I'll keep an eye on his contribs.RJASE1Talk02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This[16] diff shows some rather POV editing, along with soapboxing and snide comments about 'open minded christians' and so on. This guy really needs to review policy.ThuranX04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This User has a long, long history of disruptive editing, contentiousness, and other behavior unbefitting Wikipedia, despite repeated warnings and requests to stop. --DavidShankBone04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, Justanother has restored an edit made by a suspected sockpuppet of this banned user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). There is no privacy issue involved this time, however I do not believe my actions in reverting the sockpuppet are inappropriate; if so, I would appreciate a warning to that effect, and administrator intervention with the sockpuppet. Citations to follow shortly.Orsini04:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Justanother restores the edits -"Little different this time Orsini, no personal info - you are not an admin - we just tag it and report it."[21]
I revert the edits again which I believe were inappropriately restored byUser:Justanother[22]
The sockpuppet has had the template for this banned user placed on the User and Talk Pages. If my edits and reporting this here are inappropriate actions, please let me know so I don't repeat this mistake.Orsini04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh good, I would really like an admin to set us straight here. Let's forget the other possible sockpuppet post earlier please. Apparently there was some personal info concealed in that one that no-one would notice unless they knew what they were looking for. So I admitted that, had I known there was personal info in there, I would have removed it myself, not restored it. Honest mistake.
Now on this one - My understanding is that if you suspect a sock then you tag it somehow, maybe with {{spa}} then report it and let the normal admin and checkuser process take over. You would not remove a simple posting just becsue you suspect it is a sock. Am I right? Because Orsini, an inexperienced wikipedia editor, thinks that he should get rid of non-threatening posts that he thinks are socks ofBarbara Schwarz. Can an admin please provide us fellas with some guidance. Thanks. --Justanother04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not in this case, and you know better. And you were warned that the editor was a banned abusive editor, but restored anyway. This is a special case because if we went toWP:SOCK every single time thatUser:The real Barbara Schwarz creates a new sockpuppet, there would be complete disruption and abuse all over the place.Smee04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
WP:CALM, please. Tagging as a SPA is sufficient to alert administrators that the comment is possibly an extraneous sock- or meatpuppet. It's a dumb thing to get into an edit-war over, given that AfDs are not head-counting exercises. --TedFrank04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Ted. Please note also the sockpuppet also edited on her favorite places to cause disruption. I agree it's a foolish reason for an edit war. However, is it appropriate or inappropriate to leave edits by a banned user to stand? This is a point on which I am uncertain, and I hope you can set me straight. Best,Orsini04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's whereWP:CALM comes in. The suspected sock edited made one comment each on two talk pages and an AfD. Where's the disruption? Add the SPA tag if you have a good-faith basis for doing so, and it won't be the end of the world if an administrator gets to it on Friday instead of Thursday. It's not going to influence the AfD decision any more than it does when a newspaper columnist encourages readers to flood in to vote in an AfD. --TedFrank04:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with you about canvassing in that way. However it may be worth noting the Talk page archives ofTalk:Barbara Schwarz available to admins only, or the previous 3 AfD discussions to see the degree of disruption which this one abuser can cause in a very short time. But I take you point; I do need to remain calm myself. Best regards,Orsini05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
whats the official policy on this, out of curiosity? I saw this come up on Brandt's afd as well, where certain admins supported his posting, others RV'd it out, and one even threatened to ban anyone who removed his commentary. -Denny06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to know this. My understanding of policy is 1. a banned user doesn't get to edit Wikipedia at all; 2. edits from banned users are treated as vandalism; and 3. dealing with vandalism can be done by any editor by reverting. However I've been over-ruled here and the banned edits were restored. I don't understand why. Please point me towards a clue, sinceWP:VANDAL is what I've based my actions upon and I must be missing something.Orsini06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) is true. I see no basis for (2) inWP:VAND. And, once again, we're talking about AfD-space, not a substantive article edit. A sock or two with an SPA tag isn't going to make a difference; a hundred socks are going to be obvious and counterproductive. In either scenario, a reversion isn't necessary. Moreover, given that this is a suspected sock, rather than a confirmed sock,WP:AGF militates against reversion. --TedFrank06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The puppetmaster has used a huge number of sockpuppets. Her style can be easily identified by those familiar with her editing paterns and writing style. As normal users, we do not have the tools (like IP checking) available to admins, and they only confirm the suspicion. As Smee stated, if we went toWP:SOCK every single time thatUser:The real Barbara Schwarz creates a new sockpuppet, there would be even more disruption. UsuallyUser:ChrisO spots her sockpuppets quickly and deals with them since he is familair with the pattern.Orsini06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So if a sympathetic and knowledgeable admin is already involved, I don't understand why an SPA-tag + wait-for-a-few-hours isn't sufficient, and the aggrieved parties feel the need for an edit-war and a lengthy AN/I thread. Especially when the sock's only role is to make unpersuasive AfD and talk-page arguments. It makes me want to create aWP:WOLF essay. --TedFrank06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Ted, it wasnt my intention to waste ANI's time or fill up space with a frivolous matter. I reverted edits in good faith which I reasonably suspected to be from the banned user's sock, and which were edits made in bad faith.User:ChrisO has dealt with this in the way I did, andJustanother didn't see fit to complain or restore those edits, only mine. History shows the sockpuppets' inciteful comments soon begin a flood of disruption, so doing a fast revert has minimized this impact. AGF policy also covers those situations where there's evidence to the contrary of good faith, and trolling by a banned user is not GF; I hope you and Justanother can AGF in my judgement that the sockpuppet is a banned user. I also believed Justanother's actions were inappropriate, and so I apologize for wasting your time. I note your comment in the AfD itself, and will take that comment on board with regards to my own behavior. Regards,Orsini06:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I sympathize with your plight. From personal experience, when one is dealing with a disruptive editor, the most effective strategy is to minimize one's own disruptive actions so that third-party editors can quickly see who is at fault. If the other editor is truly disruptive, they'll hang themselves quickly; if they're not truly disruptive, then hanging back and avoiding provocation can save both parties tsuris. --TedFrank07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We are up to 30 plus socks not counting the many that were just plain IP addresses. There are numerous editors and admins that aware of this issue and they will remove her comments as soon as they appear. She has made legal threats and she attempts to "out" anonymous editors. He latest comment adds nothing of value to the AfD and it contains material that is against Wikipedia policy, namely it accused other editors of bad faith and even suggested that Wikipedia editors "wished her harm". These are personal attacks and they should not be permitted by anyone anywhere, let alone a user that is indefinitely banned.Vivaldi (talk)08:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppetry and unexplained breaking of MOSBIO rules
[24]Japanese users (most likely sockpuppets belonging toUser:ShinjukuXYZ) keep inserting the ethnicity ofJoji Obara in the opening paragraph, even though this goes againstWP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph. They keep on changing the opening line to "Joji Obara is a Korean Japanese"... when in fact, his only nationality is "Japanese". I asked for a ratoinale on the talk page, but was ignored.Also,User:ShinjukuXYZ was found guilty of using sockpuppets, but no block, no warning, no ban, no nothing.Mackan12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you just gonna ignore this? What the hell, how can you expect anything but edit wars when you don't do anything even in a case with a disruptive editor as obvious as this??Mackan16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
In the past two days you have followed me totwo seperate articles that I have been actively editing, that you hadnever edited before.Zombietime andDismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_scandal When I did that a few weeks ago I was charged by an Admin with 'wikistalking' and given a 24 hr block. I encourage you to stop wikistalking me. -FREE FaAfA !(yap)
I trust that you will deal with TBeatty's 'Wikistalking' the same way you dealt with mine. ThanksFREE FaAfA !(yap) 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
TBeatty is a decent enough editor, FAAFA is shaping up to be banned byWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. I am not an univolved admin by now, and would not block TBeatty anyway for this, but if anyone feels that TBeatty is doing something wrong by checking the edits of FAAFA then please feel free to follow this up.Guy(Help!)11:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty's 'honesty' on display.... After admitting to 'Wikistalking' me to two articles including the US Attorney article:"You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits."diff he actually claims on the talk page of the article in question, that I Wikistalkedhim to said article !"The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned."diff He was entirely civil in his fallacious and specious claims though, and we know that carriesmuch more weight around here than a mouthy truthful editor ! -FREE FaAfA !(yap)19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
FAAFA I have beenexcessively lenient aboutWP:NPA, and I have warned you countless times. However,this was your last warning. I can see where this is going, and involved as I am, I have remained nuetral. Therefore, I am reminding you to watch yourself, or you will be blocked.Prodegotalk19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I've been having some issues of my own with Wikipedia lately, I've been watchign this whole Freerepublic thing spread and spread, and I don't think there's been a day gone by in over a month that some FR-editors-war-related incident hasn't been up here, either a new one or one taking days to resolve. By now, everyone involved ought to be on eggshells around each other, avoiding the appearances of attacks, stalkings, hostilities and improprieties. Instead, I note that Faafa is accurate. He's got an established edit history on both articles, then TBeatty shows up. while I'm also aware that TBeatty isn't a 'subject' of the RfAr for FR/BB/FaaFa/DH/BfP, he's been a highly active participant, and All I've seen shows him leaning heavily to to FR/DH/BfP side. As such, he really shouldn't be out there trying to get Faafa riled up into another violation. I think it's definitely questionable behavior to do what he's doing. This stupid FR mess is so big on Wikipedia that it's almost impossible to avoid it if you pay any attention to the Wikipedia pages of wikipedia... (or however AN/Policy/VillagePump should be called...), and anyone involved should be trying to look like they're participating in the spirit of the AN/I, not just the letter law. It's mildly unethical, I think, but I'm not sure if it violated he written text of any WP policy, since he's claiming that he's 'checking Faafa', which means with have to evaluate 'check' with AGF, meaning he's just 'reviewing for hte good of the project'. parsing games aside, I think TB should be told to step off.Neither's an angel, and they all need to know that this mess is serious. I jsut hope it ends soon.ThuranX 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) After seeing his below tantrum, and his deliberate interruptive way of initially posting it ... Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.ThuranX23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Prodego: Yeah - I know ! I know ! DECORUM and CIVILITY are the only things that really matter around here - unless you're an Admin (like those in the InShanee RAFr) - MONGO - other Wikipedians who protect 9/11 articles from the 'truthers' - or just a a member of the 'chosen few' - then decorumdoesn't matter. Yup - decorum is much more important than sockpuppetry, dishonesty and POV pushing ! I do think I finally get it! Too bad I'm not an Admin or a member of the 'chosen few' and I could tell you all to ____ ___ with impugnity, but since I'm not, I best not insult our benevolent, fair and impartial masters. -FREE FaAfA !(yap)21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And you wonder why even those who think you're in the right with the Free Republic RfAR are pretty much resigned to you getting blocked for a lengthy amount of time.SirFozzie22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your sarcastic and sharp comments areexactly why you are going to be banned for a year. We all tried our best to not let that happen, but you threw your chances and our efforts into the wind. —210physicq (c)23:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but you'll never subjugate me into becoming a brown-nosing 'rent a cop' ass-kisser, as is required for long term success on Wikipedia. I'd rather be banned with my dignity than emasculate myself like the slavish cult members of WikipediaHeaven's Gate so willingly did/do. -FaAfA'Mistakes were made'23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No one is telling you to be a naive kiss-up. But you're just convincing everyone here that you are getting on everyone's nerves. You say that you want to be banned with dignity intact. It would be true if only you had any dignity left in the first place. Getting yourself banned for a cause doesn't mean that you will be canonized. We're not in the Greek-hero mindset now. —210physicq (c)00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What you term "dignity" appears to be an excess of pride. While you clearly seek to martyr yourself, that doesn't automatically make you noble.IrishGuytalk23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The behavior that I might be banned for isno worse than thedaily behavior of at least half a dozen editors/admins who are given 'free passes' by the Wiki 'Ruling Class', for various reasons. (mostly cronysism andreally good brown-nosing) I agree with Harriet Miers - Fire them ALL ! LOL! -FaAfA'Mistakes were made'00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I presume he's fair and accurate in the Fox News sense? --ChrisO
FaAFA's name has been debated at length, and has never been found to be at issue. Dogpiling all possible issues for draggin up again when he's down and being kicked isn't appropriate. Besides, Fox is 'fair and balanced' he's 'fairness and accuracy'. Sufficiently different to begin with, plus a name about one's purported intent here a WP, taken in good faith, shows nothing to see here. move along. (Ironic, yes. Inappropirate? no.)ThuranX23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is odd. I noticed that in two edits, Crockspot removed both is text and that of other editors in this section:[25] there, he takes out FAAFA, then[26] here, he takes out his own reply without replacing the other. Odd. Further, he calls himselfhte contributor. If it was an oops, he'd have replaced another editor's work ,wouldn't he?ThuranX02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was attempting to redact my own comment, and when the page loaded, it was still there, so I must have accidentally removed someone else's comment on the first edit. Sorry. Is it something worth restoring at this point? BTW, FAAFA is having a complete meltdown on his talk page. Not a pretty sight. Protection might be called for. -Crockspot 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)fixed now -Crockspot03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That last comment[28] has resulted in me restarting the block, making it 10 days, and protecting his user talk page. Just as a FYI to all involved; we shouldn't let crap like that continue.Daniel Bryant03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't used it in almost three months. It's notimpossible he might log on to it, but for someone who's given the impression they're 'leaving forever', it wouldn't make much sense.HalfShadow03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If arbcom does ban him for a year, simply block the FAAFA and the NBGPWS accounts. I still haven't figured out why my name seems to always come up wiht this fellow...I actually lessened a lengthy block I had placed on him for gross incivility a while back, even though most felt he should remain blocked for the duration. Oh well.--MONGO04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to say that while I usually think FAAFA treads the line this time he was way over it, and I am very disappointed. --BenBurch15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I freely admit to having been uncivil to anonymous internet users I have never run across or communicated with. ˉˉanetode╦╩05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Your logic does not follow. I seriously doubt his intent was to call all anonymous users fuckwads. Its clearly an explanation of the motivation of vandals.Wikipedia is NOT censored.—OcatecirTalk 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC
It's the GIFT. HOly smokes. Are Wikilawyers really going to turn this site into a job? No jokes mimicing in any way WP functions on the pages, and now no humor? We've got ridiculous POV from entire nations of editors out to make their enemies look bad, we've got libelists rampant, and the best we can do is argue the GIFT, when we're knee deep in proof throughout any editing session? COme off it. The GIFT ought to be POLICY, not banned.ThuranX11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
For goodness' sake; it's an obvious knockoff ofPenny Arcade's presentation ofJohn Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (GIFT). Aside from the fact that it's just a harmless comic, it also happens to be a pithy, distressingly accurate social comment, and a valuable warning to members of internet communities. My only criticism is that it would be best if Anetode linked the specific comic he's borrowing from, to make the source absolutely clear and to give credit where it is due.
Incidentally, there didn't seem to be any effort whatsoever by the complainant to discuss things politely and reasonably with Anetode, who probably would have been willing to explain the joke. Instead, we're seeing a (failed) attempt to form up a lynch mob. The interpretation of this 'dispute resolution' attempt in the context of the GIFT is left as an exercise for the reader.TenOfAllTrades(talk)15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Users are reverting back and forth as to whether this disambig page should include the troll group whose article was deleted (and the deletion review kept it deleted). Someone should protect the page (I'm involved so I won't). —BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-16 13:43Z
I can't for the life of me see any dispute that has spilled intoM80. There is what appears to be a misplaced comment in the talk page for that disambiguation page, but the page is fine. As for the content dispute onSalute (pyrotechnics), that's not an administrator issue unless policies are violated. I don't even really see much of a dispute. It surely does not need a warning template.Lexicon(talk)14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on IP evidence, I don't think Weimpact is an RF Binder employee, but New2007york and Rfbinder are, as well as two others - Katefarber and Cmo2007Raul65404:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And I was just about to suggest a checkuser. If it looks like corporate spam, smells like corporate spam...I think our zero tolerance policy on the issue is appropriate.Teke (talk)04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say give them fair warning that we're on to them, and what/why their actions are wrong, and don't do it again or gone. That would be for brevity's sake. They will either spam again or not, I would think as there's not much other use for those accounts. Other takes welcome.Teke (talk)04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Block them all. Block the 4 that Raul pointed out indefinitely, then block Weimpact pending confirmation from him that he's not an employee (we'll have to AGF that he is telling the truth) and if Weimpact disruptively edits again, reinstitute the block. Of all the users, it looks like only Weimpact has any chance of positively contributing.⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not give them an opportunity to show that they understand what they've done is wrong, instead of just a knee-jerk block?216.234.128.820:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure all those vandalism warnings left by a single editor for a content dispute were appropriate. 71 is being disruptive with an unusual POV-push, but it's not quite vandalism. --TedFrank06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that this user is requesting unblock via their talk page ({{unblock}}). I'm on the fence-leaning towards endorsing with this one, but given there is already a thread here, might as well get the second opinion from an ANI reader :) Cheers,Daniel Bryant09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Something is wonky in the coding on that page. I can't see half of it (anything below the "Cool (aesthetic)" section), but I can't see anything which would do that. I'm guessing it was something thatBaseballDetective did as it was fine before his multiple edits of the page. Anyone want to look and see if they can figure out why the page isn't showing half its content? I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.2 on Windows XP SP2.
Help needed with Academy Award Winner Page Vandalism
Can someone please help me with this problematic anon IP address:71.112.7.212. Scroll down to 'Academy Award Winner Page Vandalism' to see what I am talking about. The user barely knows how to use Wiki and despite multiple warnings, continues to engage in various forms of vandalism and page blanking. His current 'kick' is the bizarre concept that saying someone is an Academy Award winner is somehow 'advertising' and randomly editing various Academy Award winner pages to remove this reference. Additionally, he/she is blanking out warnings whenever he gets the chance: See his/her logSpecial:Contributions/71.112.7.212. I'm exhausted trying to revert this trolls constant vandalism and I truly need someone else to step in. There is also a long history of this IP address simply engaging in similar behavior on other articles. The IP address traces to a Verizon address, but it seems static; same person, same behavior. Help! Please :(
Okay, this is really, really silly and stupid, but I would like to get some input from uninvolved users anyway. There has been an ongoing heated discussion onTalk:Football (soccer) about the name of the article. That discussion seems to have cooled down, and "my side" seems to have "won". This seems to have lead to a user on "the other side",User:Thumperward (signs with name "Chris Cunningham" on talk pages) making a few undiscussed edits to the article to "improve it". Some were good, some were bad, but the main thing I would like to get input on is these edits, and my subsequent (silly) reverts:
Now, note that he removes working and correct piped links to use unpiped links and redirects instead. Also note the edit summary of the 3rd edit. Now, I know that I should probably just have been cooler and just ignored this, but I really can't understand his behaviour in these edits and I could not stay away, although his edit summary implies that I could not make another revert without breaking 3RR, he's wrong, "I have one revert left", but I'll stay away from using it this time and instead seek the opinion of others. – Elisson • T • C •13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary was intended to reflect thatI wasn't going to pursue the matter further today.
The link edits are (a) in keeping with MoS and (b) justified both in summary and on talk.
TheWP:OWN comment was intended to point out that Elisson had, in edit 2's summary, decided to start telling me how and how not to edit articles.
This article isn't being allowed to evolve. It's being held in a static state, and now editors who are attempting to be bold and do something other than vandalise it (check the glorious edit history) are being reported for being "disruptive".Chris Cunningham13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How are the link edits in keeping with MoS? Please give a link and citation. You just waste server resources by doing edits that actually does not help the article (and so was I, reverting you...). This is also what I wanted to tell you by the second edit summary, and it is applicable to all edits anyone makes anywhere. I don't see howWP:OWN is relevant in that context. – Elisson • T • C •13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
TheWP:OWN comment was a pithy retort at being told to leave the article as it was. I meant to link toWP:MOS-L#Context, which states: "Don't use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text." this includes splittingZurich, Switzerland intoZurich,Switzerland (Switzerland is irrelevant except in that it helps place Zurich in context) and expanded instances of things likeFédération Internationale de Football Association where the redir points toFIFA unambiguously anyway. As for "wasting server resources", server resources are less valuable than editor resources, which is why MoS recommends keeping markup simple (to make it easier to edit).Chris Cunningham14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOS-L#Context does not give you justification to remove such a pipe link, the meaning of that section is that if you link to for exampleReligion in Sweden (I created it for this example as it didn't exist), which is a redirect toChurch of Sweden, don't do a pipe link [[Church of Sweden|Religion in Sweden]] because 1) the concept religion in Sweden is not neccessarily the same as the concept Church of Sweden, and 2) it hinders the usage of "what links here" onReligion in Sweden to check if it is a good idea to create a more general article on religion in Sweden. It can not be applied on this case, where "FIFA" and "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" mean the exact same thing. I have no opinion on the Zürich matter whatsoever, as it is not the thing I reverted over. And regarding keeping markup simple, I'm not sure that the difference between [[FIFA|Fédération Internationale de Football Association]] and [[Fédération Internationale de Football Association]] is that big of a thing for anyone to parse... If someone decided to type the first version when writing something new, I don't see any point in changing that perfectly working link to something else, just as I don't see any point in "fixing" redirects as it works just as fine. The whole point about keeping markup simple is to not use HTML and CSS where it is not needed, the point is not to change things that work just because you can make the link five chars shorter. – Elisson • T • C •14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My user page has been vandalised byUser:Thumperward using a certain sock [[29]] - check out the coincidental intrest in "Cunningham" in recent days by "both" users. This is ironic since I was trying to reason with him about how to describe theGlenn Greenwald Sock-puppetry scandal (covered in the MSM) only gaining a promise that he would "delete on sight due to BLP". I find the homophobic remarks by this user particularly offensive. I thought I should add this here as this user seems to have issues.David Spart16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of this revert war. FromWP:LINK, "It is not necessary to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page." In these cases, full names & acryonyms are pretty stably connected. It is feasible that the acronymFIFA will become a disambig page if some notable organization starts to use it, so unpiped is marginally better in my opinion. However, mostly this appears to be just a dumb turf war.
The first edit ("fixing" the links) was rather pointless; the reversion was arguablymore pointless since it seemed to be picking a fight over an unhelpful, but unhurtful, edit.Thumperward (talk·contribs),"see you in 24 hours", a clear reference toWP:3RR, is borderline uncivil & disruptive, as I interpret it as goadingJohan Elisson (talk·contribs). I'd advise these editors to cool off for a while and quit this battle.[I have not done any research to verify the claims ofDavid Spart, so I have no opinion on such a matter]--Scientizzle16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are many problems.First, the usered g2s has been deleting images from the Evanescence articles, because according to him the use of album cover images violates thes Fair use criteria.This is totally fake, and it can be proved.Nirvana (band) andNightwish have images of album covers, and these articles are Featured articles. If the use use of album cover images is forbidden, then these articles would never have passed the FA. Now, he is also contradicting himself, because he has also deleted an logo ([[:Image:Evanescence early.png, an earlier logo of the band). Logo are not album covers, so...? He has deleted it with no reasons. The only thing he said was that the use of the images hasn't been discussed. What's that??
Another problem is that he has nominated an free-use image created by me,Image:EV-In.svg, with a very vague reason. He says this is a derivated work of the Evanescence logo. It would be a derivated logo if I would have copied the Evanescence logo and added something like some lines or whatever.Here's thediscussion, but it's going nowhere.
And the last thing, he has tagged theImage:Evlithium1.jpg for deletion. This is a fair-use image, but many of the contributors in the Evanescence articles including me, reached a consensus. (this.
Also the fair use rationable stated the reasons why we are using a fair-use image by now.
No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. While Evanescence is a very popular band and would probably be easier to get user-created pictures of than most, the fact remains that in general it's incredibly difficult to get good free use images of bands. The reasons are two-fold: the majority of user-contributed images are going to be from 1) dark concerts with bad lighting, where the band is spread across the stage and difficult to see, or 2) individual members posing with a fan. Highly unlikely that a decent picture ofjust the band outside of a concert setting could be found. (Check the fair use rationable for more reasons).
I really don't understand his reasons. I can even compare the fair use rationable of the main image of Nirvana (FA) with the rationable of the Evanescence (GA) rationable. The Evanescence images is very very very detailed.
There's a problem with this user. For the last month or two he has repetitively been trying to add links to prosylitizing and spamming sites on theIslam andSunni Islam articles. Histalk page is chock full of warnings not to do that. Would someone kindly prevent this user from further linkspamming/prosylitizing disruption? Thanks.(→Netscott)00:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I believe that it is ridiculous on how long this dispute has continued. I, for one, see no possible outcome that can satisfy both parties to the point that the bickering will cease, therefore I am going to step in and close this section. I willstrongly suggest that all editors involved grow up and head to the appropriate policy page and get this hammered out. A change in policy, guidelines, or whatever is the cause of this mess is the only way that I can see this dispute being resolved amicably. In all seriousness,Naconkantari03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was called in to a dispute about the naming ofStraight Outta Lynwood. Our naming conventions had always stated simply that articles, prepositions, etc., shouldn't be capitalised, so I backed one editor, and move the article toStraight outta Lynwood. When this was challenged (and my move reverted) I explained the situation, and made the move again.Ryulong (talk·contribs), despite a continuing discussion at the Talk page, has taken it upon himself to move the article and to protect it against moves (on the basis that the capitalisation at other sites trumps our conventions).
However, this appears to be an actual title. In that case, the fact that "outta" is a preposition is surely irrelevant. I think this is already under discussion somewhere onWP:AN in any event. Cheers,Mackensen(talk)22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Our internal naming conventions in the case of something with a proper name need to defer to the most obvious initial criterion for naming something, which is the something's actual name. There is ample evidence, including from Weird Al's official website, thatStraight Outta Lynwood with the capital "O" is the actual real-world title of the album. This is consistent withStraight Outta Compton, the name of theN.W.A. album that is being used as a referent, which also is spelled with the capital "O".Newyorkbrad22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT × 3) Both of the threads that I brought up at the talk page of the article and that Mackensen brought up show that the moves are questioned, and also that the move protection be done, which I also did. My only actions at the article have been to originally do a histmerge (and then fix the various usages within the article), then I find that the same article is being discussed, again, and I undo the move, fix the usage of the title in the text, and install the move protection per the discussion at the thread. I have also performed a histmerge with the talk page, today. I seriously do not find that my actions are out of line here, as they are in response to two threads at WP:AN, and I also fully explained myself at the talk page of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The notion of an "actual title" makes no sense with regard to capitalisation; our naming conventions always override other sources — that's what they're there for. If Dickens had written on his manuscript, and publishers had followed him,A Tale Of Two Cities, we'd still call itA Tale of Two Cities — that's how Manuals of Style work.
The notion that Ryulong merely returned to somestatus quo is also a mistake. When admins protect a page, they should do so according to theprotection policy: "The same restrictions that apply to full protection during a dispute also apply to move protection during a dispute (for example, admins should avoid favouring one name over another, and protection is not an endorsement of the current name)."
Can you point to any evidence that Ryulong was favoring a given version, except to undo what he saw as the aftermath of a disruptive move war? It's not at all uncommon for admins to restore the last version before an edit war before protecting, and I wasn't aware that this was frowned upon. -A Man InBl♟ck(conspire |past ops)22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Mel Etitis wrote that there was "a continuing discussion at the Talk page", and thatRyūlóng moved it "on the basis that the capitalisation at other sites trumps our conventions". You can confirm that by referring to that discussion. --Jibal01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of quoting the relevant section of theWP:MOS that states we change the given name of something to suit our own manual of style please.--Nickt22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please point us to the Manual of Style page which says our naming conventions overrule what the trademark owner named their own creation. (And once you find it, I wish you the best of luck changing all references to the iPod to "Ipod.")Picaroon22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOS is certainly lacking in this area (amazing since I counted at least four different MOS and naming convention pages that apply to this situation). An additional rule that I learned is that words with five or more letters arealways capitalized in titles, no matter the part of speech. ---RockMFR23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
First, when a guideline likeWikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) says "In general, titles ofbooks,films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles ("a", "and", "the") and prepositions and conjunctions (e.g., "to", "from", "and"). Examples:A New Kind of Science,Ghost in the Shell,To Be or Not to Be.", it doesn't say "follow whatever the publisher of the book, film, or album does"... there's a reason for that. That's the whole point of having a Manula of Style and naming conventions.
Secondly, we're not talking about trademarks, which are treated differently by most Manuals of Style.
Thirdly, the issue of lowercase second and subsequent words is irrelevant here; that refers to capitalisation in article and section titles, and tells us that we don't call an articleA tale of two cities.
Fourthly, capitalisation rules regarding titles are not part of English grammar; they're the choice of publications. Some publications capitalise no articles, prepositions, etc., some capitalise all, others use an intermediate scheme. Some Manuals would insist on "Alice In Wonderland" and "Alice Through the Looking Glass", some on "ALice in Wonderland" and "Alice through the Looking Glass", and some on "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through the Looking Glass". We have always gone for the second option.
Oh, and fifthly, the claim that my page move – which is the one that Ryolong reverted – was disruptive should be backed up. --Mel Etitis (Talk)23:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
File aWP:RM. Right now, there are several people here who feel that I did nothing wrong, and before my histmerging yesterday, I had not editted the page once (that I can recall). There has been too much moving of pages being done in the past 24 hours that I protected it from being moved. That and it's blatantly clear that the owner of the copyright does trump the local MoS. If Weird Al used "Straightoutta Lynwood", then it'd be where you want it. But he doesn't. He uses "StraightOutta Lynwood" which is where the article had been until sometime last week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Great smoking jeebus, is this why I joined Wikipedia? A title is a title.Star wars? How aboutShip arriving too late to save a drowning witch? Since Dickens has been brought up (however tangentially) let me paraphrase, "If the MoS instructsthat, then the MoS is an ass;" If you want to push this, Mel, you've got about half million albums, books, films, and TV episodes to go. Better get crackin'.Thatcher13100:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your examples aren't relevant, because in both cases the authors' capitalization is the same as that given by WP policy. --Jibal02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a (friendlier) dispute with another editor about this topic, but a different specific case. Yes naming conventions are a bit lacking on this issue. We tried to spur some discussion but none really happened...Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Work_titles_with_irregular_capitalization. I think an RFC or something still might be a good idea to hammer something definitive out so we don't have this dispute every few weeks. --W.marsh00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
YES! This is a growing issue that the Wikipedia community should set up something moredefinitive andcohesive when it comes to Capitalization and article titles. The gross inconsistency that you see with page move disputes likeKISS (band),brian d foy,kd lang,eBay, etc gives way too many headaches. As Rock said, there are _several_ MOS pages (and varying interpretations) that all seem to point one way or the other. You also have segments of editors & admins who are either very liberal with capitalization or very fundamental and whoever happens to be most active on a page move wins. It's crazy and it is going to keep popping up till something is hammered out.205.157.110.1102:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The rules about "prepositions" and similar words in our and other MOS's are really just proxies for important/stressed versus unimportant/unstressed words. In these titles, "Outta" is clearly a stressed word and hence takes the cap. Even "out" can be a stressed word and need a capital on occasion.Jimmy Piersall's life inpsiredFear Strikes Out, notFear Strikes out. Mel is right to the extent that in a clear case like his Dickens example we mightn't like an authorial idiosyncrasy override our rules, but this case isn't that one.Newyorkbrad02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
First, I'll simply ignore the venomous ignorant answers, and try to stick to replying to good-faith ignorance and to good-faith honest disagreement.
My change to the naming conventions were because the insertion of the four-letters or less condition was made without consensus (or, indeed, discussion) a few months ago. I asked for discussion on the matter atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Capitalisation, which is the main page on this issue.
Prepositions, articles, etc., are always capitalised when they're the first or last words of a title; "fear Strikes Out" is thus not indicative of anything relevant here.
Deciding on stress and importance is subjective; I know of no Manual of Style that appeals to such a principle, and I think that it would be disastrous here. (For example, I'd say that the "out of" in "Straight outta Lynwood" was clearly unstressed, "Lynwood bearing the main stress, and "Straight" a secondary stress.) --Mel Etitis (Talk)11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A quick look at search results for "Outta" shows a fairly large number of albums, books, TV episodes, etc. with Outta in the title, all capitalized. My opinion is that creative works should be titled in the encyclopedia the same way the creator intends and that the style guide may need updating. But I wanted to put out there that there are easily dozens of other entries with capitalized "Outta" in Wikipedia, so these will need to be changed if this is to be our convention. In particular, as Weird Al is a parodist, the title of this album should match the title it is a play of (Straight Outta Compton). As well, other tributes to this such asStraight Outta Ca$hville should also be consistent one way or the other.Ryanjunk16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, the title on Wikipedia should match the title in a publishers catalogue, unless there is a more popular variation, what people need to remember is we're in the business of providing people with the information that they want, when and where they want it. If we're going to change titles just to keep in line with our Manual of Style, we're effectively telling people they can't have the information they want where they want it, when they search for something as it appears on the album cover, book sleeve or what have you. I find that quite unacceptable.--Nickt16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Could those who think that we shouldn't have an MoS or naming conventions, and have no consistent style of our own, because (unlike any other publication, printed or on-line) we should simply follow whatever other sites or publications do on a case-by-case basis, please go to the relevant Talk pages and argue their case there? As that isn't currently the Wikipedia position, such arguments are irrelevant here. --Mel Etitis (Talk)17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it the consensus here that it's OK for an admin to move an article, then protect the move, all without discussing the issue with those who disagree? If so, I should obviously have done that myself, when I was called in to look at the dispute. Of course, unlike Ryulong I corrected all the double redirects created by my move (I see that they've been done by someone else — and somewhat hysterically all protected).
It's OK for you to restore the state of affairs as were before an edit/revert/move war kicked off, and protect it in that state, pending the outcome of any discussion. This is not to endorse any intermediate state during the war. You have essentially been saying that Ryulong reverting your repeated move and protecting is an endorsement of that state - it clearly was not.Chrischeesewhine00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong has argued vociferously, both there and here ("blatantly obvious"), for the move he made and then protected, so your "clearly" is clearly inconsistent with the evidence. --Jibal02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Picking a version at random and protecting is the SOP. Are you arguing that Ryulong is pushing a particular interpretation and protecting on his preferred version? That's not okay, but I don't see that he really has any opinion. -A Man InBl♟ck(conspire |past ops)22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If you don't see it, then you aren't looking, since it is all over this page and the Talk page of the article under discussion. --Jibal02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
He didn't pick a version at random.
I was asked to look at a dispoute over the title; I looked, decided thatPhronima (talk·contribs) was right, explained that at the Talk page, and made the move to what I thought was the correct version (correcting all double redirects). Ryulong was asked to look, made a decision contrary to mine, moved the page without explanation at the Talk page and without correcting double redirects, and protected his move.
When protecting pages, admins are supposed to restore pages to their positions before disputes? Where is that in the protection policy? I'll quote the policy again: "The same restrictions that apply to full protection during a dispute also apply to move protection during a dispute (for example, admins should avoid favouring one name over another, and protection is not an endorsement of the current name)."--Mel Etitis (Talk)10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So, suddenly it's wrong to go back to the beginning of a move war (which involved at least one histmerge) while the warring parties talk it over? At this point, I'd like to note that you have [i]still[/i] not filed an RM.Chrischeesewhine10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Why "suddenly"? That's always been the policy concerning protections, as stated clearly in the policy. And why does my action concerning an RM have anything to do with this question? --Mel Etitis (Talk)11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong didn't do anything wrong, Mel Etitis was acting in Good Faith. The title should be 'Straight Outta Lynwood'. Wikipeda lacks a sufficient policy on the matter, and thus should default to the Artist's intent. This is an Encyclopedia. We should strive to report about the album. If the artist intended 'outta', he would've used it. As we have no MoS references on vernacular slang which juxtaposes the adverb 'out' with the preposition 'of', use Yankovic's intent, as demonstrated by his interviews promo material and so on. While it would've been easier if he'd ue the MoS approved 'Yeay, I am come to you direct and straight out of the olde Borough of Lynwood, verily and forsooth, tis True!', He didn't. He used 'Outta'. We should too. Consider for a moment that someone abusedDuChamp withL.h.o.o.q., when it ought to beL.H.O.O.Q.. DuChamp's use of language in his work was deliberate and precise, and as much a part of the art as any other element. Consider that he mocked language, used language to build a phrase that fit his mockery of language, and then included all of that in five capitalized letters. Artists may not always have such a clear and distinct relationship with language, but where such is demonstrable, Wikipedia should acqueisce to the artists' intents and report on such so long as it doesn't actively disrupt (we should not, for example, have winding formatted text ine.e. cummings' article, nor wiggling animated text inKurt Schwitters').But as to the simple matter of titles of works, we should default to the artist.ThuranX23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I knew about it ,cause i looked him up to check o nthe link, and already knew that he'd never done the 'e e', which I did out of the same misplaced respect everyone does, and my comment was bout his text manipulation, not capitalizations, if you re-read it. but thanks.ThuranX01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Since WPdoes have a policy,WP:NAME, why say it doesn't? "outta Lynwood" is a prepositional phrase, making "outta" a preposition, and the policy clearly says that prepositions in album titles are not to be capitalized. And, since Ryulong made an edit in favor of a position that he has loudly trumpeted ("blatantly obvious") and then protected it, which is against policy, why say he didn't do anything wrong? --Jibal02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confused concerning the issues. They have nothing to do with changing the title, but about the application of the Manual of Style to the title. --Mel Etitis (Talk)10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes,that's it. I didn't agree with you, so I'm confused. No. I get it, and I'm saying that since everyone's saying the MoS is unclear, it should default to the artist's intent. That's not hard to understad, I think. but then, i'm an idiot who's confused cause I'm not agreeing with you. Try this: No Way Out. A proper name(title), in which Out is capitalized, and should be. As 'Outta' is a slang melange of Out and of, we use the leading word, Out, which SHOULD be capitalized bye any MoS, since Adverbs and Adjectives get capitalized, see A tale of Two, not two, Cities. As such, it is IN keeping with the MoS to capitalize SOL, (hey, interesting... SOL.) as it is botha proper name (title), AAAAAAANNND since the word in question is an adverb, which SHOULD be capitalized anyways.ThuranX11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusion (capitalize Outta), but a couple of minor nits to your argument which might tend to confuse people about the MoS. In "No Way Out", out is the last word, and they are always capitalized. Also, the word "out" can be used as several parts of speech, but in this case is used as a preposition and would otherwise fall under the "no capitals" rule. So if we were to follow the MoS exactly, we'd have a lower-case outta. The main argument here beingWP:COMMONNAME and artist intent.Ryanjunk13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd already made that point; ThuranX has clearly not read the discussion before positng to it. He also thinks that "out" is an adverb, which is... well, peculiar. --Mel Etitis (Talk)14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to delve too deeply into grammatical discussion, but out can be used as an adverb, as in the phrase "stretched out" or "to eat out". It can also be a noun (as in baseball) or even a verb (to "out" someone about something).Ryanjunk17:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So far, then, the situation is this. The majority of admins here think that it's OK for Ryulong to choose one version of a page name to revert to and then to protect his move (despite the clear policy against that, as quoted above). They also think that our Manual of Style and naming conventions are overridden by other sources' Manuals of Style, so that our guidelines are essentially pointless.
There was edit warring. I protected the page to prevent further edit warring. And when the actual subject of an article uses a different spelling or style of capitalizationor anything we conform to that version. In fact, I just did some moves myself (that were discussed) to conform to a spelling that no one but the original company seems to use such that our article reflects that spelling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)21:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the authority for "we conform"?WP:NAME is an official policy document for capitalization, and has a specific section on album titles, which says nothing about "the actual subject"; if that policy is undesirable, it should be corrected, but it should be followed in the meantime. And the rest of the guidelines mentioned above are just guidelines, not policy, and when they conflict withWP:NAME should be corrected to match it or, better yet, be deleted. And someone should review just how we got into this sorry mess of having multiple pages describing these conventions. Also, if you both moved the page and protected it, I'm pretty sure that's a violation of admin privilege. --Jibal00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Since I said nothing about the right or wrong version, your cf is highly inappropriate (I happen to prefer the version he protected, although not for the reasons he gives). As for why, I am, likeMel Etitis, surprised that people here don't know. SeeWikipedia:Administrators'_how-to_guide: "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." I think the principle behind that is clear enough. AsRyūlóng has made it very clear both here and in the discussion page that he favors one version over the other, it was inappropriate for him to both change the name to his preferred version and protect it. --Jibal01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW,Mel Etitis had already given the explanation above, quoted from WP policy, so your "beg pardon" was off base: "The same restrictions that apply to full protection during a dispute also apply to move protection during a dispute (for example, admins should avoid favouring one name over another, and protection is not an endorsement of the current name)." So if you were going citem:The Wrong Version to anyone, it should have beenRyūlóng --Jibal01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Jibal, the version I protected was not the one "I prefer" as you state. Ihad never editted the page until I had to do history merges because of the move warring and as a result of my protection, the page is at the version from before the most recent move war. This whole conversation has gotten ontoWikipedia:Lamest edit wars ([31]) because of the amount of sheer energy going into discussing how Mel Etitis feels that I abused my administrative tools and how administrators are now discussing whether or not the O in the title should be capitalized because Weird Al uses the spelling or whether we should go with our own MoS that has already caused the article to be moved and cut-paste moved that led me to the original history merge, and then another move that I protected it for. The energy I'm expending in writing up this verbose response could have been better utilized in writing up an article I'm trying to get onto the front page as a "Did you know?". I would really prefer that everyone just drop this subject and get on with their lives.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Such a preference doesn't seem to me to be consistent with being an administrator; perhaps you should give that up. --Jibal03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I'm going to ask you to take a break from this thread, Jibal. You're misfactoring your comments, and getting progressively hostile and confrontational. I'm not an admin, so this is really just a friendly suggestion, but all the same, you should probably go work on the rest of your watchlist. you've added almost a dozen comments, and I've had to refactor a few, despite asking you to reply in the proper fashion on your talk page, though your point of replying right after out of place was duly noted.ThuranX03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the majority of editors here think that ADVERBS are NOT Prepositions. Once again, We can look at it like this: Straight Outta Lynwood has an implied verb, with some meaning akin to 'to travel', 'to go' 'to come' or so on. As such, 'straight' modifies the verb, referring to the nature of the path of travel, and 'out' modifies the adverb 'straight'. This makes 'out' a modifying adverb as well. Return to the 'slang terms by the primary word' argument I made above, we're back to 'adverbs get capitalized. Per section 9c, Harbrace college handbook (1986), "In titles and subtitles of books, plays, student papers, and so on, capitalize the first and last words and all other words except articles, coordinating conjunctions, prepositions, and the 'to' in infinitives." As such, Straight and Outta comprise an adverbial phrase/clause, and qualify for capitalization. Finally, the move to talk pages of SOME but not all of those involved (I certainly got NO notice to participate) when it starts to go against you is highly unethical. Bring the conversation back here directly. Thank you.ThuranX22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WhatMel meant was that he and I took our more generic discussion of which part of speech "out" could be to our talk pages. We aren't discussing the future of Wikipedia vis a visStraight Outta Lynwood in some smoky back room, don't worry.Ryanjunk00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
But that topic was being discussed here. And I think you've reached the wrong conclusion. Consider that, in "pull it out", "out" is a preposition, but in "pull out", "out" is an adverb. So there's a question of whether the context is "drive the car straight out of Lynwood" (preposition) or "drive straight out of Lynwood" (adverb). The latter is more likely, but the ambiguity is yet another reason why the current policy should be abandoned (as it has been de facto on other pages) and titles should be used verbatim. --Jibal01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. "straight" and "out of Lynwood" both modify "drive"; "straight" is an adverb, "out of Lynwood" is a prepositional phrase, "out" is a preposition (as is "outta"). --Jibal01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
uh, no. Out modifies straight. Further, There's multiple citations of wikipolicy and nonwiki sources for keeping it capitalized. But I must still be a confused idiot who is also worried about smoky back room cabalism. Done, do what you want.ThuranX02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, "out of Lynwood" is a prepositional phrase; "out" can't possibly modify "straight". And I have cited the wikipolicy,WP:NAME, that says it should not be capitalized, and that agrees with most manuals of style. If you have "multiple citations", please provide them. As for what you must be, I'll refrain from commenting. --Jibal03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
BLAST!! It's been a while and I really thought we'd seen the last of Jacob. Oh well. Spotting his socks is child's play these days, so there's no point bothering the checkusers. Personally, I think we should just go by the rule that if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, fucks like a duck, and pushes pro-Communist POV like a duck, it's probably Jacob Peters. No need to waste RFCU time, blocks after ANI reports should be the norm. Like here :) Best,MoreschiRequest a recording?10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh... as even the fate ofhis namesake hasn't deterred him from his pro-Stalinist revisionism, I doubt we've seen the last sockpuppet making edits along the lines of "... most historians now agree that no one was killed in theGreat Terror, and only threekulaks were slightly injured."MastCell20:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the year 2050 will roll along and our erstwhile red buddy will still be frothing away, until his dying breath, that Stalin was not really a dictator. Yawn. You bore us JP, come up with something more interesting. -Merzbow04:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked this user indefinitely and am currently checking with the developers to see if there is some way to disable outgoing email from this account.Naconkantari04:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
At 16:44, March 14, 2007, blocked74.102.9.107 (talk·contribs) for three hours after two vandalism edits within the same minute (no other recent vandalism, only a single, low-level warning, no time for the warning to even be read).
At 16:33, March 14, 2007, blocked82.198.252.5 (talk·contribs) for three hours after user was given a single, final warning against vandalism in a content dispute and then made the disputed change again.
At 16:32, March 14, 2007, blocked75.6.215.83 (talk·contribs) for three hours after user was given a single, final warning in a content dispute and then made disputed changes twice more.
At 16:29, March 14, 2007, blocked66.44.130.162 (talk·contribs) for 31 hours, although the user did not vandalize since receiving a recent final warning and had not vandalized in eight hours.
At 15:53, March 14, 2007, blocked209.247.5.78 (talk·contribs) for 3 hours after user received just a level 1 warning and a level 2 warning, and then vandalized again.
At 15:50, March 14, 2007, blocked71.243.153.55 (talk·contribs) for 31 hours after user made two vandalism edits, received just a level 1 warning and a level 2 warning, and had not vandalized after the level 2.
At 15:44, March 14, 2007, blocked198.161.37.135 (talk·contribs) for 3 hours after user received a level 1 warning and had not vandalized since the warning.
The log is full of these incidents, but these are sixteen inappropriate blocks over the course of one hour. The log is full of blocks before adequate warnings have been given, immediate blocks upon a single incident of vandalism, indefinite blocks of usernames after a single vandalism edit, and excessively long blocks of shared IPs. I spoke with Naconkantarihere but saw no indication that anything would change, so I am reporting it here.TomTheHand21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
block 1: Short 3hr block for two rapid fire vandalisms? seems ok to me.Block 2 and 3: Again, seems ok, 3hrs is a short block to cool off vandalismBlock 4 and 5: user made disputed edits AFTER a final warning. Short block = ok to me. Block 6 and 7: see block 2 and 3.Block 8-11, again, see blcoks 2 and 3.Blcok 12 registered users should be held to a higher accountability than anons. I disagree with indef, but I haven't looked in depth into it.
etc. etc. None of these blocks is for more than 31 hours, a suitable cool off period. Every single one of those users is a vandal, some repeat times, some clearly violating the rules, others less clearly so, but none of them constructively editing. I don't really see the problem here. If they were all indef blocks you'd have a valid complaint but come on....complaining over 1 hour and 3 hour blocks?⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
PerWP:BLOCK, "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." That means that blocking a user who has made one edit is a violation of blocking policy. PerWP:AIV, a user should receive a proper set of warnings, including a final warning, and should vandalize after the final warning, before being listed. That implies that they should be warned, including a final warning, and continue to vandalize, before being blocked. PerWP:VAND, vandalism is NOT an NPOV violation. A user has no business giving someone vandalism warning for a content dispute, and an admin has no business blocking someone for a content dispute. Again per WP:BLOCK, dynamic IPs should be blocked forup to 24 hours, and logged-in users shouldstart at 24 hours. It is implied in WP:BLOCK that blocks of shared IPs, such as those at schools, should be shorter and be given out more carefully.TomTheHand22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
School vandalism is caused by kids who are bored and in the library on a computer for 45 minutes. Every time there's a one-hour break between vandalism, the next block should be considered an "isolated incident." Any block longer than necessary to get that kid bored and make him or her move on is harming the school.TomTheHand22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is far too tolerant of school vandals as it is, and it hurts the project. I daresay that anon users create more problems than they solve. Looking at some of these contribution logs, there remain vandalism edits to be cleaned up, even with as quick as a gun as Naconkatari's. E.g.,[32]. It's safe to say someone making plainly vandalizing edits from a school account isn't likely to start making legitimate edits in the next three hours.
So when did policy change to say it's ok toWP:BITE anon-IP editors? Frankly, I wouldn't mind requiring registration for all editors, but right now, that's not our policy. Blocking for one incident of vandalism, and getting one's back up when challenged, are both abuse of administrative power.Αργυριου(talk)00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware that we now block editors for vandalism on sight. Am I honestly being told that this is now standard operating procedure? The whole warning thing... we don't do that any more? Nine out of the above sixteen blocks were in response to exactly one recent vandalism edit, and only one of those was a school. Setting aside tolerance for school vandals, the other eight were the verydefinition of an isolated incident.TomTheHand22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, but I once got31-hour blocked for "edit-warring" without a warning for restoring my own talk page three times when someone else was repeatedly blanking it, and my appeal was denied. So Wikipedia editors block without warning for a lot less than someone deliberately disrupting article space; someone who makes anedit like this isn't intending to contribute positively to Wikipedia. --TedFrank22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that Naconkantari has seen the exact same edits before and is blocking as a preventative measure, which is the purpose of blocks anyway. A lot of school vandals come day after day and make the same changes. Even if the IPs are different, they're still probably the same person. Has Naconkantari been notified that this is being discussed here? They're probably willing to explain themself.Natalie22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask administrators to please look at the above incidents, as well as Naconkantari's block history in general. I understand that you're assuming good faith on Naconkantari's part, but please also assume good faith on my part: I am honestly trying to bring a serious problem to your attention here. I had never had any encounter with Naconkantari before this. I have explained above how the blocks violate blocking policy, but I'll reiterate below:
Blocks have been in response to isolated incidents of vandalism, including blocks without warning of IP addresses that have never edited Wikipedia before.
Blocks have been of excessive length. Per blocking policy, 31 hours is too long to block a dynamic IP, and an indefinite block for one vandalism edit by a logged-in user is inappropriate as well.
The blocks above are contrary to what WP:BLOCK says explicitly. I would appreciate a response from anyone explaining either why they do not violate WP:BLOCK or under what circumstances WP:BLOCK should not be followed. If, as some people have suggested, these blocks thatappear to be of isolated incidents are in fact part of a campaign against an active vandal, I would appreciate an explanation of the circumstances. No pattern is obvious looking at the edits. Please do not simply say "school vandalism isn't an isolated incident", as that can only possibly apply to one of the above blocks. Please explainall blocks that appear, at first glance, to violate blocking policy.
I'd also like to reiterate that I have not cherry-picked Naconkantari's block history to find the sixteen worst blocks. I just looked at a one hour period. Please extrapolate out; if a half of these are iffy, it is a serious problem for such an active blocker.TomTheHand23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole point in the blocking policy is to prevent further disruption, it is not a rigid set of rules and indeed the section your complaint seems to rely on is a section marked quite clearly as a guide. Admins are expected to apply common sense as to when a block may or not be appropriate. --pgk07:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is acceptable to apply dozens of blocks per day to isolated incidents of vandalism then the guide should reflect such. I acknowledge the need for admins to be able to make case-by-base decisions on what particular situations requite, but blocks should generally follow the guidelines laid out in the blocking policy. I am not complaining about a handful of questionable blocks, but about what Naconkantari spends all of his or her time on Wikipedia doing.TomTheHand09:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd not have a problem with that block and certainly not enough to go and undo another admins actions without first consulting but merely diving in and declaring myself to be right (the opening of a wheel war if both admins insist they are in the right). The user was warned and continued, the edits clearly weren't of the "test" type, deletions of content from disconnected pages, deleting content from the user pages of a user who had warned.WP:AGF only goes so far and I personally cannot see anyway that user could be perceived as being here to do anything but disrupt. As to the issue of the block notice, I can hardly see it as relevant for an account which had only done vandalism (I know other admins differ on this point), but that is only a procedural issue and sincewikipedia is not a bureaucracy doesn't invalidate the block. --pgk14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with Naconkantari's blocks. Instead of "blocks should generally follow the guidelines laid out in the blocking policy", the policy should reflect actual practice. I routinely block school-boy vandalism with no or minimal notice, usually for 15 minutes to 3 hours, but longer if it seems called for. I block whenever I think it will prevent further vandalism, and plan to continue unless there is a consensus that I should not.Tom HarrisonTalk14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that we should change WP:BLOCK to support 31 hour blocks of IPs without warning upon the first incident of vandalism, but as the majority here do appear to support that sort of block, I agree that WP:BLOCK should absolutely be brought in line with actual practice.TomTheHand15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the blocks may have been a bit quick, but for the majority of the cases I will endorse them. I cannot see everything which has taken place here, but one very real possibility is that some of the IPs blocked are vandals returning with a new IP to continue their juvenile nonsense, and blocking those immediately is quite justified. Although a naive look at only the block log and talk page will make those blocksappear hasty, there is frequently a deeper story than just the one vandalism edit. Dealing with vandalism really wastes a lot of our time and resources, and putting the vandals out of action quickly is quite justifiable. I also think that a person subject to a block like this is not going to be upset the same way that a person blocked for, say the 3RR will be. They probably think its loads of fun that an administrator got their attention and they got to test the Wikipedia defenses to the breaking point. I think we should be tougher and quicker when it comes to blocking people for vandalism (though I also advocate more conservatism when it comes to blocking people for disruption.)Sjakkalle(Check!)14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Naconkantarihas said that the above blocks were not part of any campaign against a particular vandal, but instead is part of a personal policy to block anyone who knowingly vandalizes.TomTheHand17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've postedhere to try to start a discussion about if we need to make changes to the blocking policy. I think this discussion needs to continue for longer than ANI will let it; it will fall off the top of the page in a few days. If the above sorts of blocks are OK, the policy needs to reflect that. I hope that everyone who participated in this discussion will be willing to move over to WP:BLOCK and work on a revision of the policy.TomTheHand15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Note also that contribution histories for people with usernames may be misleading if their vandalism includes creating and re-creating pages that end up being speedy-deleted. The disruption they create won't be as evident after the pages disappear. --TedFrank03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, Naconkantari's stated position is "any vandalism = immediate block", so all of these "well this is acceptable, assuming that there's extra vandalism here that the logs don't reflect" posts don't reflect the reality of the situation.TomTheHand12:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've blockedUser:Gwenboy indefinitely, as he appears to be engaged in a sophisticated hoaxing campaign. Edits such asthis one, linking to anarticle created by the user, seem plausible (the article even cites several sources), but from everything I can find are completely false. Need a sanity-check on reasoning, and also we should be looking out for hoaxing, seems to be quite a bit of it recently, and this subtle kind can be terribly hard to root out.SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I went ahead and deleted the article before I read this message. The entire article is unsourced if you ignore the fake references, and this seems like exactly the kind of thingsWP:BLP says we should take down. Did I misunderstand something?Xiner (talk,email)15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the official policy on article sandboxes? WhenEssjay controversy was protected yesterday, I made asandbox page for two veryspecific purposes, linked off the Talk page (include an image yay/nay, and where; and the placement of ONE sentence). my aim was to hash out the stuff amicably there rather than have article edit warring another week.User:QuackGuru, who has been very contentious on the Essjay talk page (and posted here on ANI previously, two days ago), has been... alternately I think trying to help, but has been hindering equally. Hisown user page is a hyper-sourced copy of the Essjay article now also. what is the proper decorum/handling/rules/policy for development sandboxes? I ask because Gwen Gale and I both agreed to Speedy delete request the sandbox I made, but QuackGuru is nowcontesting my desire to delete the sandbox I created. We decided to remove it after he added a prominent banner on thearticle talk page advertising it. What to do here? -Denny05:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect, you don't own the article. Once other folks started working on it, the CSD G7 criteria you were attempting to invoke disappeared. I hope you can work out your content dispute amicably. -CHAIRBOY (☎)05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I just wanted to be clear then on that--hence the posting here. We are just trying to minimalize any conflict I think on this issue since it's so contentious and so many people have already disrupted wikipedia by jumping guns on the article and related pages... are there any sandbox-related sorts of policies I can refer to? Since BLP stuff is a consideration also I am curious for that angle as well. -Denny05:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, two separate POV forks for a highly contentious article are acceptable? Did I misread the guideline?Risker05:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats my concern also, and why I posted here. If I have to MfD my sandbox, I'll happily do that if it's the right way. -Denny05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no special policy for article sandboxes, and thus they are treated just like any other page. If you would like to work on content by yourself, an offline version is the only way to go. --bainer (talk)12:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Geez, if you have a sandbox in your own userspace then if someone wants to change it they can make their own copy. It is about having a place to work on your own ideas, not about owning.HighInBC(Need help?Ask me)16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not a personal attack. I recommend that you provide sources for the articleAgitprop. My advice is to read first corinthians chapter thirteen in the Bible. You'll be happier if you don't read ill intent in others so easily.WAS 4.25008:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
When did Wikipedia become a christianity missionary center and proselytizing business? SInce when do we recommend people find jesus before editing?ThuranX15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You can read the bible without finding Jesus. I've read parts of it as literature, and of course half of it also figures importantly into Judaism.Natalie15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Then [Jesus] turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." (Luke 7)
Samdira, my use of that term was not a personal attack, and I believe I used the word correctly in that context... but I'm sorry if you felt attacked personally, it certainly wasn't my intention. Cheers! --User:RyanFreisling@16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
His talk comments recently look increasingly like trolling. He's been blocked for 3RR but I wonder if something more should be done regarding the hostile approach.MRSC •Talk13:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Over the past week, various IP's and one user, who I suspect to be the same person, have been repeating the same vandalous edits over and over again despite being reverted, and when a higher level of warning is issued to that IP, they have switched to another. Now, they are using several IP's, each with only one edit. I am unsure how to proceed.
I don't feel it would be welcome or productive for me to bring the matter up with him, as I was involved in a conflict with him sometime last year (in which he decided I was a pharmaceutical industry 'shill'). Please note that Ombudsman is currently subject to anArbCom-imposed probation due to his history of tendentious and disruptive editing.TenOfAllTrades(talk)22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically (and it's a rule I disagree with), he's allowed to remove whatever he wants from his talk page. His implication that they are vandalism is wrong, but still it's his talk page :(⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, for reference, the probations states"Ombudsman is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing" so that wouldn't apply to his talk page.⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Me three; the only time I've ever removed anything from my talk page as vandalism is when it's along the lines of 'U SUCK'; I see nothing nearly as bad here.Veinor(talk to me)23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, they're not vandalism like he claims. Nothing wrong with someone telling him to play nicey nice. But think about it this way: He obviously doesn't want anything negative on his talk page right? Wouldn't he just remove your message/warning about edit summaries the same way that he's remove the other ones?⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify—yes, my concern was about the incivil implications of the edit summaries. They imply (pretty directly, and completely inaccurately) that the editors whose comments were removed are vandals. I fully agree that an editor can remove whatever comments he wants to from his talk page, as long as he's polite about it.TenOfAllTrades(talk)00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that he is of course welcome to remove any comments he sees fit; if he does so with a civil edit summary. Just as long as he takes the advice, there's no problem.TenOfAllTrades(talk)00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this has probably come up before, but isn't this an inappropriate username, for the same reason as 'Administrator' would be? —Dan |talk23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so, because we don't have any roles named "Ombudsman" (that I know of). As far as I understand it, the policy is to prevent people from pretending or tricking other people into thinking that user has abilities they don't have.Natalie23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that new users who don't realise that there is no "ombudsman" role have been mislead. This has been debated in the past (e.g.,[40][41][42], and has been requested to change it[43]. --Limegreen00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It would appear at least one anonymous editor was bold enough to query the authority implied by Ombudsman's moniker.[44] Makes you wonder how many more interacted with him and his "extreme and troubling positions", and made a similar assumption without checking...Rockpocket 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Should probably read the diffs produced by the previous editor rather than reproduce them, sorry.Rockpocket00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe so. For all I know Ombudsman may be the fairest of all admins, but it does concern me. We need a proper discussion.Xiner (talk,email)15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Rebroad came to the Person article early today and completely ignoed that it was a contoversial article.
He went to the disambig page, andedited it and thenmoved the Person page, "as per distinction on disambiguation page" a distinction of course, that he created.
He then edited the Person page redirecting it toPerson (disambiguation) which went against long standing consensus and kept non-admins from being able to undo his move.
I've already listed undoing the move as an uncontroversial move at Wikipedia requested moves (because if someone wants it done, then can request it as a controversial move).
The whole idea of renaming it is silly if you look at the article or the talk page--the new name isn't appropriate much anyway, since the article keeps shifting between philosophy and rights associated with being a person (and people keep trying to split it).
But I'm really concerned by this editor's edits to the article. The entire process of the renaming not only ignored that the article was controversial and that splitting it and renaming it had been discussed, but was done incredibly deceptively, editing the disambig page and then using the disambig page as an excuse to change the name, when really, you don't rename an article because a disambig page says something anyway.
Then further blatantly going against consensus and making sure that an admin was needed to undo the move--the entire thing comes very close to vandalism, too close for my comfort. I'm trying very hard to AGF, but it's very hard for me to believe that this was just an experienced editor who came to the article (these are Rebroad's first edits to Person) and had such a strong point of view that he moved a controversial article and lied in an edit summary and so on and so on.
I'm obviously involved, I'm been working on undoing the edits, because if these changes are ones that are going to be made, they'll need to be suggested and gain consensus--something they don't have now. And I've obviously been an editor on the article before, though I haven't edited it recently, and I have opinions about the article and where it should go.
I'd really appreciate if someone could weigh in on this--this is really troubling to me, but I recognize that I'm involved and so... Thanks.Miss Mondegreen |Talk12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say I found the disambiguation page quite well laid out. It's not appropriate forPerson to remain a redirect, however, so I'd actually move the disambig page over. I'm not sure many people think philosophy when they think about the term. But that's just me.Xiner (talk,email)16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a nice disambig page. And I'm one of the people who really thinks that this page needs a major overhaul and that the disambig page should probably be located at person, but this is a controversial article. No name change proposals have gone through--no content overhauls have gone through, and moving the disambig page to person has not gone through. Consensus hasn't been achieved and even if I agreed with everything this user did, I'd still want it undone so that it could be done properly, and I'd have real problems with the way it was done. The move back hasn't gone through yet (an admin is needed to do that, and apparantly I didn't give enough of a rationale) and I have an enormous problem with a person getting around consensus by moving the article and editing the namespace so that it can't be moved back. Uncontroversial moves says
"If there is any prior discussion as to the name of the article please link to it. If there is any possibility that the proposed page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section. If the move location appears as a red link you should be able to move the article using the move button of the top of the article's page"
This user has been around Wikipedia for years and should understand the difference between controversial and uncontroversial moves. The user was new to the article, and should have read the article and the talk page before moving it. If the user did, the user should have realized that the name wasn't appropriate and that there was consensus against moving the page, that the page had been tried to be moved before and to more applicable names and they hadn't gone through. The user didn't even move it to the proper spelling of philosophical, and only when the user came back hours later was this fixed. The user hasn't commented on the talk page once or made any other edits--all of this is very troubling to me.
And, in the meantime, the article sits in limbo, person is a disambig page and while this may bring editors back to the article (as it did me, I haven't had the time recently), I'm not working on the article now, I'm working on cleaning up this mess, and my time would be better spent editing or working on the proposals that everyone had last sorta agreed on.Miss Mondegreen |Talk22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
these have all been edited in Serafin's style, on the exact same articles, and include the exact same insulting edit summaries. Some times he even signsAndrew which is what he signed when he wasn't blocked. He has been permanently blocked from both the German and Polish wikipedias for the reasons he is blocked here.
Blocked both accounts indef; since we've clearly had persistent problems with that particular IP address (since December, at least), I've given that one a 2-month soft block as well. Feel free to review -- the IP is or seems to be shared, judging from WHOIS, but I'm having trouble finding evidence that anybody else is using it, these days. –Luna Santin (talk)23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to question this block a bit, although I see it was done in good faith. Being uncivil is generally not a blockable offense, and alerting users that an image they have uploaded has been marked for deletion does not meetWP:CANVAS, I think. In fact, there are bots that do just that, no? I would consider lifting the block.IronDuke20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The users were of course already contacted by Abu badali regarding the image. Usually the standard no source/or whatever image tag. Example, abu's image tagging messagehere, RFC spamminghere.Garion96(talk)21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Point well-taken. Nevertheless, reminding users of an issue they are already aware of is not necessarily a violation ofWP:CANVAS. Also, I'm not sure blocks are really called for in CANVAS and CIVIL cases, unless they are extreme.IronDuke21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The above user who is currently blocked (and has his block extended on March 9 for block evasion) has created a sock to get around there block (SndrAndrss10(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)) - looking at the contribs its fairly obvious, and a check user case has already highlighted a number of other socks. I am going to indef blockUser:SndrAndrss10 as a sock, but would like comments as to whether it would be a good idea to further extend the block of SndrAndrss for continued block evasionRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I would fully support a considerably longer block. User appears to have a long history of bad behavior.IronDuke20:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth, the original blocks were for making unilateral changes to football templates and 3RRing. The new sock seems to be making brand new templates, not disrupting old ones. So while it is definitely block evasion, I'm not seeing any other blockable acts by the new account.—dgiestc20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I understand that, but this is the second time its been an issue with the current block, which is why I feel an extension is required, the 1st time, certainly I agree it should just have been a reset block, however, continued abuse of his block merits an extension in my opinionRyanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As Ryan noted, this isn't the first time this has happened. When he uses the unblock template, he admits to using sockpuppets and says he will stop if he is unblocked. He shouldn't have to be unblocked to stop using socks. He shouldn'tbe using socks.IrishGuytalk20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I need another admin take a look at the absurdity of the user that is the subject of this report. He has declared we can do nothing to block him because he'll just rack up 100's of IPs. He trolls from page to page, complete with photo-illustrations of this "benjiwolf" character that he is playing (see the report above) and has already used 13 IPs and one (to our knowledge) registered account to avoid blocks. I quite honestly don't know what to do with this one, as range blocks will have a heap of collateral damage. On top of all this, I'm leaving in the morning forSpring Break and will not likely have much time to invest in this over the next week. You can find the first SSP reporthere. Thanks,auburnpilottalk03:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to second AuburnPilot's request. Basically,User:Benjiwolf has abandoned his accounts and is editing from a bunch of IPs, mostly from the 83.78.*.* and 83.79.*.* ranges, as well asUser:129.132.239.8. He's been trolling the talk pages of a couple of articles, includingTalk:Ann Coulter,Talk:Glyphosate, andTalk:Polar bear. He just found his SSP case, and has made several strange posts there, with nice pictures of wolves:WP:SSP page on "Benjiwolf". A range block will cause too much collateral damage, but perhaps 129.132.239.8 could be blocked--it's been blocked as a Benjiwolf sock before.--Akhilleus (talk)03:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
However, Biophys has created an article which he titledInternet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" -User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page userCPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on theInternet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD.⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I want to protest nominating this aricle for deletion based on the false peraonal accusations by Vlad. The articleInternet troll squads and its talk page does not include a single word about any person. It was Vlad who decided that article is about him and Alex Bakharev. I have never claimed this anywhere. Ithink thatInternet troll squads is a very interesting and general topic. There is nothing personal here. Besides, I was not the person who opened this question. It was someone probably from Germany. SeeTalk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#InfiltrationBiophys19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Most likely it was you, Biophys, who used that proxy from Germany. Long before this anonymous message appeared, you posted information about troll squads on your user page when you had a conflict with me over FSB article editing (clearly for harrassment of me). So how you could reconcile the fact, that this anonymous user from Germany conviniently appears just in time when you have received a warning over your another uncivilty and Politkovskaya article was blocked by Alex Bakharev because of your edit warring with me? Moreover, why you then started discussion about KGB trolls in Wikipedia by inviting everyone to this discussion? Haven't you violated Wikipedia rule that we discuss articles, not editors?Vlad fedorov05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You said it because you wished to prevent yourself being penalized for violations of Wikipedia rules. Butyou have invited everyone to disccuss personalities of users of Wikipedia as KGB trolls.Vlad fedorov05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
AdilBaguirov has diverted a whole section on a talk page to personally attacking me:[45][46]
For those of you who know the history, Elsanaturk, Atabek, and Adil have continuously thrown personal attacks against me, and they have been warned by admins several times not to do it again.
He doesnt even know what hes talking about, just his usual OR. For example, not only is he attacking me, but all of his information is wrong. He is not distinguishing the Iranic culture that is till within the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Russian culture that is still within the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Turkic culture which is still in the Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I left a note next to his original edit, and now that you remind me I'll notify both involved editors on their talk pages. --Tony Sidaway21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, it is not the first timeuser:Azerbaijani makes up things and directs it against everyone who opposes his disruptive editing (which is a case of its own -- and by the way, we are all part of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom that goes on right now). From those two diffs he provided, I failed to understand, what he considers as a "personal attack"? If telling him that his so-called DNA information, which uses a Persian-language Iranian state-run news agency as an only "source", is POV and biased, or that he is not an Azerbaijani ethnically (which he never denied until now, and now has actually essentially confirmed it), can be considered as a personal attack, then how about these words of his in the same thread (to which I responded, and nowuser:Azerbaijani tries to present me as an "attacker"[47]: "The culture of us Iranian Azerbaijani's is vastly different from the culture in the Republic of Azerbaijan. If you knew anything about Iranian Azerbaijani's, you would have known that! Your culture is completely different than ours, you have gone through 80 years of Soviet occupation, and you assume that we have the same culture? This is ridiculous.I am Iranian, dont worry about me so much about me." Here he personally assaults the entire nation of Azerbaijan, and by the way, note that he admits being Iranian, not Azerbaijani.
He goes on much further with his insults and attacks in an older edit on January 2, 2007[48]: "There is not Republic of Azerbaijan if thats what you mean,the nation is fictitious and it is founded on one lie after another. Now you are not only trying to take our land but take away our rightful name too?Stop with your POV edits all over the place!". As you can see,user:Azerbaijani simply loves to insult everyone based on national basis and then, adding insult to injury, accuse the victim of his aggression of "POV". What an ingenuity!
Also, note that just above this complaint,user:Azerbaijani is listed as a party to another case of disruptive editing[49]. It looks like he read that, and while responding to it, decided to drag unrelated people on unrelated cases into that. No thanks, don't want to be part of this game. But for such words about "ficticious" nation of the Republic of Azerbaijan, he, and not anyone else, should be reprimanded. --AdilBaguirov23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
What is it with you guys and focusing on each other's ethnicities? Do you really think anybody on this whole project besides those of you who are parties to the arbitration case cares about whether you're Turks, Armenians, or Lapplanders? Adil, your comment which said "user "Azerbaijani", had you been a real Azerbaijani, you would have known that Azerbaijani culture is as different and unique from the Iranian culture as any other culture of the region" is, indeed, a personal attack.Picaroon23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
More of Adil's personal attacks! He knows as well as anyone that there are 20 million Azeri's in Iran. I'm sick of his continuous personal attacks and I ask the admins to apply Wikipedia's rules and punish him accordingly. My comments about the Azerbaijan were about its name, not any nation. I'm tired of this user. He says I'm fabricating evidence yet the two links are there for everyone to see. This user is known to use OR, POV, and PA. He has a history of this. And oh yea, do you know why I'm in Arbcom? Because users like Adil fabricated evidence about me. I never went through any dispute resolution to even be on an Arbcom. My name was added days later by Grandmaster, under false pretenses. The Administrators are aware of this fact.
Here is Adil's previous warning regarding civility and personal attacks:[50]
Personally I don't think either of you have. I'm not going to involve myself in this, but if you were my kids I'd spank you both and give you time-out for 'fussin.⇒SWATJesterOn Belay!07:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This user has been creating multiple useless templates and images and appears to only be interested in being disruptive. The user has also made some positive edits, but they don't seem to understand that we don't need templates telling people to write in big text as some users are legally blind.
I suggest the removal of all non-professionals (ie. podcastors, beach bums) to another page. A lot of the categories are nothing close for being professional.
Resolved
Relevant discussion at
