Yet another kid using Wikipedia as a free file host. 30 Images, and only images as user's contributions. SeeSpecial:Contributions/Malherbp Is there another way I could take care of this, aside from nominating all the images under CSD (which there really isn't a criteria for) or IFD them all or bring it here or apply for admin and delete them myself (which seems the lengthy of the solutions)? Or is just posting this here probably the best method? Thank you. --≈talk00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. He's put them (all?) onBroughton xc. --≈talk02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...which has been speedy-deleted several times in the last few days.Zetawoof^(ζ)03:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike Rosoft has apparently suddently started creating Willy on Wheels accounts, suggesting the password to their account has been cracked. This needs urgent investigation and attention. See[1] for evidence. Unless proved otherwise, it would make sense to regard all their most recent edits and other actions as suspicious.--The Anome01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG, you think an admin would at least know how to hide it better!Have you tried contacting him?Cbrown102301:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why I find it so suspicious... --The Anome01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... why would it be necessary to create them from an admin account, if it were cracked? Besides, the interspersed contributions seem fine. -Amarkov^blah_edits01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He's creating and blocking pre-emptively,KillerChihuahua^?!?01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the alert but there's no issue here. It looks like he was just trying to be preemptive. Check the blog logs for these new accounts. Each reads (e.g.) "01:29, 21 December 2006 Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wiki on Wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Registered by me to prevent its use by vandals)."Newyorkbrad01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, unusual behaviour by Mike's normal standards... Why create WoW account preemptively? There are million upon millions of such accounts which could be possibly created, so trying to anticipate new ones and creating them is pointless. --The Anome01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming thatis unusual behavior, whatpossible use would someone get from that? People don't crack an account and then make pointless creations and blocks, because that would only draw attention to it. -Amarkov^blah_edits01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At least two of them are to protect from vandal registration.No threat, just some protectiveness of Wikipedia.Cbrown102301:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Would someone care to go unblock him now? -Amarkov^blah_edits01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- ()01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I would have suggested pre-emptive blocking of the Willy accounts. But I got caught in a personal recordSIX edit conflicts, so screw that. We need to do something about the size of this page. –Chacor01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed the fact that they're already blocked by Mike. -Amarkov^blah_edits01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean I would've suggested he's creating them so he can pre-emptively block them. –Chacor01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked on his talk page what is going on?Titoxd^(?!?)01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • yes, i did right after i asked if anyone notified him. (the second post)Cbrown1023
• he is probably creating and blocking them so no one else does it later we need to assume more good faith here reallyYuckfoo02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Copying explanation from my talk page

No, my account has not been hacked. I have looked at the history ofWikipedia:Suggested usernames, and registered three of the WoW accounts listed there and not yet existing (and blocked two of them with an explanation of "Created by me to prevent its use by vandals"). I even posted a message to that extent toUser talk:Misza13. I apologize for the trouble I had caused by my actions - they were probably pointless. -Mike Rosoft02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to Mike; I'm glad my paranoia was unwarranted. Can someone please archive the top of this page, so we can avoid any more edit conflicts? --The Anome02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact it's not that unusual behaviour: other doppeIganger accounts I had created (and blocked) include:User:Mike Rosoft on wheels,User:Mikerosoft,User:MikeRosoft,User:Mike rosoft,User:Mlke Rosoft,User:MIke Rosoft,User:James Wales,User:Jlmbo WhaIes, andUser:Wikipedia@wikipedia.org. -Mike Rosoft02:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created and blocked some likely imposter accounts of myself as well.Actually, I don't think I blocked all of them ... I just made sure to register them with scrambled passwords so that no one could ever use them.--Cyde Weys04:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong here. An RfA upon the first edit, and then a support from an anon after closing? And then a note on his talk page about being a respected sysop? I have no idea what is wrong, but something is. -Amarkov^blah_edits04:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mudkip" is, how shall we say it, an Internet trolling meme phenomenon.Account is now indef-blocked; this matter appears closed.--Cyde Weys04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TwoToweers just posted the Cplot screed tothe Village Pump (news) again; another sock, perhaps?Tony Fox(arf!)04:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, that was his first edit. (Second to userpage, third to welcome himself.) Blocked indef.04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hit the IP for a month, and indef'd a couple other socks.05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As expected, TwoToweers has now posted the usual attack diatribe on his user talk page. Can someone please delete & lock it ASAP? 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - I wouldn't be surprised if he does the same with the two other socks...

 Done.05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to nominateFly like a Raven for AfD, because it's an unreleased album, with little or no cited information about it. However, it's fully protected due to recent vandalism involving fanmade album art. Could an administrator fill out the AfD for me on the article, thus circumventing the protection, or if not, remove the protection so it can be AfD'd? After 10 days of full protection, I think it's ready to go back to editing, not that it belongs here anyway.^{On Belay!}09:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Knock yourself out.Viridae^Talk09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Knocked out, thanks.^{On Belay!}09:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wavessmelling salts*Viridae^Talk09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have two problems and I think the best way to describe them is to just say what I saw:

1. On my watch list I saw the articleFlu was changed.
2. Going to it I saw it was changed from being a redirect toInfluenza to being a redirect toInfluenza (Flu).
3. Then I sawInfluenza had been moved toInfluenza (Flu) and they were both marked as supposed to being on my watchlist but they weren't so problem one is my watchlist is ommiting the two articlesInfluenza andInfluenza (Flu) for some unknown reason.
4. I looked at the history andUser talk:Kunz506 made the moves, and has made other inappropriate moves and is a new account. He is problem two.WAS 4.25011:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The watchlist doesn't show articles with last edits of either moving or protecting. –Chacor11:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And why is that?It would seem useful. --Samuel Wantman11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably have to ask the devs or someone in the know about that one... –Chacor11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Influenza (Flu) moved back toInfluenza.Viridae^Talk11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And all the other articles moved have been moved back to their original place. Someone has warned them about the inappropriate moves already, but I am goign to drop another note.Viridae^Talk11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like it if my watchlist told when when something was moved, protected, or deleted. maybe the devs will give it to use for christmas!HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked indef a sock of bannedUser:DAde. Compare contribs ofDAde andAbc3. Cheers -- -12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good block. This sockpuppet's inclusion of quotations of theQu'ran related toMohammed Reza Taheriazar on theIslamist terrorism article (the same asUser:DAde had been doing for months) and edits surrounding Mormonism andPope Benedict XVI makes this a no-brainer case.(→Netscott)15:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blockedUser:Malber for a period of 48 hours for his continued disruption onWT:RFA and trolling onUser talk:Chacor. He has been blocked before –[2] previously for disruption and has been warned many times regarding that. He has probably removed all the warnings from his talk page/archives. However, I understand that ideally I should not have been the administrator to block him; I will leave it on the community to decide if he should be unblocked/his block shortened/remains blocked. I am leaving my computer now; and I will accept consensus. —16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the "trolling" onUser talk:Chacor is a npa2 warning forthis. -Amarkov^blah_edits16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How someone treats that comment by me would be subjective, I just noted that that would be a typical response from a typical troll. I've not made personal attacks against anyone, just noted that Malber's response would be what a "typical troll" would normally respond with. It's certainly up for interpretation, but I know what I meant, which is what has been laid out here. –Chacor16:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a personal attack, but some people do. I think we need to clarify that when most good faith editors/admins say "this person is a troll" they mean it as "this person is acting in bad faith" rather than just trying to call the person names. --W.marsh16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, you know, stop tossing the word around willy-nilly, especially with established editors?BTW, I do hope an admin has the good sense to overturn this block. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this block.The 'trolling' on Chacor's talk page is a very unfair description.A misguided NPA template isn't necessarily trolling, particularly as he was arbitrarily labelled a 'troll' in the first place.Troll is a perjorative term and should only be applied to those who clearly exist just to make trouble - this is not the case with Malber, who may be misguided and wrong at times, and can behave badly, but is not a troll. Malber didn't recieve a single warning with regards to his conduct, you just blocked him (when already involved in a dispute with him).Please consider undoing the block.Proto::►16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Note above, I did not "label" Malber a troll. I've only just noted that Malber's response would be what a "typical troll" would normally respond with, but certainly am not saying he's one. –Chacor16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir Nick definitely did, though, although it might be justified. -Amarkov^blah_edits16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If the user percieved something as a personal attack, the the NPA warning may have been in good faith. That action should be given little weight towards the decision to block, not sure about the other reasons for the block.HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(cross-posted from Malber's talk with minor updating) Although I disagreed very strongly with Malber's position in the discussion atWikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Malber's age question, I believe this is a problematic block. In particular, as Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington suggests above, he was involved in an active dispute with Malber at the time and should not have been the blocking administrator. While the weight of opinion in the discussion on the "age question" was against the question continuing to be asked, it can hardly be said that Malber's continuing the dialog was inherently disruptive, and while some of Malber's comments (particularly the suggest that Sir Nicholas should be desysopped) displayed a far from exemplary degree of civility, I saw nothing going so far as to warrant a block. I would support lifting the block, although I would also strongly suggest that the matter be dropped at that point.Newyorkbrad16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support both suggestions, with a strong reminder to Malber to improve his civility andWP:AGF a bit more (especially if indeed he "perceived something" that wasn't "as a personal attack"). –Chacor16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be wiser to review this block and solve the matter in a friendly way. Malber is not someone disruptive at all. -- -16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given his past block log (including multiple blocks for WP:POINT), you might want to reconsider that comment. –Chacor16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the block may have been better served as a firm warning.HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case than i hope it would serve ease tensions. -- -16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... umm...endorseopposereconsider. Personally, I think he behaved like a dick, and I sympathize with Nick's nervousness with the buttons regarding the issue. Still, the blockis problematic, especially since the Nick was on the other side of a heated discussion, and I'd support lifting or shortening, with a clear notice that the further discussion should be stopped. Regarding the troublesomeAfD RfA question which initiated all of this drama, I'd also endorse its (forceful if necessary) removal or rephrase.Duja►16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA, not AfD. –Chacor16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Administrators for dissection" :-)Duja►16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, threatening to enforce it that way is what caused the problem in the first place. Besides, there's something kinda resembling consensus if you squint hard enough that the question is actually bad to ask. Not nearly enough to base a block from. --Amarkov^blah_edits16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess I didn't express myself well — there wasn't really a consensus, but if so many people find it unacceptable and the issue causes so much wikidrama for no apparent benefit... Don't Do It, Then. At least that would be my reasoning if I were on Malber's place, YMMV.Duja►16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Malber on process grounds--we cannot allow blocks by an admin involved in a dispute.However, I do not condone his behavior and have warned him not to continue in his previous manner.Chick Bowen16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this, is that despite the fact that many people agreed that it was a disruptive question, there was no concencus on it whatsoever. The other problem I have is thatMimsy said this[3] and Malber clearly didn't contribute to RFA after that time.-16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now; it's done.Nick blocked; he probably shouldn't have, but I unblocked, and that's the end of it.I'm closing this debate.Chick Bowen17:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nobody has mentioned the fact that Malber has at least once reverted an RfA to reinclude the age question[4]. Malber, by his own admission asks a question regardless of whether he will be !voting on the RfA and has statedthere is a perception outside of Wikipedia that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands. I certainly think the age question is a violation ofWP:POINT and despite being asked to stop by other users (ignoring comments on his talk page) he continued to disrupt Wikipedia by asking this question. I fully endorse the block by Nick. --17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

These edits probably ought to be deleted. --Masamage20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They're fictional characters. I'm not sure you can be libellous towards fictional characters. --Deskbanana20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really libel anyway, it's just vandalism. --W.marsh20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Prime Minister is a fictional character? What about the football player, the doctor, and the novelist? :P I'm inexperienced, so if you don't think it's libel, that's okay. There's definitely a real person in there, though. --Masamage20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like s/he wasdefinitely talking about thePrime Minister. --Masamage20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments aren't "libel" because they don't make a specific factual claim, but we certainly don't need them around.Newyorkbrad20:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

'Kay. I guess that makes sense, doesn't it? If simple name-calling was illegal, the world would be a scarily different place. o_o --Masamage20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your link only referenced one page so I thought you were referring to that page. --Deskbanana20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Darin Fidika (talk•contribs•page moves •block user•block log) has been openly active today, creatingUser:Darin Fidika (2) andleaving me a note signed by "Darin Fidika" from the accountUser:Tang Priest. He is on a campaign to win sympathy and get unbanned. Personally I am convinced that he cannot or will not understand and comply with our copyright policy, and so is appropriately banned, but of course anyone is welcome to review his talk page and/or contributions and reach your own conclusions.FreplySpang19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the various circumstances known to readers of this board,this edit to User:MONGO's talkpage struck me as a highly inappropriate way to raise the issue presented. The edit summary, though conceivably written in good faith, struck me as being taunting in nature and intent. Should an administrator respond and suggest that the issue be pursued, if at all, by other means?Newyorkbrad02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Zoe, Tom Harrison and I have all left messages.Thatcher13103:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good, thanks.Newyorkbrad03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we send this one to checkuser?MER-C05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• CyclePat is a member ofWikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, so he is merely acting on behalf of Cplot.--MONGO05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pat certainly picks them!I might have a quiet word.He's definitely not a sock, though, I've known him for ages.Guy(Help!)08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I am a member of AMA. Thank you and I appologize if my comment on Mongo's talk page set off bells. Cplot would like an RfC for his "unjust" block. To pass the RfC he needs a second nomination and would like to be unblocked so he may second the nomination and voice his opinion on this subject. However, because he has avoided a block by using another account (far away from the trouble), I would suggest (if possible) that access be granted but for ONLY his user page and the RfC. (Remaining status quo, or not allowing for an RfC because there may not be enough votes, because cplot could voice his vote, would not really be fair for cplot.) (Furthermore, comments on Cplot et All. could be gathered in one venue and would probably help the situation!) --CyclePat22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot, with all his socks, is a noxious and disruptive troll. I blocked him, and I strongly oppose unblocking him.Tom Harrison^Talk23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tom, we appreciate this concern. But, we still believe an RfC would be justified seeing as we both see that there may have been an unjustified "block" from the begining. (I think this could be discussed during the RfC if someone was to vouche to second it) --CyclePat23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure...good ahead and start an Rfc and there are 48 hours in which a second/third or even more editors can weigh in your and Cplot's evidence and decide if they want to join in the effort to unblock Cplot.--MONGO11:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to view my informal quickpoll on this userUser:Hipocrite/Cplot. An RFC on MONGO will not help Cplot be unbanned. As a member of the Association of Member AdvoRulesLawyers, you should know this.Hipocrite -«Talk»13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, the most recent sockpuppet attack on the Village Pump was 03:55, 21 December 2006, almost exactly 5 hours after CyclePat's plea that we unban this valuable user because he will certainly only edit to defend himself via RFC (of course, not an RFC on his own conduct - no no - an RFC on the person he has instigated a harassment campaign against.) I know the Association of Member RulesLawyers was known for Wikilawyering, but has Wikistalking been added to the repitoire?Hipocrite -«Talk»14:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat, please review the evidence that you have as well as the evidence on the Cplot sockpuppet page.It is overwhelming.Further, it no longer has anything to do with MONGO as at least 5 admins have stepped up and blocked his sockpuppets and support the ban.They have begun to delete and salt his talk pages.His original block is of no consequence and your continued pursuit of this is a waste of time as there is no remedy.--Tbeatty14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My original post that started this thread was not an objection to CyclePat's advocacy in principle, just his choice of forum (MONGO's talkpage) and what appeared to be taunting in the post and in the edit summary. However, I also agree that Cplot's and his socks' conduct is beyond the pale and that there is really nothing further to discuss about him.Newyorkbrad16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Consideringfour confirmed CheckUser requests and three weeks of continuous sock creation, the initial blocks appear to show good instinct.If you check theblock log, Cplot was originally blocked for 3RR violations and the block was made permanent when he unleashed the socks to start trolling. --StuffOfInterest17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to a slight correction ofStuffOfInterest here. It is only2 checkuser requests confirmed and those don't involve any edits by Cplot because Cplot has been blocked. So the only conclusions we can draw from the two confirmations is that the sockpuppets are connected: but connected to whom? At least one of the sockspuppets in the Cplot list is actually a sockpuppet of Tbeatty according to our checkuser probe, so there seems to be problems on both sides. I don't think we should be so afriad of Cplot that we try to stop an RfC. --USHLS, NSA, CIA,... but mostly BS23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked80.195.226.94 (talk ·contribs) for 24 hours for 3RR violation onRachel Weisz, but looking through his/her edits, it's clear that this account is on a rampage to make sure that no Jew could possibly be listed as English, as if there is some stigma with doing so. Very borderline anti-Semitic. After the 24 hours, this account bears watching.User:Zoe|(talk)02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having looked further into this user's edits, the term "borderline" does not need to be applied to his anti-Semitism.User:Zoe|(talk)02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One look attheir contributions, and its a dungload of anti-semitism. I would have preferred a longer block. Good job. —06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

She just slapped a suspected sock sign[5] on Tom Blackstone who I happen to know has a completely different ISP from Canuckster.64.229.184.8223:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that because you use those different accounts from different locations? ---J.S^(T/C)23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag says, it is "suspected that this user may be asock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Ottawaman" which is exactly what that account is. I don't care if you're making the edits yourself or asking your friends to do it on your behalf, the tag is correct. Now stop playing games.Sarah Ewart00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a tag for suspicious and pathologically fixated[6] contributors who smear others based on no evidence at all.70.48.205.16601:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does in fact have such a tag. it's on the users mentioned below.SirFozzie01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Should you be the first recipient of said tag? -- ()01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another account just popped in and added a link to Sarah's page.User:Lepag's only edit is to this page.SirFozzie01:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence...

• [7] "User:TomBlackstonez"
• [8] "User:Gomapleleafsgo"
• [9] "User:Canuckster"
• [10] "User:Canuckster

Compare the edits. It should be obvious to anyone. ---J.S^(T/C)00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a community ban on Canuckster/Ottawaman yet? There seems to be a sort of consensus, but no true community ban has taken place. Istrongly support said motion. -- ()01:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's already been done, but if not, Isupport a community ban. ---J.S^(T/C)01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is going on presently,support strongly.Daniel.Bryant^{[ T • C ]}01:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support; I lately see no focus in contributing to the encyclopedia constructively. Just attacking Sarah as much as he can.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support --Guinnog01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone storing these IP's to check for Open Proxies, etcetera? This seems like a concerted effort here. (especially since the IP is section blanking, etcetera)SirFozzie01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please seeWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman for the ever-expanding list. -- ()01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support with a view of contacting the user's ISP. Going too far. –Chacor02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked another one of his sockpuppets, so I agree with a community ban and contacting the user's ISP. --Core05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that two socks. --Core05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposed ban now applies to the main account, Neutralizer.Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'dSupport a community ban as well.Michael Billington (talk •contribs)08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - will make a great banned user.Khoikhoi08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The below is quoted from above ANI section (#User:Canuckster) regarding the same user(s) in relation to a community ban:-

For the sake of continuity,Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}08:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Essjay (talk ·contribs) placed five rangeblocks, set for anon. only, account creation blocked, and expiring 02:00, December 27, 2006. There's a couple of accounts that were registered in the /16 prior to the blocks, and they are listed on the SSP page.Daniel.Bryant^{[ T • C ]}02:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought it couldn't get any better? Well, Neutralizer is the sockmaster in all this, per his latest contribution to Essjay's talk page (the blocker of the range, see above). For those who don't know, this guy was banned at Wikinews, and this merely confirmed Sarah and my suspicions about this guy. I strongly urge that people follow the lead of Wikinews two third-level sections above and ban this guy. He's getting anabuse report for good measure sent to his ISP, as well.Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm ready to start anabuse report if anyone agrees... --SunStar Net^talk12:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mysupport of the community ban extends to the puppet-master. Whats the mop for if not to clean up dirt? File the abuse report to his ISP and inform them of the range-block.That will get thier attention. ---J.S^(T/C)17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So who are we to apply the{{banned user}} template to? Canuckster, Ottawaman, or Neutralizer? Or any combination of the three? -- ()18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I added an entry onWP:BU under Neutralizer. Fix it up as necessary, as I don't know the whole story. -- ()19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster (that's what the e-mail says) has sent me three e-mails first requesting that Sarah not go through with the ISP report because "the report would hurt other innocent people more than me and that I don't think this restriction on filing a report applies to me." Additionally, "[He] could lose [his] job if [we] go ahead with the ISP report. [He is] really sorry and [he] feel[s] really depressed. Please just wait awhile and [we]'ll see that [he] won't be back; [we] can always file the report if [he] do[es] break this promise." He then citesthis diff. Just toassume a little good faith here, and be nice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I received the same. Frankly, I had to control myself from laughing and typing out a retort bofore I simply asked him to desist from spamming me. -- ()23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been getting them, too. The last one said, "the reason I know I'm not a really bad guy is because I have a sponsor child (World Vision) in Haiti." LOLSarah Ewart23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here.Michael Billington (talk •contribs)23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I myself have gotten 5 emails from this user, claiming Sarah's manipulations, that he "couldn't sleep last night" because "An ISP report could cause problems for innocent people", and "I could lose my job if you go ahead with the ISP report." But here's the catch:User:Leaf06 (who is still claiming to be different from the other users) andUser:Canuckster both sent messages within 9 hours and, coincidentally, have thesame email address (surprise!). It appears that the range block is holding out quite well. -Patstuart^talk|edits22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 5? Lucky you...I'm well past double-digits.Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have shaken the user up, my idea would be to tell the user that should he return to his old ways that we send the ISP abuse report then -Cartman02au03:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done that - any more emails, or editing Wikipedia, and we send. Waiting to see if it holds.Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}05:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've received a few today too. Very well done for your sterling work Daniel. --Guinnog06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer/Ottawaman and I have reached an agreement that he will stop now and honour the community ban. He has also promised that he won't migrate again and restart abusing other Wikimedia projects. In return, I have agreed not to send a report to his ISP or take the matter any further. He understands that if he breaks this agreement, I will send the report to Bell Sympatico without any further warnings. I hope everyone is okay with this agreement as a resolution.
Ottawaman has apologised profusely and as a sign of good faith, he has identified another sockpuppet which we hadn't found. He also wants us to know that he asked Wikinews people he was friendly with to try to help him here on ANI. So, Wikinewsies, if you do come, it's not necessary.
Thankyou everyone for helping with blocking, reverting, tagging, supporting the ban etc. I'm really grateful for all the help everyone gave. I truly hope this is now resolved and that we all (Ottawaman, included) have a peaceful Christmas. :)Sarah Ewart16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that "Desist" email by me and your even more harsh one worked a treat. By the way, Sarah, see your email regarding the Abuse Report.Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In this edit,THB (talk•contribs•count) deliberately modified my words on a talk page, attributing to me remarks that I did not make.He did this to make aWP:POINT about the wiki process, asthis edit illustrates.I consider this to be a grave provocation, and perhaps the worst violation of wikiquette I've ever seen, to say nothing of a textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.As you can imagine, I am rather frustrated right now, so I'd like to ask someone uninvolved to take a look at the situation and take whatever action is appropriate... at minimum, this should include educating THB about the guidelines he violated; I am too irritated to trust myself to do even that much. --SCZenz02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quite beyond the pale.But I'm also "involved" here too, I suspect, so I'll do no more than leave this comment.Friday(talk)02:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the involved user by means of histalk page.Cbrown102302:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Let the record show that I ought to have done so myself, but I thought it best to take a break and walk away from the computer for a little while.There's not much he can contribute past the links, but I expect him to point out it was just a little illustrative joke, and no harm was done—I don't really think that's an accurate statement, personally, but dealing with this is up to someone else. --SCZenz02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki process is part of all of Wikipedia, and the notion of taking offense when one's contributions are removed for good cause is foreign to that process. That's a core value you'll never get around, no matter how long and hard you try. There's much room for debate—about how much certain comments really undermine the purpose of the desk, for example—but that's not the approach you're taking. -THB03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, it would be polite to attribute it to me.In any case, there is a very clear difference between misrepresenting/manipulating what other people say and removing harmful content from project pages. --SCZenz05:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

THB, regardless of context or the point you were trying to make,this was completely out of line.Chick Bowen06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, really, you should have just put your own reply/comment underneath SCZs rather than alter his post--Light current23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See alsothis earlier edit, which was subtle enough that I didn't catch it until just now, some hours later. --SCZenz06:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of these diffs should never have happened - THB, you say that the wiki process permits us to remove comments, but I'd suggest that in the case of your two edits here, you're disrupting wikipedia process by doing the fundamental wrong of changing the meaning of anther user's comments to suit your point of view.OK - removing other peoples' comments can be OK in exceptional circumstances, but never changing the meaning of them - it's important that you understand this fundamental idea.How can we get aconsensus if people can g around changing eachothers' comments?Mrtinp2307:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not subltle at all!. You could easily notice this one!--Light current23:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In this edit made December 5,[12], THB quotes the guideline against editing the comments of others. Since the user apparently knows the standard this does appear to be a case of intentionally making a point. -Will Beback ·† ·09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is too bad, especially since I note that TBH's post above shows him to be quite unrepentant and in no way self-motivated to avoid such behaviour in future. As an uninvolved admin, I've blocked him for 24 hours. This is not intended to punish, but to prevent future abuse by showing that the community doesn't accept it.Bishonen |talk09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Banned user has been actively sockpuppeting for weeks now.His vandalism isn't especially creative, which leads me to believe he is doing it merely for attention, which is why I stoppedtagging his socks a while ago.Today when I tagged an article for speedy as a recreation by Nintendude, he opened anAfD with another sock and proceeded to stuff it with many of his socks that have not been blocked yet (andUser:(aeropagitica) wisely closed the AfD early) which I think supports the theory he's looking for attention as he craves a more public outing than a quiet Speedy Deletion.Is there anything that can be done perWP:DENY? He's not a particularly effective vandal, but it's just getting old.--Isotope2317:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have checkusers had a crack at him?If he was static, could just block the originating ip.Syrthiss17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a checkuser has been done, but I did find his primary IP at one point.It's cable soit isn't completely static.The ISP he uses tends to change them every few months or so... still it could be a slowdown for a while.--Isotope2317:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I requested a Checkuser and I'd archive this if I knew how...--Isotope2321:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What isBigtop (talk ·contribs) doing?Is this some bot?User:Zoe|(talk)22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He has put in a couple of extremely vague anti-vandalism bot requests before, but all have been withdrawn or declined. Bigtop sometimes doesn't typically respond to talk messages. I don't think these edits are bot testing...I think he's just doing a lot of reverting without warnings.Alphachimp22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hejust responded. He's using Lupin's anti-vandalism tool.Alphachimp22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

moved toWikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Archive?. —Centrx→talk •23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know we give a great deal of leeway on User pages, but does anybody thinkthis is appropriate?I politely asked him to remove the inappropriate language, and he retaliated with a personal attack.User:Zoe|(talk)23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He has now made whatcould be construed as a death threat against me on the page, which I have reverted.Death threat or not, it's a personal attack, and if he keeps it up (having had no edits to article space), Iwill block him.User:Zoe|(talk)23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Swatted.No reason to put up with this.Antandrus(talk)23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you.User:Zoe|(talk)23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm requesting that this user (Oposx), be blocked for repeated vandalism. User has made 5 edits, and all 5 were vandalism and done within 5 minutes of each other. Edits include articles : Horse, anal masturbation, Adolf Hitler and Prehistoric warefare.ThanksDread Specter23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.Proto::►00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please delete my user, talk page and archives. I understand that they can still be accessed by admins if need arises, and I do not want to leave them public. —Hanuman Das00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been involved in a long ongoing dispute which has been submitted for arbitrationhere. Please do not act on this request until the outcome of this arbitration has been finished, as many of this user's edits are material to the complaint. -WeniWidiWiki00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is the users actions that are under complaint and they are leaving, I fail to see why you would need to keep the arbitration case open (having not read it yet). I also setrongly hope that right to vanish is not being overridden by an ongoing dispute.Viridae^Talk00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. A wider case may have had discussion on the user's talk page. Deleting it now may compromise evidence to be presented in the case. I wouldn't support deleting his talk page. And, also note that the main problem with deleting talk pages is that the main contributors to them aren't the user himself, but rather other users, whose contribs you're deleting. –Chacor00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, why should an ongoing dispute overridem:Right to vanish?Viridae^Talk00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case itself, only that it's been brought before AC as a request. If this user is not directly involved as one side of the disputealone (note emphasis), it's not far to the case to remove evidence. –Chacor00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have done everything except the User talk page. Onm:Right to vanish it saysDelete your user and user talk subpages. That wording is a little obscure, not entirely sure wether that means the user talk page may be deleted or not.Viridae^Talk00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the user talk pages - it will at least stop the harassment that the user is experiencing. If the edits are necessary for arbcom, they have the ability to look at the deleted edits anyway. Should the user continue to edit, his pages will, of course, be undeleted.Cowman109^Talk00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. It's right now not a full case yet. Evidence may need to be presented that was on the user's talk page. Can't support a talk deletion while the case is still being presented. –Chacor00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there still a case if they have left?Viridae^Talk00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving does not necessarily end a case. The history should be undeleted. If there is vandalism, you can protect the page. 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears so. Is their involvement in the dispute important now they have left?Viridae^Talk00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case myself, but it is possible that the case was not solely against this user. However, if there has been evidence which could be of use, in the history of the talk pages, then you're compromising the case. [after 4 edit conflicts!] –Chacor00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the case as it is so far, the user appears to be a small part of an ongoing dispute for which the arbitration was called. However, the request for arbitration has not even been accepted yet, and there is no guarantee that it will be.Viridae^Talk01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And there may be diffs from the user's talk page that are needed to present a case for such a case in the first place. With the talk page deleted the whole case is compromised. –Chacor01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment from an uninvolved user. This is a tough one. Chacor has made some good points here, and so has Cowman109. If I was an admin involved in a situation similar to this, I would probably have tried to get consensus here first for deleting a user talk page before doing it. --SunStar Net^talk00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone leaves in the middle of a dispute you have to be careful that they may not have really left. Socks or a resumption on this account may occur. I doesn't hurt to wait a few days to see what will happen, even if there is no active Arb case. A user talk page is a community shared page much more so than a user page or subpages. Right to Vanish can be abused. 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a certain four-capital-lettered user asked for his pages to be deleted a while back, but is still actively editing... –Chacor01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the user request and the reference above to harassment suggest there may be aspects of this matter that should not be discussed on-wiki. Cowman109 is an Arbitration Committee Clerk and I am sure that he will be sensitive to any issues raised by the pendency of a proposed ArbCom case.Newyorkbrad01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish is not really an Arbitration issue. Please checkhere for the current list of clerks (though Cowman has been doing a good job of helping out). 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice consensus. I am requesting that the talk pages and archives be restored and locked. This was an attempt to pre-empt arbitration and it looks like it worked.Hanuman Das' status on wikipedia is not material. If he/she wants to leave that is his/her choice. However, this user has been involved in a protracted dispute that has involved numerous other editors, and the content of the user's talk page is pertinent to the discussion. After the arbitration - if it is even accepted - I think the page should only then be blanked. -WeniWidiWiki01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd second an undelete/blank/protect for the sake of arbcom evidence. Someone can add a request that arbcom deletes the page when the case is complete. ---J.S^(T/C)01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage anyone to undelete the page if they'd like - I won't mind, but personally I see nothing that makes me think his talk page is necessary for the arbitration request (and you're not really supposed to be giving that much evidence on the request page anyway, but merely supposed to be showing there exists a dispute). The user has plenty of edits in other areas, and it would seem that the focus of the dispute lies in the article of the arbitration case anyway so I don't see how his talk page is relevant. Oh, and I'm not an arbcom clerk, in response to Newyorkbrad, but just one of many volunteers who try to help out.Cowman109^Talk02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor who removed the "speedy" tags from the user's talk page, so perhaps a comment from me will be useful.First, I don't think that there is asignificant amount of evidence that would be unavailable to parties to the arbitration.There are two principle editors on one side of the arbitration.The user who has left Wikipedia, and a user who is associated with numerous links.Although the users collaborated, I think the issues in arbitration are quite different between them.Long and short, I did not remove the "speedy" tags because I feared deletion of evidence.(Of course, I did not file the arbcom case, so I do not pretend to be speaking for anyone else -- others may disagree).

Having explained that I was not worried about loss of evidence, I feel a need to explain my motivations.At the time that I removed the "speedy" tags, I was unaware that the user was intending to leave Wikipedia.I was sensitized to seeing the speedy tag on his talk page from a previous interaction.On a previous occassion, the user had a puppetmaster tag on his user page. My understanding is that before a user or talk page is speedied, the deleting admin should check to see if a) the page has been editted by other users, and b) whether there are warnings on the page that ought to be preserved.For better or worse, it appeared to me that the admin who deleted his page on that occasion did not notice that this user had first deleted his warning tag, and then added the speedy tag.I understand that in such situations, users may "lose their cool".Further, the user made a declaration that he would not use sockpuppets.At that point I thought it appropriate to let the matter drop.However, Iwas sensitized, and worried that we were seeing a repeat.When I learned that the user planned to leave Wikipedia, I had no interest in preventing his pages from being deleted.

I hope that someone may find these comments useful.Sincerely, --BostonMA^talk03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. As long as someone can resurrect the talk pages if it becomes an issue later, I don't foresee it being necessary unless it gets really protracted. Probably should establish some sort of protocol for such instances though.-WeniWidiWiki02:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We frequently get these people claiming that they are leaving for good in the middle of an RfA, who, lo and behold, after the RfA has been closed because they are gone, come back and start the same behavior all over again.PLEASE do not close the RfA.User:Zoe|(talk)05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed.I believe all the arbs are sysops as well, so deleting the pages should not significantly hinder that process.Guy(Help!)09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal that I believe addressesm:right to vanish and the need for evidence for the RfArb. I suggest that the talk page and archives be undeleted and then moved to an appropriate sub page(s), eliminating all redirects created in the process. (no suggestion as to where they should be moved to - but if the RfArb case was taken on then a sub page of the case page would be appropriate). When the RfArb is finished or if it is rejected then the pages get moved back to their original position and redeleted. The purpose of the move is toassume good faith and honour the right to vanish. The username would no longer be associated with the content of the pages, any more than any other comments he has made on other talk pages would be. The purpose of re-moving the pages to their original position and then re-deleting them would be to have them availiable for revival in the right spot in the event that the retirement was not permanent. All these actions could be performed by any of the sysopped RfArb clerks, or if that idea is rejected, I would be happy to take them on myself as long as someone notifies me of the outcome of the case. I would have his talk page and user page on watch, looking for signs of editing (ie other users questioning edits) and a note in the RfArb case to be notified of the close or rejection of the case. Thoughts?Viridae^Talk10:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the situation at status quo for now (i.e. deleted).Evidence of Hanuman's bad behavior toward others (if such evidence exists) will be mainly on their talk pages, the mediation pages associated with the case, and the articles themselves.Assuming Hanuman's talk page contains evidence of other editors' bad behavior toward him, it can be restored or examined by the arbitrators if the case is accepted.Thatcher13112:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman may be only tangentally involved in this case. My concern is that we are accepting all this at face value when in the past there have been users who have used Right to Vanish to game their situation. We also don't want to start expecting Arbitrators to be the gatherers of facts in a case. We need to let involved parties find their evidence to present where ever they can find it, and not tie their hands in building their case. 13:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - if someone invokes the right to vanish (sounds like a magical spell), insisting that their talk pages and user pages get deleted, is their account also blocked?Proto::►17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No. User talk pages are not deleted.=Nichalp«Talk»=17:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user talk pages are quite frequently deleted.The argument that a user's warnings and history of problems needs to remain visible only applies if they don't stay vanished.(I used to be more hard line on this, but I have come to really dislike thescarlet letter mentality that some folks have.)In this particular case the talk pages will probably be undeleted if the case is accepted.I'm not convinced they are needed in order to make a casefor acceptance.Thatcher13117:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to distinguish between a vandal's talk page full of nothing but warnings and unproductive messages (which we can delete without a second thought), and that of a long time user who has had much discussion about articles and other productive Wikipedia issues over many months (which is the case here).The history of the page has value to the project (and since he used page move archiving, so do his talk page archives). It's about having the history, the top page can be blanked and protected (this is not about the removing warnings issue or anything like that) 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my ignorance, but doesn'tm:Right to vanish being a meta-directive, trump en.wikipedia concerns? I've read through the meta page and the meatball page linked from it, and IMO you are treading on very treacherous ground here. The ability to vanish is listed as a "right", not a privilege. In my opinion, it should not be conditional in any way. Perhaps mediawiki foundation needs to clarify the talk page issue onm:Right to vanish, but with it being ambiguous, and with talk page deletion having been done for other users recently (e.g.User:Ars Scriptor), it would seem to me that if you are going to undelete H.D.'s talk page, you'd need to undelete every other vanished user's talk page for consistency.

In any case, as someone also involved in the issue, I don't think H.D.'s talk pages are significant in any way to the arbitration request. He was occasionally quite rude - on other people's talk pages. His edit history is still available, and I beleive the contention is that he kept restoring links after other editor's deleted them. I also believe that both sides believed that they were in the right, i.e. it was not a case of intentional vandalism. Anything that was said to him on his talk page about the situation is most likely also brought up on one of the meditation pages. AndMattisse has been keeping "files" on her user subpages about all of her percieved "enemies", so she should be able to answer precisely what information might be needed from H.D.'s talk page. (Interestingly enough,Timmy12 keeps "files" on his "enemies" in the very same way asMattisse does). It seems like perhaps some people want to go on a fishing expedition on a user who decided that his involvement in Mattisse's manipulations was a waste of his time. That doesn't seem right to me.

Finally, please do kick this up to the MetaWiki level. I would like to know definitively what exactlyI could expect if in the future I should want to avail myself of the Right to vanish. Currently, based on observation, I believe that I could expect to have all my user space pages deleted, including talk pages and archives. If this is not the case, I think Mediawiki Foundation should be clear and explicit about it onm:Right to vanish.Ekajati (yakity-yak)18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish is not an official policy but a general internet principle which we apply in a way that we try to balance the competing interests of this project. Just because an essay is written on Meta instead of enwiki does not confer to it more authority. Seem:Privacy policy to see what is our official policy (which leaves tremendous leeway to each project on the Right to Vanish issue). 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the concern is harrassment of HD after he leaves, thenblank and protect his talk page.Nobody can leave messages, but the history is still available if people need to review discussions or other information (whether to provide diffs for an arbitration, or for other constructive purposes).If HD believes that there is information in the history which compromises his privacy, then by all means he should ask an admin to delete the appropriate revisions of the page.TenOfAllTrades(talk)18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The page :m:Right to vanish describes removal of personal information (real name, address, political views etc.) that are pretty far short of deleting an entire set of user and talk pages on request, that are of interest in an ongoing dispute and that don't all contain personal information.It also explicitly says info is deleted "provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues)" (IMO that would include an arb case, if there's a legitimate need for the material).

I have some knowledge of the former contents of HD's talk page and don't remember any personal material on it but (from what I saw) it also wasn't obvious there was important evidence on it.I don't see a compelling reason to undelete the page at the moment, though that may change if the arb case progresses.I think Matisse should work this out with the Arb clerks, as Thatcher131 suggested[13]. They can undelete it or grant private and/or redacted access to Matisse as appropriate.To Matisse: try leaving Thatcher131 a talk message or sending an email (you can send email through the "email this user" link atUser:Thatcher131).

IMO, HD is not the most important participant in that dispute.67.117.130.18110:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing about deleting user talk pages (and talk pages in general) is that they also consist ofother people's contributions. If I have a long and involved and productive discussion with someone on their talk page, I don't want that discussion to vanish with that person. I want my contributions, which might contain important material on my thoughts on certain issues, to be preserved somewhere. Should I really have to keep a list of all the user talk pages I've edited and then 'rescue' my edits if the page gets deleted?Carcharoth11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are (at least) two valid issues here. On the one hand the possible usefulness of previous comments by the user and/or others and on the other hand the possibly embarrassing comments of the user and/or others. Historically on user talk pages the balance of those two possibilities has always tipped in favor of the individual user. For instance, users are allowed to blank messages left for them... archiving is favored, but not required. That, of course, makes it more difficult to locate past conversations... requiring a search of the history instead of just browsing the page/subpage. We have a speedy deletion criteria allowing 'user subpages' to be deleted upon request... which is described as including things like 'User talk:Username/Archive 1'. The 'right to vanish' deletion is just another aspect of this. All of these things make it more difficult to access past comments when there are legitimate reasons to do so... but I think that's preferable to keeping things users don't want in their user-space. If a user has done something they are embarrassed about we allow them to delete it... we can still get it back if we have to, but there should be no reason for it to be publicly available (even if just in the history). Ditto nasty or embarrassing things saidto the user... people shouldn't be able to drag those up to harass them elsewhere. If we want to retain comments made to user talk pages then that needs a systematic change to a number of Wikipedia policies, but I think it is better to just proceed with the understanding that comments on user talk pages are potentially more ephemeral than anything else on Wikipedia. If it is really of long term importance move it to an article or project space talk page. --CBD14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a page is nothing like archiving or blanking. With archiving or blanking, the contribs are still found in the commenter's own contribs and in the page history, and do not need an admin request. With deletion, the contribs simply disappear unless the user keeps a separate list of users they have talked to (a list which would otherwise be in the contribs) and then if the user is experienced enough to know they can be restored at all they can ask an admin. Also, if Right to vanish allowed someone to simply request deletion of the user talk page, that would not simply be "ephemeral", that would be instantaneous. This case is a somewhat good example, where there is apparently an active Arbcom case that could be related to comments on the talk page. If you want to delete the talk page of abanned orpermanently vanished user after a year, that may be okay, but that's not what your interpretation of a right to vanish would mean. —Centrx→talk •22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean we should just accept that user talk page comments would be more ephemeral? With everything else on Wikipedia, comments are permanent except for deleted articles where the comments are not relevant to creating or having a legitimate article. Should I simply not talk on other user's talk pages? Or should I duplicate every comment I leave on a separate page of my own, thus defeating the purpose of deleting those comments in the first place and demonstrating even more clearly that those comments are not his to delete? If the vanishing user has a comment he wants to get rid of, that comment could possibly be arranged to be removed. If someoneelse leaves a somehow embarassing comment, the vanishing user has no right over it; if appropriate it can be deleted under a no personal attacks policy, which applies anywhere. —Centrx→talk •22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's more, it would even be legal to simply copy his talk page entirely and save it somewhere else; his comments are under the GFDL. If user talk pages were to be ephemeral, one could and should simply keep a separate record of all conversations—but that's the purpose of the original talk page in the first place! —Centrx→talk •22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Centrx's points. I also have to admit that it took me over a year to realise that my contribs to deleted pages were not appearing in my contributions list. I was partially misled by the availability (now withdrawn) of a tool to list a user's edits to deleted pages. Now, instead, I watchlist every page I edit, make regular updates to an off-line copy of my contributions list, look for redlinks in a list of pages on my watchlist, and compare my current contributions list to my offline list to find what contributions have disappeared. If the edit summary indicated a long essay or comment, I might try and retrieve it through an admin, but trying to explain all this would be rather tedious to say the least. This is also why I avoid trying to improve articles at AfD, or contributing to the talk pages of said articles, until the AfD is over. Writing on something attached to something that then gets deleted feels rather inefficient.Carcharoth00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... ok. When a comment I've made gets deleted, if I even notice, I shrug and go on with what I was doing. In the extreme hypothetical that I absolutely had to get it back for some reason I know it can always be undeleted so... seems less than crucial to me. In short, I don't see alot of value in having every past comment easily and immediately available... just doesn't seem important. That balanced against, 'annoy people by making stuff they want to get rid of readily available to everyone'... seems like a clear case for allowing deletion. You two apparently place ALOT more value on 'easily available records', but... can you point to a case where it has been more than hypothetically important? When have weever 'needed' some edit and it has just been terribly difficult to get it back? --CBD12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just the general prinicple of the thing. I don't normally delete things that I have written, and I like to keep track of what I have said and done. It would seem courteous to allow people to keep copies of what they have written, or at least to make it much clearer that their contribs list is not complete. I would have no problems with such pages being deleted if I could in general, at any time, see a list of my deleted contribs (the reason it is not done at the moment, I think, is because the way it was set up, anyone could see anyone's deleted contribs - that would not be a problem if viewing was restricted to the user only - similar to how only the user can see their watchlist). My contribs are what I wrote, so what is the problem in letting me access them, even if only to make a copy before they are re-deleted? I realise that this system can be abused by those wanting to paste back in deleted content that should be kept off Wikipedia, but most POV-pushers do this anyway, and are stopped by the normal means.Carcharoth12:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And a more specific point. Edits to the blurbs of category pages (the bits at the top) are deleted when categories are renamed, as categories are not moved like article pages are, but are deleted and a new page made. These are not 'ephemeral' talk page edits, but are integral parts of the encyclopedia where contribution history is, if not completely lost, made far more difficult to track down (and nearly impossible if the deleting admin does not mention the CfD page or date), though using "what links here" for the deleted category or the newly created category usually works in tracking down the debate and the deleted page where the contributions history is "kept".Carcharoth12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have gone back to user talk pages to find out about some situation where a user was blocked, etc. There have been several times where I went back to another user's talk page to retrieve my own words and put them onUser talk:Centrx/Meta-writing. This is then used for personal reference, for future essay and guideline material, and for having easy access to best-of-breed responses to{{helpme}} requests,m:OTRS queries, etc. If I forget to copy the writing when I comment, these are accessed by looking through my own contribs; I do not otherwise keep a list of every talk page I've commented on or remember the exact username of someone. Anyway, this is just one practical example; there are thousands upon thousands of people, commenting on things over the course of years, on Wikipedia. We have the general principles so we don't need to take a survey of everyone's all possible uses for old talk page comments. A user does not own his userspace; we let him retract some things if he wants to vanish, but we do not let him retract article contributions or discussion comments—and article and policy discussion do happen in the user talk space; the only comments it might make sense to allow him to retract are comments that never really belonged on Wikipedia in the first place; none of this means he has control over other users' comments. —Centrx→talk •08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree entirely with Centrx's points. I also found amailing list post from Jimbo that is relevant here. I haveasked Jimbo if he has time to comment here.Carcharoth14:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, deletion should remove the page from active view at the previous location, while allowing reasonable access of various kinds.One kind: admin access.We have that.Another kind: access to my *own* contributions.Let me give an example where I personally find this irritating... prod deletions.If you prod an article and then it gets deleted, it vanishes from your contributions history so you may not even see that it was successfully prodded, etc.I find that irritating.At the very least, it would be nice if it showed up in a non-viewable way as an existing contribution in the contribution history, despite having been deleted.Oversight-deletion might have be used more aggressively, though, if that were the case.(Oversight-deletion makes it so even admins can't see it.)--Jimbo Wales16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I wonder if there is a open bug request on this thing about people being able to see their own contributions to deleted pages?

About the 'prod' thing, if the only edit the prodding process needs is to the article page, then you are stuck, unless you can be bothered to make a link to the page on your user page and wait for it to turn red. But that defeats the whole purpose of streamlining the prodding process to a single edit. I don't think I've ever had a deleted article watchlisted - does the watchlist tell people that a watchlisted article has been deleted? Or even if someone recreates it? My experience of this kind of thing, incidentially, was trying to find a page I had tagged as copyvio. That page and the record in my contributions that I had made the effort to tag a copyvio, had vanished. I was most upset! :-) Ditto for those people that do lots of db (speedy deletion) tagging.

As for recording the prod in your contributions list, a workaround for now would be to, immediately after adding the prod template, to edit (say) a user page where you list your prods, add the title of the prodded article, and in the edit summary put "list prodded article:Example". Then the two edit summaries are right next to each other in the contributions list. If the prodded article is deleted, the template addition edit vanishes, but the other edit (the one I decribed above) remains and the blue link turns red. A record remains in your contributions list, and it all feels soorganised!I've just finished adding a translation request, and I'm awestruck by efficiency and organisation atWikipedia:Translation. But still, being able to view these sorts of edits to articles that later get deleted would be best and easiest (for the user). I wonder whether it is feasible and how much priority the developers would give this sort of thing?Carcharoth01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From observation, I take it that admins should report lengthy blocks here after placing them, with some reasoning as to why they were placed.I'm still learning the ropes in terms of what to post here and how much detail to include ... feedback on the posting here would help me to adapt to standard practices.

I have indefinite blockedUser:Stfuplz after the user was reported to AIV.The block summary reads "Vandalism only account which has turned to talk page vandalism".Account was created 19 December; user began edits 20 December and vandalizedSnorlax twice andPeter Jennings 11 times all in the course of about 30 minutes.After the user was reported to AIV and warnings were posted on the user's talk page, vandalism began on the primary interactor's talk pageUser talk:Gzkn, at which point I instigated the block.--User:Ceyockey (talk to me)02:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a sequence of edits in chain, with no reversions inbetween, should be counted as more than one instance of vandalism, so indef seems excessively harsh. I'm not an admin though. -Amarkov^blah_edits02:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a normal indefinite block of a vandalism-only account unless I'm missing something.BigDT03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He should be blocked for username alone - Stfuplz = shut the f*** up please (translated from l33t-speak, of course).Merzbow03:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, even using what I said, it's enough to be considered vandalism only. -Amarkov^blah_edits03:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On the reversions question - there were multiple intervening reversions to restore article content, a chain of vandalize-revert-vandalize-revert involving several editors combating Stfuplz (see'Peter Jennings' history). User:Ceyockey (talk to me)03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceyockey, thanks for your conscientiousness, but blocking vandalism-only accounts is No Big Deal. Any account that does nothing to help build the encyclopedia should be briskly blocked indefinitely, and there's no need to post the block for review. (In fact, the noticeboard would be overwhelmed if it were practice to do that.) Those accounts have no value, they're no kind of start for the user in case s/he later wants to contribute constructively; the thing to do in that event is create a new account. It's blocks of accounts that have made useful edits, or at least attempts at useful edits, that need posting. (Plus, as Merzbow says, this is an obvious username block in any case.)Bishonen |talk14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Yup, I agree. Although I'm probably a bit biased in this case, it looks like a normal, everyday indef block on a vandalism-only account.Gzkn01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Never worry about blocking somebody who has only harmed Wikipedia and never helped it.HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the top of the page (first paragraph) for "Female" was tagged.If it no longer starts with "Also Known as" then it's been cleaned

Fixed a few days ago, thanks. If you see vandalism it's quicker and easier to revert it yourself than ask for help - seeHelp:Revert. --Sam Blanning^(talk)02:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)