Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62
Sum up: In Catalan Countries there was an edit warring between Casaforra (talk · contribs) and Maurice27 (talk · contribs). Maurice27 broke 3RR. Casaforra didn't. Maurice27 has been blocked several times, for all possible reasons, including because of 3RR (06:29, 10 April 2007). Casaforra had never been blocked nor even warned of any uncivil action. Physchim62 (talk · contribs) shares POV with has frequently a symilar POV as Maurice27 posterior change because of remark by Mountolive. Result: Maurice27 hasn't been blocked (reason: he didn't make any contribution during the last 20 hours before reporting 3RR break. Remark: During this 20 hours the article was with Maurice27's version, so he had of course no reason to continue with the war). Casaforra has been blocked for one week.
Request:
- Unblock Casaforra: first time of breaking 3RR block is just for 24 hours. 1 week is complitely disproportionate for a user with not even one warning in his expedient.
- If Casaforra is not unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked for at least the same time as Casaforra. If Casaforra is unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked at least the same time as Casaforra has been blocked.
Explanation: I consider a great miuse of administrative powers this biased way to block users by Physchim62. Why now Maurice27 is not blocked and Casaforra is? they did the same, just with two differences: Maurice27 did break 3RR, and Casaforra didn't (I know you can be blocked even without breaking it strictly, but he was even not warned). And the second difference: as I explained here, people who wanted to remove Maurice27's template, respected him when he added it and we discussed in Talk page. After 17 days (10-27 November) without any answer from Maurice27 (even if he made several contributions during those days in other articles), the template was removed. Then he decided to continue the discussion but he didn't respect the status quo as we did, but he started an edit warring, and Casaforra just asked him to reach the consensus he didn't search during this 17 days. I don't say Casaforra is innocent, but I see at least Maurice27 as guilty as Casaforra; one is blocked but not the other.
I wonder: if Casaforra can not revert Maurice27, should we always wait 17 days to remove the template and then Maurice27 gives us the grace to (after reverting) discuss?
Let's remark Physchim62 was already accused of miuse of administrative powers in the request for arbitration that he opened precisely against Casaforra and other people against his POV, and the result was complitely opposite as he expected: Maurice27 (as I said, a user sharing his POV) was banned during one month.
I know this is not the place to take any decision against Physchim62. Right now I am just interested in solving the injustice between Maurice27 and Casaforra. However, I would like to know which is the appropiate place to make an official complaint against Physchim62 in case I decide to do it. Thank you very much, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I support Xtv's complaint. When the 3RR violation was reviewed by administrators, they blocked Maurice27 for a very short period of time but did not take any action against Casaforra. Physchim62 decided to jump in by blocking him without giving him a warning -as required, even after having said that he would not intervene in Catalonia related articles given his past involvements in those subjects. Please review [1], [2], [3], [4], to review Physchim62's protection of Maurice27, his spurious accusation against users who have not violated any rules but happen to disagree with his particular POV, as well as the decision of the arbitrators (to block Maurice27). Please also note that this is issue is relevant, since after after his failure to obtain his desired result in Arbitration, now Physchim62 presented is candidature as an arbitrator himself. [5].
--the Dúnadan 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I don't see any items in Casaforra's block log. Should the IP block show up there? spryde | talk 23:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- For some reason I cannot see anybody's block logs (whatsoever user). Is there a glitch in the system? (Casaforra was blocked according to: this.) --the Dúnadan 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- An IP block will not appear in an affected editor's block log, which is why there's a separate unblock request for autoblocks. However, it is odd that Casaforra's block log is empty. I checked some users I blocked yesterday, and there block logs have entries, so I'm not sure what's going on there.
- That aside, this edit warring block does look appropriate. One week is indeed long for a first edit warring block (I believe it's general practice to start at 24 hours), and Physchim62 probably should have recused him/herself from making any blocks in that case, considering his/her involvement in the article in question. However, I think it would be best to wait for him/her to comment before taking any action. Natalie 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, after having looked at Physchim62's log of blocks, I don't see a block of Casaforra. The block log appears to be functioning perfectly fine, so I have no idea what's going on here, or if Casaforra is even blocked. Natalie 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Casaforra told he is blocked, and in his talk page says so. As I told, I agree with Natalie, a block might (might not) be appropiate. My complaint is because it's far too long, because there is a discrimination respect to Maurice27 and because Physchim62 should have recused himself of this action. There are many other admins who can dare with it (and who, by the way, decided just to warn him, not to block him, since it was his first time, as you can see in 3RR page). I already asked Physchim62 an answer. So, let's wait...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, after having looked at Physchim62's log of blocks, I don't see a block of Casaforra. The block log appears to be functioning perfectly fine, so I have no idea what's going on here, or if Casaforra is even blocked. Natalie 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, Casaforra is, per the IPblocklog, blocked for a 1 week period with email disabled and account creation disabled. Email disabled seems quite odd. Why it shows in Ipblocklog but not the regular one is beyond my comprehension. The timestamp as I view it is 17:21, 29 November 2007. Prior to this, User:LaraLove had blocked Maurice27 for 1 week, then unblocked 3 minutes later. There is an inconsistency here that should be addressed, with comments needed from both LaraLove and Psychim62. I'll go notify Lara, and confirm that Psychim has been notified. I will say off the hand that edit warring to prevent a maintenance tag from being on article is a worse sin than edit warring to put it on, at least in my eyes. The process is tag - then discuss - then fix - then remove tag. Edit warring to take a tag off is attempting to skip the discuss and fix steps. GRBerry 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also note that "Admin X is biased in matter Y" is a standard, usually invalid, complaint made by partisans when someone on their side gets sanctioned. It will be ignored unless evidence is presented or already known of by reviewers. GRBerry 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess this is not the place to discuss the nuances of the discussion and the appropriateness of the tag, but rather the inappropriate administrative actions of Physchim62. However, I guess it needs to be noted that Pshychim62 does have a particular POV regarding Catalan-related articles and has [mis]used his administrative tools to protect or punish users accordingly on previous occasions, and that is why I provided links above to be reviewed. Please read them, I know some of the pages related to Evidence are quite long, but they merit the attention of administrators. This is not the first time that this issue has been brought up. It hardly matters whether a user from my, their, our side gets unfairly sanctioned but the fact that he was unfairly sanctioned is what must be addressed. I guess if an impartial administrator had blocked a user for the first time, then the issue can be dealt directly with the administrator. But Physhcim62 has been historically involved in the discussions with a very particular POV, and that several users have complained about his inappropriate leniency towards Maurice27 (who has been blocked eight times) and his rapid blockage of users (like Benimerin), and therefore this issue needs to be brought up to the attention of other administrators.--the Dúnadan 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, GRBerry, we are here to assume good faith, and if someone posts something about administrator abuse, we need to take it seriously and look into it. Dunadan's claims so far, if correct, are a serious problem. The Evil Spartan 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I screwed up on that point; I missed Dunadan's sets of links. GRBerry 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, GRBerry, we are here to assume good faith, and if someone posts something about administrator abuse, we need to take it seriously and look into it. Dunadan's claims so far, if correct, are a serious problem. The Evil Spartan 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess this is not the place to discuss the nuances of the discussion and the appropriateness of the tag, but rather the inappropriate administrative actions of Physchim62. However, I guess it needs to be noted that Pshychim62 does have a particular POV regarding Catalan-related articles and has [mis]used his administrative tools to protect or punish users accordingly on previous occasions, and that is why I provided links above to be reviewed. Please read them, I know some of the pages related to Evidence are quite long, but they merit the attention of administrators. This is not the first time that this issue has been brought up. It hardly matters whether a user from my, their, our side gets unfairly sanctioned but the fact that he was unfairly sanctioned is what must be addressed. I guess if an impartial administrator had blocked a user for the first time, then the issue can be dealt directly with the administrator. But Physhcim62 has been historically involved in the discussions with a very particular POV, and that several users have complained about his inappropriate leniency towards Maurice27 (who has been blocked eight times) and his rapid blockage of users (like Benimerin), and therefore this issue needs to be brought up to the attention of other administrators.--the Dúnadan 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Again reserving judgment until the actual administrator's have commented, I would venture that it's a good general rule to avoid using admin tools for incidents in which one has been involved, except when the need for tools is beyond obvious. In other words, an admin's active involvement in an article should not be a problem in the case of simple, obvious vandalism. But edit wars are complex and the "fair" thing is often quite nuanced. In that case I think if the administrator has been directly involved, recusing themself can do no harm. Natalie 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from LaraLove
The block of mine in question, where I blocked Maurice27 (talk · contribs · block log) for one week then unblocked 3 minutes later, was my first 3RR report block, I believe. I reviewed the edits and Maurice's block log and decided one week was a reasonable block considering previous blocks and that he'd just come off a one month ArbCom ban. After I blocked him, I realized he hadn't edited in several hours. I spoke with other admins in IRC for their opinion and was told that because blocks are not punitive and he'd not edited the article in ~20 hours, I should not block. There was also discussion about what previous blocks should be factored in when determining time. Regardless, I immediately unblocked and placed a warning on his talk page. That was the extent of my involvement. Lara❤Love 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see there is now a further problem with this admin. listed below at 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from Physchim62
Well, this really does seem to the open season on attacking me, doesn't it. Nobody bothers to ask themselves if this is a reasonable "question" to be asked in ArbCom elections, or whether the other parties are abiding by the ArbCom encouragement. I have already explained the circumstances behind by block of Casaforra here. I note that the unblock request was refused by an uninvolved admin here. I would be grateful if uninvolved admins could look at the actions of Dúnadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to see if they merit further action, as it would obviously be too contraversial should I take action myself. Physchim62 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me Physchim62, what rules have me and Xtv violated? On what merit do you label us as vandals and want to take actions, other than us disagreeing with your POV? Please, I urge uninvolved administrators to review my contributions as well as Xtv's. Please do, and please review the links I provided above, so that we can end his spurious and senseless accusations from a partial administrator against us. And while at it, please review Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After a serious impartial look at our contributions, tell me, does it really make sense, as an administrator, to block Casaforra but not Maurice27? --the Dúnadan 23:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask to the Dúnadan something?. I keep wondering why does my name keep appearing in every one of your complains if 3, I repeat, 3 admins here above have not expressed any problem about my acting in the article Catalan Countries (apart the 3RR).
- I have nothing to do with this "complain" from Xtv and yourself. Therefore I EXIGE that you quit this attitude! I find your obsession against Physchim62 (doubting his good faith) and myself (calling me vandal) completely out of place.
- I ask the admins involved in this "incident" (to call it somehow), to seriously take a look at all 3 users asking for the head of Physhim62 (Xtv, Dúnadan and Casaforra). I can't understand how a bunch of users who's only meaning in wikipedia is to get other users blocked at all cost and which are not caring about other users' rights or opinion, are getting free of warnings by whom are supposed to take care of wikipedia (apart Physchim of course).
- Casaforra felt in his own trap. He acted incorrectly, negliged wikipedia rules, and got blocked. PERIOD. There are no secondary or obscure intentions. Physchim acted in a pristine manner, just as he has done with me in the past. Doubting that, is only possible in someone without good faith.
I sincerely hope this complain, brings new admins to take care of these users. After a RfA, reporting an admin and a continuous fight for almost 6 months, I think it is enough! These users are trespassing all limits. --Maurice27 07:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care much about all this process ridden brouhaha, and so I don't have (nor want to have) an opinion about Casaforra's block, but as an editor who is familiar with all these topics and all these editors, I think by now it is quite obvious for unrelated administrators that, from the initial Casaforra's issue, a certain "off with Physchim's head" bloodthirst has erupted, and that looks like it is related with past grudges that Dúnadan bears about Physchim. I think this should be noted as well. Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like other editors involved in the dispute are upset, which is understandable. That's precisely why administrators are supposed to avoid blocking users they are in conflict with. I really don't think Psyschim has provided an adequate justification for doing so, and should reconsider in the future. Natalie 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just have to say that Cassaforra is still blocked being his fault his very first fault and without being warned, and then he can not give here his oppinon on the matter, while the user with whom he had the war and who actually broke 3RR, can contribute here giving his oppinion.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Maurice27 has oppened a discussion in an apparently change of actitude which I consider that as long as it lasts, can be a great improvement to our discussions in talk pages. I propose that Casaforra is deblocked immediately (let's remember he is already blocked several days for his very first edit warring) and close the case. If Maurice27's attitude changes again for bad (hopefuly not) or Physchim62 acts in Catalan-related articles as an administrator again apparently (for some users) partial, then an official mediation will be required. Let's hope now everything goes better... cheers,--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 03:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal Attack
I am extremely annoyed to find that the User:CommonsDelinker has been used to change an image I placed on my personal user page IE:- Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to Image:Ulster_banner.svg and draw me into an apparent edit war that is spilling over from the English Wikipedia onto Wikimedia Commons.
The image name change has been done, via Wikimedia Commons, under the claim that the 1st image is an exact duplicate of the 2nd image. This is incorrect as the 1st image has been uploaded since 28 November 2005, by User:Dbenbenn who is a Wiki Commons Bureaucrat, whilst the second has been created by a new user:- User:FalseXflag downloading the first image and re-uploading it, with a different name, two days ago on 28 November 2007, which technically makes the 2nd image the duplicated copy. It appears that the uploader is involved in an edit war over the name/purpose of the image for his own personal POV reasons on the English wikipedia.
To use User:CommonsDelinker to then change multiple user pages is a form of vandalism, as now many users with different political points of view around the world have been summarily forced to have this change of name forced on them.
To also claim that the delete tag should be removed from Image:Ulster_banner.svg on the grounds that the image was linked to hundreds of articles and templates, is also offensive, had the delinker not been used then the image would not exist on those articles/templates as claimed, having only existed under that name two days ago. It should also be noted that many articles/templates have not been able to be changed, as the 1st image is used in many other countries version of Wikipedia. They were listed on the 1st image page, though an edit by User:Siebrand removed the list from view, though it still visible in the edit history here:- Edit history Image:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland.svg. An attempt has been made to take a back door approach to having the image name changed, when it was opposed by other editors on the English Wikipedia; See:- Talk Page - Flag of Northern Ireland and Image Talk page - Ulster banner.
As a Yorkshireman I consider myself to be neutral over the name or correct affiliation of the image, however I am aware that whilst living in Northern Ireland in the early 60s, and then working in the ambulance service there in the early 70s, the flag was flown on NI Government buildings. My usage of this particular image is to show the Flag that was in use at the time I worked there, I do not wish it to be seen as a link or an affiliation with any particular political party or group, of which I have none!
I am also concerned over the timing of the sudden appearance of the 'New User' User:FalseXflag, who re-uploaded the original image with the new name having only done 3 edit contributions then disappearing to be followed up by other anon editors; See:- Revision history of "Image:Ulster banner.svg" which brings to mind sock-puppet editing!
I have also noted that User:Fennessy has now edited my user page to undo my revert of the User:CommonsDelinker's change of image, in addition to changing many other articles and user pages, despite the fact no consensus to do so has been agreed. This again I consider to be vandalism of my user page, as may the other editors whose pages he has edited. Some may consider it to be a form of bullying to have another editors POV forced on them!
I placed a request on User:Fennessy's Talk page not to edit my user page and advised him I consider it to be vandalism to which I have received this offensive and uncalled for remark, that I consider to be in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. :-
Well you can "consider" it vandalism all you want, but it wasn't. I was doing you a favor by putting in the new location of an image thats about to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Fennessy 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To claim that the image is to be deleted is false information, no consensus has been made on Wikimedia Commons that such an action is to take place at this time. User:Padraig has used the system to have his second upload of the original image semi protected, whilst they go about deleting all links to the first. However they will probably find it impossible to delete the foreign language Wikipedia links. which will in all probability require the image to be retained.
I get the impression that User:Fennessy and User:padraig are Wikipedia:Gaming the system and request that their actions in this situation be looked at a little closer.
There is no actual need to rename the image. Over time flags and Icons come and go are redesigned entirely or just amended. If all the various flags that have been changed since they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were to re-uploaded with new names, followed by the subsequent changing of links and the various mediations then wikipedia would grind to a halt. The actions of these two users is irrational and disrupting editors from getting on with good editing of this website, and falls within Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Richard Harvey 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- You may want to take this to WP:AE per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles Will (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion Will! However this was placed here at the suggestion of Admin Andrwsc see:- [7] To be honest I don't want to be dragged into an edit war by Trolls, so I think I will leave it up to those with more experience to deal with the editor(s) concerned. I just want to be left alone to get on with proper editing. Richard Harvey 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who are you accusing of being trolls, please remember WP:NPA, as for the Ulster banner, I am sure you did see this flag being flown from Government buildings during the sixties, so did I as I was born in Northern Ireland, that was because between 1953-72 it was the Governmental banner of Northern Ireland used to represent the government, but it wasn't a national flag during that period and had no civic status, throughout that period the Union Flag remained the National flag of northern Ireland. This banner along with the government it represented ceased to existed with the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As for the need to rename the flag, the flag was incorrectly titled as it give the impression that it was the Flag of northern Ireland today which it is not and never was, wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should present facts.--Padraig 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not turn this into yet another battleground for that flag, shall we? I think the salient issues of this incident are that:
- No discussion was made on commons about the image rename, as I suggested here. Clearly, this image is high-use, and contentious, so such a discussion was most certainly the right thing to do. This is not a simple housekeeping matter.
- The emergence of an apparent sockpuppet (Commons:User:FalseXflag) with respect to Ulster Banner edits triggers some alarm bells.
- The involvement of Meta:User:CommonsDelinker and Commons:User:Siebrand to quickly "bull" this change through the system before any discussion. Siebrand's talk page already has some complaints from other wikis arising from the ramifications of the change. Perhaps User:Richard Harvey's suggestion to use a name like Image:Flag of Northern Ireland (1953-1972).svg would have alleviated those problems, but since widespread edits were made without discussion, we won't know.
- Now, given that much of this incident took place off en.wiki, I'm not sure what the correct response for en.wiki administrators should be, but I still assert that a discussion on Commons:Image talk:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is the best course of action. Andrwsc 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not turn this into yet another battleground for that flag, shall we? I think the salient issues of this incident are that:
Similar username
A user created the username Jmlk007 a few minutes ago. This username is very similar to Jmlk17, an established editor and admin. I'm going to assume good faith that Jmlk007 didn't have intent to mimic Jmlk17, but I wanted a second opinion as to whether it be suggested that he change his username. Useight 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, let it be IMO. I don't think it's that close. --Haemo 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's easy to see the difference between the two. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
His image uploads (if he is male) are a bit more worrying than his name. GracenotesT § 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I listed the uploads as possibly unfree images. Usernames like JimboSmith are acceptable because Jimbo is common enough. Jmlk is unique enough that I think that this username is too similar. WODUP 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, I must admit I've never seen another "Jmlk" anywhere, but I suppose there is a first time for everything! :) Jmlk17 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Jmlk007 is a sockpuppet of a vandal who has been vandalising HINDRAF-related articles with tor proxies for several days (see histories). Another sockpuppet was Keling Paria (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, I must admit I've never seen another "Jmlk" anywhere, but I suppose there is a first time for everything! :) Jmlk17 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
User:67.135.49.177, an admitted IP of User:Jinxmchue was blocked by User:Adam Cuerden at 20:17, 30 November 2007 for 31 hours for edit warring (and a 3RR violation). McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours, and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter. Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing. When he was warned by admin FeloniousMonk that he was evading his block, McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not. I have re-blocked him for block evasion, reinstating the original 31-hour block. I am posting this for revue; if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit. Guettarda 05:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- This will be my last contribution to Wikipedia, aside from cleaning up my user space. I believe that Jinx truly believed that his block had expired. His dynamic address probably changed on him, so when he logged out to see if he was still blocked, it appeared that he wasn't. If WP:AGF means anything at all, his block should be adjusted to expire at the original time. But I don't have any good faith left for WP:AGF after the lack of it shown to me by a good number of established editors this evening. If anyone is looking for me, you can find me at Wikinfo, where I will be adapting Wikipedia articles to expand and improve that encyclopedia, without all of the bullshit politics, personal attacks, and faux NPOV. It was fun while it lasted, but time to move on. - Crockspot 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- You make a valid argument about resetting the block timer. I agree that it shouldn't have been done.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- You make a really bad argument about resetting the block timer, CS. Why give benefit of a doubt to a user that has clearly expressed 0 interest in AGF or working towards a consensus. This is textbook block evading and he should be treated like every other user who evades a block. Have fun at Wikinfo, where all the other lost souls who can't work towards consensus edit to push the POV they try so hard to interject here. Cheers!!! Baegis 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- lol! "Consensus" meaning I have to submit to your POV warriors agenda even when it flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. If I don't, you gang up on me to undermine the 3-revert rule, falsely accuse me of edit-warring, sockpuppetry and Wikilawyering, block me and only me for allegedly edit-warring (even though others are just as guilty of it), and have two admins who are intimately involved in the conflict (gosh, no conflict of interest there, guys), share the same POV, and are probably friends to tag-team me to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed. I gotta tell you, Monk's rejection of my unblock request for Guettarda's block was really beyond the pale. A neutral admin should've been the one reviewing the block. Monk simply saw my name attached to the request and mindlessly rejected it because of his obvious bias against me. So much for neutrality and fairness being required for admins. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You make a really bad argument about resetting the block timer, CS. Why give benefit of a doubt to a user that has clearly expressed 0 interest in AGF or working towards a consensus. This is textbook block evading and he should be treated like every other user who evades a block. Have fun at Wikinfo, where all the other lost souls who can't work towards consensus edit to push the POV they try so hard to interject here. Cheers!!! Baegis 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I support the block. Jinxmchue should have AGF'd FeloniousMonks comment and discussed at his talkpage, not deleted the warning and continued editing. Also, the ip commented on their talkpage subsequent to the block/notice and would therefore be aware of the tariff - 31 hours is a day plus 7 hours. It appears that violation of the block was intended. LessHeard vanU 12:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the "oops I lost track of time" defense, AKA the "DNS/DHCP warped time" defense is absurd. •Jim62sch• 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't lose track of time. I never made any such assertion and I would thank you not to pretend as if I did. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the "oops I lost track of time" defense, AKA the "DNS/DHCP warped time" defense is absurd. •Jim62sch• 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no binding policy against simply deleting material from one's talk page and no binding policy that says admins warnings must be retained. I read the warning, took note of it and deleted it - all well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor. Is archiving preferred? Yes. Was my deleting uncivil? Maybe, but if it was, it was far less uncivil than FeloniousMonk's behavior towards me. As far as my alleged violation of the block, here's what I sent to Guettarda (which he promptly ignored):
- 14:17, November 30, 2007 Adam Cuerden (Talk | contribs) blocked "67.135.49.177 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Edit warring)
- 14:17 plus 31 hours = 21:17 on December 1
- Other than responding to serious, baseless accusations by Monk, my first non-user talk edit was this:
- 22:24, December 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:D. James Kennedy (→Verification of content needed for refs 28 and 29 - new section)
- I don't know if they're counting the user talk page edits I made to respond to FM's baseless accusations (which he refuses to back up). The block was never explained and I had thought that if you are blocked, you could still edit other people's discussion pages. If I am wrong, then I apologize, however I will not apologize for confronting MF's serious charges instead of letting him make them while I could not respond to them. If I'm not wrong, then I am owed an apology for a wrongful block. 67.135.49.177 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no binding policy against simply deleting material from one's talk page and no binding policy that says admins warnings must be retained. I read the warning, took note of it and deleted it - all well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor. Is archiving preferred? Yes. Was my deleting uncivil? Maybe, but if it was, it was far less uncivil than FeloniousMonk's behavior towards me. As far as my alleged violation of the block, here's what I sent to Guettarda (which he promptly ignored):
- The block is over, so this is mostly academic, but Guettarda's given reasons do not justify the re-block. To wit:
- "McHue re-started editing with his logged in account within 5 hours" - Yes, I did - editing MY USER PAGES (e.g. reverting vandalism), the editing of which is NOT prohibited when blocked. I also responded to serious accusations made against me by your buddy FeloniousMonk on someone else's talk page. As explained above, I didn't think posting on other people's user pages was prohibited and I offered an apology if I was wrong. However, what I was responding to was extremely serious. You'll excuse me if I don't sit around doing nothing while people smear me by resorting to personal attacks and baseless accusations.
- "and has returned to the problematic articles sortly thereafter" - So. Fricking. What. There is no prohibition of returning to certain articles after a block, and I returned to said articles well after the original block had passed (see above and the second email I sent you, though you probably deleted that without reading it).
- "Although he is still within the 31-hour period for which he was blocked, he was actively editing." - As I have explained in both points above, I edited user pages only and my first non-user page edit (to Talk:D_James_Kennedy) was made AFTER the original block had passed.
- "McHue deleted the warning and claimed that he was not" - I was not and I had read the warning. Deleting it, while not "preferred," was still within the rights afforded to me on Wikipedia.
- "if another admin believes that this block was incorrect, feel free to adjust (or remove) the block as they see fit." - Yeah, fat chance of that when your buddy FM responds to unblock requests regarding blocks you made. 67.135.49.177 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Question of Editing
I have a problem at the Applied kinesiology article. A user is repeatedly violating WP:CCC. He is editing consensus, and when I revert, instead of bringing it to the talk page, as per WP:CCC (chart) he just unreverts my revert. I have cautioned him several times on the Applied kinesiology page and the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page. His edits are on the same topic. On the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page he complied. On the Applied kinesiology page he continues to revert without bring it to the talk page and achieving consensus or agreement (as per WP:CCC chart.) --Anthon01 11:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- As a new user I have been giving Anthon01 quite a bit of slack, but his deletions of extremely well-sourced material, even his deletions of a whole paragraph, is now bordering on vandalism. He seems to think that if he doesn't like new or existing content, he has a right to revert. I think he needs to provide some justification on the talk page first. We need to discuss it. I am trying to get him to use the talk page for discussing his concerns, but instead he edit wars and uses edit summaries. The talk page is where collaboration occurs, not in edit summaries. He seems to think that the CCC chart is the absolute and only method for dispute resolution here, but it isn't. It cannot replace discussion on talk pages. I need more than complaints. I need specific objections to precise wording and why he deletes absolutely impeccable references. Deleting references is quite destructive, especially in this case. -- Fyslee / talk 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"Consensus can change" doesn't mean "I disagree with the previus consensus and therefore can change anything I want to." It means, discuss coming up with a new consensus before arbitrary and unilateral edits. Corvus cornixtalk 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note that Anthon01 has been blocked temporarily for violating 3RR on the page in question, so may not be able to comment here. For what it's worth, consensus certainly can change, but the history of that article and the 3RR violation on Anthon01's part suggest that it hasn't changed yet. MastCell Talk 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Linking to external harassment
Sfacets (talk · contribs) has added a link to his user page that goes to a webpage dedicated to harassing an individual who is also a WP editor. When he added it he made it clear that he knew the target of the harassment would dislike the link.[8] I brought the issue up on Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Case study as a test of how that proposal would work in practice. As a result, JzG removed the link from the user page and initiated a discussion on the user's talk page. Sfacets repeatedly restored the link, insisting he needs it for "reference", but without giving any encyclopedic reason. As suggested by Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, I'm bringing this issue here to seek a consensus to remove the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unless the user can provide a compelling reason why they need this link on Wikipedia, it strikes me as being rather problematic. I notice they refused to provide such a reason, earlier. Is there some reason this needs to be on the top revision, in particular? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- A refusal to provide a reason is good enough grounds to take action against that editor and the link. We try to do everything here collaboratively, and a refusal to collaborate makes NPOV editing impossible and thus the editor excludes themselves from our fellowship. Such a wish should be respected, IOW block the sucker. -- Fyslee / talk 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- This seems pretty clearly to fall under WP:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F as "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors". That policy notes that latitude is given regular participants, but I think latitude stops when an explanation is requested and refused, per Luna Santin's link. There are many alternative ways the editor might keep this material for reference. (All the browsers I know offer bookmarking, for instance.) I'd support removing the link, unless there is clear & compelling reason for it to remain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that he not only links to the ugly attacks on me (and others) by his co-religionists, but he adds links to words from the attack and adds a link to my place of work. --Simon D M 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Simon, if you have a diff for that then we may be looking at harassment, in which case he is in deep trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, he;s really helping his case here [11], especially with the added spice of threats [12]. I wonder if our friend might need a short break from the stress of dealing with those who do not subscribe to his minority POV? Guy (Help!) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like he was just blocked for the game-playing on his userpage. I'd say the matter is closed, unless and until he starts trying to reinsert the link after his block expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I endorse the block, given his apparent unwillingness to follow our behavioral guidelines. He still readded the link even when we addressed it as being disruptive, and he wouldn't give us his rationale as to why the link should be kept. Maser (Talk!) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not really sure what else we could have done, here. Tried the easy way. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Guy is right when he predicts that the problems won't end when the block does. To clarify matter I should give some more background on this website and dispute. "Adishakti.org" actually belongs to a schismatic group who believe that the main organization does not proclaim the divinity of the guru loudly enough. Both the schismatic group and the main group share a dislike for the subject of the harassment, who is a one-time follower and now-critic of the guru. Sfacets is associated with the main group, and has repeatedly removed links to the Adishakti.org site.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Unaware of the harassment pages (there are no links to them from the main pages) I restored those links since the deletions appeared to be motivated by POV. However now that Sfacets has become aware of the harassment pages he is in favor of linking to the site and has restored links, in one case even to the same page he previously deleted it from.[27]
- Regarding the additions of the link to Sfacet's user page: In addition to adding[28][29][30] and repeatedly restoring the link after it was removed by admins,[31][32][33][34] he added internal links that touch on personal details of the person mentioned on the harassment page, including the person's place of work,[35], the programming language in which the person is expert,[36] along with links to terms that appear on the harassment pages, such as "exocism",[37] "tarot",[38] "vishnu", etc. [39] There are also terms that, in this context, appear to be comemnts about the other person, such as "nutter",[40], "insanity",[41], "infantile", and "abnormal psychology". Given that context it appears undeniable that the only intent was to harass. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The case is compelling. If the content reappears, escalate through dispute resolution. GRBerry 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- From the victim's point of view, the harrassment is as nothing compared to the daily misery of having to engage with Sfacets' sham discussions on talk pages which he uses as an excuse to block any edit he doesn't like and proceed with any edit he wants to make. --Simon D M 10:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Block of Hesperian
Physchim62 (talk · contribs) has blocked an admin Hesperian (talk · contribs) with which he has a disagreement over the nomination of a number of templates. This needs to be reviewed because to me Physchim62 has misused his admin tools in blocking another editor. Physchim62 closed this tfd attacking the nominator Hesperian responded and was block with the explanation that Hesperian was uncivil.
I'll leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins to decide whether this action was/is justifiable. Gnangarra 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- (moving comment from Hesperian's talk page) This block is completely unjustified. If anything, User:Physchim62 should be blocked for his comments in closing the TfD in question. He was the first person to comment on the other user (Hesperian), and in commenting on User:Hesperian, i feel that Physchim62 personally attacked him, violating WP:NPA. Although, Hesperians comments did comment on User:Physchim61, and at times avoided the topic at hand, he did not violate WP:NPA. Twenty Years 14:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked Hesperian. The diff cited for the block [42] does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion. I think both Psychim and Hesperian could have handled the situation more calmly, but I cannot see any basis for a block. WjBscribe 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is the third contested and then reversed block for this admin in the past few weeks. There was deeceevoice's year-long block, There is this complaint about "Misuse of administrative powers: Physchim62" and now this. I'm tangentially involved in all of this so can a user or admin with a more neutral perspective than I respond to what I'm just starting to see as a pattern? I'm sorry to get up in Physchim62's business, but I thought I should say something in case others hadn't noticed that this keeps happening over and over. Maybe, it is just a coiencidence? futurebird 15:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the block log of Deeceevoice, you wont see Physchim62 there at all. It seems he just brought the matter to ANI for discussion. Just saying. Jeffpw 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're correct that he did not block but wrong about what he was doing there. He attempted to close. It was overturned by User:Matt Crypto: "Apologies to Physchim62, but I'm unarchiving this for a little while, because I believe this could do with more time for scrutiny. (Closing the discussion less than 24 hours after it began is not really good for those of us who do not have the ability to live and breathe Wikipedia 24/7...)"
- The user in the incident was not blocked at all. Had Physchim62's close stood, the user would have been blocked for a year. 86.42.83.73 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I don't really know how to look at those sorts of things. So it's not that much of a "pattern" nevermind. futurebird 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two instances of this sort within the last few days seems enough to warrant some further action. He's apparently editing, but has not responded, at least on-wiki. . DGG (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not a pattern of blocking, but a pattern of using admin powers when there is conflict of interest.[43], [44]. --the Dúnadan 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see what Physchim62 says. futurebird 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not a pattern of blocking, but a pattern of using admin powers when there is conflict of interest.[43], [44]. --the Dúnadan 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two instances of this sort within the last few days seems enough to warrant some further action. He's apparently editing, but has not responded, at least on-wiki. . DGG (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think a block of one week would be acceptable. His actions cannot go unpunished, not only has he blocked a quality admin, in a situation where he has COI, he has messed up with a few other blocks. Its simply poor form. Needs some sort of official sanction. Twenty Years 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's look at Hesperian's actions a little bit here:
- He nominates over two hundred templates for deletion, citing accessibility problems which he has never bothered to discuss with anyone else. He does not bother to discuss with, or even notify, the appropriate WikiProjects or project pages.
- In placing the TfD notice, he breaks over five thousand mainspace pages.
- When two admins vote "speedy keep", his reply is to ask them if they have actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep, nothing more. [45]
- When the discussion was closed as a speedy keep on the basis of it's disruptive nature, he then goes onto suggest that I had not read Wikipedia:Speedy keep myself, and that I was abusing my admin powers. [46]
- He has yet to engage in the slightest discussion as to what the accessibilty problems might be, and how they could be resolved on other areas of Wikipedia which also use
<span class="abbr">
.
He's lucky that he is such an experienced user: a newby might have been indefinitely blocked for that sort of trolling, as users of this page know full well. I am upset that this block has been lifted, as the reversion doesn't get us any closer to determining whether there are actually problems with the use of the abbr class. Neither did any of Hesperian's actions to date. Admins and experienced users are not immune from blocks when they act disruptively. Physchim62 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to Gnagarra above: I'm at a loss to see how my TFD close statement was "attacking" Hesperian, while his message on my talk page didn't attack me. Perhaps you are getting your disputes mixed up, and you are still thinking about the discussion we had this summer over Template:PD-Australia. Physchim62 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Physchim nope I didnt get anything mixed up you blocked Hesperian for responding to your statement of accusation about Hesperians bad faith, incivility, ignorance and point making. I brought it here because when you block without warning a trusted editor(admin) with 30,000 plus edits it's normal to notify ANI of your actions and get the situation reviewed by independent admins, even if you dont have a conflict of interest. Gnangarra 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lets look at his actions:
- OK, he is free to nominate stuff (yes, including templates) for deletion if he so chooses. Did he mean to "break" over 5000 mainspace pages? i doubt that very much, an experienced user like yourself should AGF and realise he probably didnt. Asking if someone has read speedy keep is not a personal attack. When User:Physchim62 (thats you, right?) closed the discussion? he asked you if you had read speedy keep? thats not a personal attack. So in 100% of his actions, he has not done a single thing wrong.
- Now, lets look at your actions:
- This comment when you closed the TfD appears to be a blaitant personal attack on a quality admin. After discussions with Hesperian, where he again made no personal attack (as said by WjB) you completely avoid that you have a Conflict of interest and block him for 24 hours because he was alledged to have made a personal attack on you, which WjB (the unblocking admin) could not find. Twenty Years 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Physchim, this is not the sort of obviously inappropriate action that would justify you blocking someone you're in conflict with. Was it so necessary to block immediately that you couldn't have brought the issue to a wider audience before acting, or at the very least immediately after acting? Natalie 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- What Twenty years and Natalie said. The initial block was out of line and against blocking policy viz. you don't block someone you're in dispute with. And to suggest you'd apply an indefinite block if it was a newbie makes me think Physchim62 is heavy handed and misusing his admin powers. —Moondyne 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Physchim, this is not the sort of obviously inappropriate action that would justify you blocking someone you're in conflict with. Was it so necessary to block immediately that you couldn't have brought the issue to a wider audience before acting, or at the very least immediately after acting? Natalie 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- This comment when you closed the TfD appears to be a blaitant personal attack on a quality admin. After discussions with Hesperian, where he again made no personal attack (as said by WjB) you completely avoid that you have a Conflict of interest and block him for 24 hours because he was alledged to have made a personal attack on you, which WjB (the unblocking admin) could not find. Twenty Years 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lets look at his actions:
Statement by Hesperian
Physchim62 has told a series of falsehoods here. I may have nominated a great many templates, but I actually only tagged one for deletion. That it was transcluded in a great many pages is not my fault. It is also not true that I notified nobody. The TfD tag for which I am being criticised serves a notification function. Also, I notified the creator of the templates, Bryan Derksen, immediately upon nominating the article. We had a constructive and civil discussion on his talk page. If you have a look at Bryan's talk page, you'll see that after the TfD was closed not in my favour, I followed up with a compromise that he described as "an excellent solution". Surely it is clear from that discussion that I was acting in good faith throughout.
Physchim62 was involved in the rollout of the nominated templates.[47] Clearly he had a stake in these templates, and their nomination for deletion pissed him off. Instead of adding his opinion to the TfD discussion, he elected to prematurely close the discussion as "speedy keep", even though he was an involved party, and an angry one at that, and even though the discussion clearly didn't meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Furthermore his closure notice was insulting, and contained the same falsehoods he's claiming here.
He should never have misused his administrative authority in prematurely closing that TfD. Such behaviour must be challenged, and challenge it I did. In response to that I was blocked for 24 hours. In the opinion of WjBscribe, who unblocked me, "this was an absurd block and I have unblocked. The diff cited for the block does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion."
Physchim62 has perpetrated some serious policy violations and injustices here: a biased and insulting TfD closure; followed by a block on someone with whom he is in dispute, without any basis in policy; followed by the indefensible assertion above that I am "trolling". It galls me to be the victim of such injustices, and to have no recourse that actually serves the encyclopaedia.
Hesperian 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very serious policy violation, from the discussions above, this appears not to be the first time that there has beeen issues with his use of his admin tools. There must be some sort of sanction against this user, to let him get away with this would be to support his actions. Twenty Years 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- One thing I find particularly disturbing is the fact that regardless of whether Hesperian may have broken the template, it seems he was never warned or told about it, at least not by Physchim62. I mean, if there was some history of template AFDs, maybe, but I find that defense for the block terrible. It is not obvious how the template code works. That could easily be fixed or at least a warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't break the template. I merely added the {{tfd}} template to it. It is standard operating procedure to do so. In doing so, I apparently made the layout of about 5000 ChemBoxes unattractive. Physchim62's accusation of "disruption" rests solely upon this.
- I might add that User:Beetstra removed the tfd template with edit summary "Removing TfD-notice, this is disrupting a huge number of pages about chemicals, I will leave the discussion open" 17 hours before Physchim62 prematurely closed the debate, so the assertion that he closed it because I was disrupting chemistry pages is yet another falsehood.
- Hesperian 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Great. That makes me feel much better<sarcasm>. Ok, if the tfd broke it (and I can understand how it might) all that would mean is that someone should move it into the noinclude section (which would then be a notification fight). That's still not a reason to block. Physchim62, you are not exactly encouraging me personally here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hesperian was editing disruptively. He has still shown no signs of actually wishing to enlighten users about the "accessibility problems" in a more appropriate forum. Instead he simply attacks the admin who is trying to avoid future disruption. This merits a short block whoever he is—we have blocked sitting arbitrators before now, after all. I would not indefinitely block a newby user in such cases, in fact I probably wouldn't WP:BITE at all in the case of a newby, but this is a user who has delighted in telling me how much experience of wikipedia he has. On the other hand, I seen newbies indef blocked for less, without any of the self-appointed guardians on this page so much as batting an eyelid. I was not "in a dispute" with Hesperian, any more than I am "in a dispute" with any other editor who is acting disruptively. The block has been undone, fine, I shaln't reimpose it. Now can we get back to wring an encyclopedia? Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note that this discussion has now lasted longer than the block would have done :P Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- But your block of Hesperian cites "personal attacks" and a diff showing a conversation with you on your talk page. If the personal attack and dispute did not involve you, then who did it involve? Are you saying your block summary is incorrect? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have in this discussion completely avoided the point that you failed to communicate with the parties concerned and used blocking as a first rather than last resort on an experienced contributor who was acting in good faith. Communication and good faith are vital and non-optional pillars of Wikipedia and far more important than the attractiveness or otherwise of a particular template. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Hesperian "edited disruptively". I also see nothing in this diff (as cited in the block log) that warranted blocking as an instant and immediate response, and I agree with WjBscribe's handling of the matter. As a matter of incident I have in fact done more than bat an eyelid at what I believe to be unfair or ill-conceived blocks against well-meaning newbies, and it is extremely insulting of you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow hypocritical. After seeing your heavy-handed participation in a copyright dispute (over the content of a template) a number of months ago and your threats to block people for merely disagreeing with you at that time, I see a similar pattern here and it concerns me. Orderinchaos 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to give my statement here about the situation. I noticed the TfD when I was looking at one of the chemicals, and it was disrupting the page quite a lot (warping the chembox). When I read the TfD reason, the main feeling that I got was "I don't like them" (nomination by Hesperian: "As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R- and S-phrases look really cool."). There is no discussion that suggests misuse, unhelpful, or whatever, only its apparent lack of function. Also, there was no notification of the projects or contributors (As far as I found, and although it is not a requirement, see WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page; see also below).
Now, WP:TFD#How_to_use_this_page suggests "If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead." .. this templates are in heavy use, and when some transclusions would have been checked, it would have shown where and what effect the transcusions have. That also suggest to use the <noinclude> tags, when necessary, though that is suggested for substing. That is not hiding (as suggested by Hesperian), that is why (as I mentioned above) it is suggested to "consider adding {{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. — ~~~~}} on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion".
When speedy keep is suggested (I was the first to suggest that), the response is "Did you ever actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep?". I must concur, before this TfD, and before suggesting speedy keep, I did not, but the tone that is notifying me that I actually should have is not assuming good faith.
As such, I would call this TfD disrupive, and I do fully back up the somewhat hostile tone in the closure of the TfD by Physchim62; the TfD was disruptive and based merely on "I don't like it", which is in no way a reason for deletion. So if I now re-read Wikipedia:Speedy keep, it DOES apply: "The nomination was unquestionably ... disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". Moreover, the remark "It is pretty obvious from the hostile tone of your response, together with the fact that you're deeply involved in chemistry articles, that you didn't like the nomination, and decided to speedy close the discussion instead of just saying your piece and waiting for an unbiased closure. That is a misuse of your administrative privileges." is then a personal attack, an accusation of 'misuse of administrative privileges' (there are 7 keeps (one with option 'rework' and not counting Physchim62's closure) and only the nominator's delete, also a reason for speedy keep, so I do not see any misuse of administrative privileges here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bad block, for the reasons set forth by WJBScribe. It's generally a very bad idea to block an established good-faith editor with the justification that they've attacked you. Especially without warning and on the basis of some very borderline "attacks". If I blocked everyone who commented toward me with the level of brusqueness that Hesperian used, I'd get carpal tunnel.
- If you're the target of personal attacks, bring it here. If the attacks are egregious enough, another admin will take care of it. In this case, it could have been better handled with a simple statement to Hesperian and disengagement. Blocking an established good-faith account without warning for personal attacks directed against the blocking admin, without even submitting the block here for review, is a really bad idea. Anyhow, the unblock was swift and appropriate, so we probably ought to just move on. If there is really a pattern here (which I'm not seeing just yet), then WP:RfC is probably the way to go. MastCell Talk 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This TfD started with a disruption (as was pointed out by a couple of editors) on a reason which assumes bad faith on the creators and users of the template ("... really cool."), followed by a couple of bad faith remarks ("Did you actually read speedy keep") and ended in a personal attack of one administrator to another on misuse of administrative privileges ("That is a misuse of your administrative privileges.". But I did, in the above statement, not discuss the block, or how the block was applied. My statement here states my thoughts about the nomination and the following remarks by Hesperian, as I feel that this whole situation was out of line, not only the (discussable) block, as this discussion now suggests! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, well that explains why we're not on the same wavelength. Saying "That is a misuse of your administrative privileges" is not a personal attack - certainly not one warranting a block from the admin who was accused of misuing said privileges. MastCell Talk 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- To be fair, he didn't KNOW about the accessibility problems until halfway through the deletion debate. He thought it was just a useless template, and wasn't aware of this purpose - it was only when this was pointed out that he pointed out that it causes inaccessibility (q.e.d., he himself was not able to easily access the information contained within). —Random832 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep often causes drama, and I would even say it should probably never be used when the nomination is made in good faith (good faith = the user really thinks it should be deleted, even if his reasoning is misguided). What harm would waiting five days have done, as compared to the insult of having your nomination "speedy kept", the block, and all the other drama this has caused (e.g. this thread)?—Random832 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Performing a speedy keep is not a misuse of administrative privilages, nor an insult (thats why we have that guideline), and if you are then accused of misuse of your administrative priviliges .. that is at the least not nice (and it is a comment on the contributor, not on the content). I can understand that Hesperian did not know how the templates were used, and did not see the use of them. Still, I think it should be common practice to at least see where the template was used (Special:Whatlinkshere), and there it could be seen it was used quite a lot (though it is after the latest changes difficult to check). And then also one could check how it got used in the pages and what the effect of deleting all the templates would be (and maybe even after the TfD having a look what happened to the pages the TfD'd templates were transcluded upon, though WP:TFD does not suggest that, it only suggests some alternatives for some cases). Not being aware of the purpose is not a reason to delete, and as I read the nomination, the main reason was "Don't see the use, don't like it"; that could have been a good reason to contact the creator first (I now see that the creator was notified after the TfD, did not see that when I wrote the above statement).
When pointed out that the TfD was disruptive (and I believe that that disruption was unintentionally), Hesperian reacted with a remark where my (and that of Rifleman_82) speedy keep was questioned in a way which did not exactly assume good faith. Although I indeed did not read the document beforehand (I don't know about Rifleman_82), closer examination shows that the speedy keep (in my opinion) was actually appropriate, since the TfD did disrupt (I removed the notice from the template, though I might better have moved it to the talkpage, mea culpa), and when it was speedy closed, there were 7 votes against the nominator; for the latter, if not a speedy keep, then at least WP:SNOW. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, but when do you get to the part where a block becomes warranted? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Beetstra, you've missed a crucial fact. If tagging a template with {{tfd}} is disruptive (which I dispute) then that disruption ceased when you removed the TfD notice. Physchim62 speedy closed the discussion 17 hours later. Physchim62's assertion that he closed it as disruptive is therefore a bald-faced lie, as you should well know, yet you've been sucked in by it. Hesperian 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Closing statement by Hesperian
Physchim62 and Beetstra have successfully turned this into a discussion on the merits and implementation of my TfD nomination, thereby avoiding any scrutiny of Physchim62 behaviour:
- Physchim62 speedily closed a TfD discussion on a template that he was involved in rolling out - a clear conflict of interest;
- Physchim62 closed a TfD discussion as "speedy keep", not for any reason laid out in Wikipedia:Speedy keep, but because he didn't like the nomination.
- Physchim62 left an insulting closure notice, accusing me of acting in bad faith, but you won't find anything in my contributions that suggests I was acting in bad faith;
- Physchim62 blocked me for 24 hours for a personal attack, but you won't find a personal attack in my contributions.
- Physchim62 blocked me while involved in a dispute with me, a clear violation of the blocking policy.
- Physchim62 accused me of disruption and trolling, but you won't find anything in my contributions that looks like disruption or trolling. That's assuming "disruption" is defined as laid out in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors, rather than simply "unintentionally made some pages look yucky for a while".
Obviously there is nothing I can do to obtain redress. I'm not going to take this all way to ArbCom for "Physchim62 is admonished not to be a naughty boy in future". But to the rest of you: be afraid. Physchim62 has not admitted any fault, and that means he'll do this again. You all have to work alongside someone who'll block you in a moment if you dare to challenge his bad behaviour. How do you feel about that?
I'm taking this discussion off my watchlist now, and I'd prefer this discussion ended. I realise I can't deny others the right of reply, but I certainly won't be reading any more of this.
Hesperian 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't the the rest of us have missed the point. Physchim62 would be well advised to show that he respects the limits on how far he can be involved as an administrator in an article or discussion in which he is personally concerned. The two instances discussed in the last few days here would seem to indicate that a repetition would be cause for further action, and I am not the least sure it would be an admonishment only. DGG (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Block on 203.109.223.1
Submitting a block I've made for community review. 203.109.223.1 (talk · contribs) doesn't have any contribs or deleted contribs as of this writing, but I've hardblocked it following some recent events. Bactoid was recently blocked by Moreschi as a suspected troll. Bactoid claimed the account had been compromised by roommates and was back under control. After brief discussion, Nat, Jpgordon, Moreschi, and myself developed consensus to unblock Bactoid with the understanding he would fly "straight as an arrow," and that any further problems would lead to an immediate reblock -- in particular, because the "compromised" account added itself into the running for Arbitration Committee while compromised, displaying knowledge of the elections, and of technique for page (and subpage) creation in the Wikipedia namespace, templates, and transclusion.
Bactoid on Wikipedia is Bacta on freenode; recently a user joined several Wikimedia IRC channels impersonating Jimbo Wales as "JWales," including channels such as #wikimedia, #wikimedia-ops, and #wikimedia-stewards. Moments after this user departed WMF channels, they changed nicks to Bacta (a registered nick, requiring identification with a password). This user's IP address was 203.109.223.1. From memory, similar incidents have come up in recent days. Once again, Bacta reported that roommates are to blame. As much as I might like to, I cannot post logs from WMF channels due to channel policies; it is worth pointing out, however, that Bacta has been removed (or autoremoved) from #wikipedia on multiple occassions, following disruption. It took this last incident for me to put things together.
A checkuser contacted me, while I was looking into this, and let me know that the IP in question does belong to User:Bactoid, and that it is not shared whatsoever. Bactoid's recent unblock request confirms at least the first point.
Judging from Bactoid's story, it seems that his roommates have free access, at will, to all of his computer(s) and account(s) in all forums and websites I know of. It appears these roommates also have fairly intimate knowledge of Wikipedia and IRC norms that go far beyond what the average newcomer might know of. The question begs itself, how many times can we allow the "my brother did it" excuse? Either Bactoid himself is the source of the disruption, or Bactoid is unable to secure his accounts.
Further complicating matters, it's come to my attention that another, very similar account, was indefinitely blocked shortly before Bactoid began contributing, see Bacta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given that this appears to be a (slowly) dynamic IP, it may be hard to tell if other accounts might be involved. Moreschi previously believed the Bactoid account was problematic; based on a willingness to assume good faith, this user was given one last chance. Based on prior problems, and the uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia displayed on multiple occassions in the past month, I made a judgement call.
Currently I have discussed this with multiple administrators, including bainer, lucasbfr, Deskana, SQL, Nat, and AzaTht. There was lengthy discussion in #wikipedia-en-unblock, some have told me logs from this channel are considered public, but I will confirm this before distributing any. Bainer wanted me to mention he might favor a shorter block.
There are certainly reasons this block might be controversial. Some might call it an IRC block. Bactoid's account has made some helpful edits. Obviously, I believe I've made the right decision, but I do not presume to assume that will be a final decision, and I do not wish to hide. In any case, I submit this block for community review. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- A decision to block on IRC is probably Bad Mojo, but evidence on IRC of disruption on Wiki is not necessarily bad. From what you say here, this looks like a good block. I would recommend posting the technical bits of the IRC logs to keep an on-wiki trace (channel enter/leave, etc). Not quoting anyone shouldn't be a problem, and the CU can confirm on-wiki. — Coren (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can not see anything on wiki to justify this block. I have reblocked AO ACB pending something on wiki. Nathan 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I favour a shorter block on the IP is because WHOIS and RDNS indicate that it's part of a /12 block allocated to an ISP, resolving to a dynamic DSL service, and long blocks should typically not be made on non-static IP addresses. --bainer (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get the reasoning behind blocking AO ACB. Either we hardblock the IP to prevent disruption coming from it, or we block the named account because we don't believe the story, or we don't block at all because we think the block was wrong. AO ACB is just useless here. -- lucasbfr talk 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Simple. There was a user affected because AO was not set. So I added AO, and left ACB for Luna's benefit. You are however correct, so I have unblocked altogether. Nathan 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you unblocked because the user the block was intended for was caught in the block without discussion? -- lucasbfr talk 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also appreciate clarification on this point. With all due respect to you, Mercury, but the timing and nature if your responses lead me to believe you didn't read or investigate the above text in any detail -- you almost said tl;dr in essence. Why haven't you allowed for discussion to establish a consensus? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you unblocked because the user the block was intended for was caught in the block without discussion? -- lucasbfr talk 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Simple. There was a user affected because AO was not set. So I added AO, and left ACB for Luna's benefit. You are however correct, so I have unblocked altogether. Nathan 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get the reasoning behind blocking AO ACB. Either we hardblock the IP to prevent disruption coming from it, or we block the named account because we don't believe the story, or we don't block at all because we think the block was wrong. AO ACB is just useless here. -- lucasbfr talk 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can block the account directly. If need be, get a checkuser on this one I suggest. We don't use off wiki IP coorelation for blocks here I don't think. That would be inexact. If you feel my action is unreasonable... Any administrator acting in good faith may reverse my action, I will not consider it wheeling.. Nathan 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)I'd support a block on the user, and, I'd be willing to bet, that bacta is Bacta (talk · contribs · count)... Therefore, the IP block is probably justified, for a short while, in addition to account blocks, due to what can only be described as abusive sockpuppetry, either by the user, or, roommates. SQLQuery me!
- While the block is unconventional, from the way Luna explains his actions behind it, makes the block seem like a good idea. Just my two pennies. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Prior restraint, go-go-go! Soon our precious wiki-fiefdoms will be safe from hypothetical editing by supposed rogue IPs and the vandals who may or may not control them, if said vandals even exist! GOOD BLOCK! Metastasize 19:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- While the block is unconventional, from the way Luna explains his actions behind it, makes the block seem like a good idea. Just my two pennies. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)I'd support a block on the user, and, I'd be willing to bet, that bacta is Bacta (talk · contribs · count)... Therefore, the IP block is probably justified, for a short while, in addition to account blocks, due to what can only be described as abusive sockpuppetry, either by the user, or, roommates. SQLQuery me!
So here we go again, someone takes great pains to explain a block and the first person who comes along and disagrees thinks that unblocking is better than discussion. If you don't think its warranted, say so, explain your reasons and let a consensus form. Where's the imminent danger that required an immediate unblock? FWIW, Luna's reasons make sense to me -- if we see collateral damager, maybe then changing the block would make sense. Nathan, you should reverse yourself. Shell babelfish 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Luna's reasoning is sound and the case well put. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Accounts are blocked to prevent disruption from an account. Also, it appears that his account can be compromised again. What makes it so complicated is that Bactoid's unblock requests sound possibly legitemate, but nevertheless, there is a pattern of disruption that must be ceased. Under this rationale, I endorse indefblocking his account and hardblocking the IP. Maser (Talk!) 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I wouldn't be too surprised if Bacta = Bactoid, given the username similarities. Maser (Talk!) 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- We've all heard the one about the compromised account and the room-mate or family member making the bad edits, and none of us will ever credit it. Either there is significant on-wiki disruption from this IP address, or there is not (and I don't really consider his arbcom nomination very disruptive, any more than a bad RfA). From what I've seen on-wiki I consider a 3-month IP hardblock on the harsh side. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- A self-nom in and of itself, no, but I'd encourage you to look at the deleted edits (if you haven't -- "I'm a troll and a damn good one at that. I think that more than qualifies me for the position on the arbitration committee."), plus Bactoid's assertion the account was compromised. Point taken on the duration, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like the reversing admin has run into some unrelated complications, deleted their userpage, and seems to have left the project, at least for the time being. We may need to consider the possibility there will be no further explanation or communication from them, on this matter. To my eyes it looks like their reversal was not supported by consensus, but as I have a bias on that front, I'd appreciate it if somebody neutral had a look. Currently neither the IP nor the account is blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse the block of the account. I'm less sure of the ip. Can we clarify whether there has been any vandalism from the ip that hasn't originated from the account? If not, perhaps we might be better blocking the account. Blocking the ip is effectively a ban so I think we need wider evidence of vandalism before doing this. As I have learned (painfully) myself, its always a bad idea to overturn a block that is being discussed here before waiting for consensus to develop. Spartaz Humbug! 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse block on the account, without the IP blocked, for the time being, until either more socks show up, or the user in question can secure their account. SQLQuery me! 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reading through this I find it sad people will persist in the strange delusion that I would be behind the "sockpuppetry" on IRC. Can someone answer the question as to why I would derive any pleasure from this? Compare this with my account and the positive edits I have put forward to Wikipedia. Such idiotic behaviour is not something a user of my character would indulge in and I thank Nathan for reverting what I consider an unfair banning (I say banning because thats what it is no matter how you dress it up). FYI I have found out who went onto IRC the otherday posing as JWales and I have talked to him about it, he assured me it would not happen again. Cheers! Bactoid 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Jeanenawhitney constantly calls other people's edits vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174932018&oldid=174931779 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174959479&oldid=174957391 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174931559&oldid=174931549 When asked to assume good faith, Jeanenawhitney accuses me of vandalism. She's declaring ownership and authority over others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.176.42 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, are those edits yours? There are a different IP address completely. Those edits (changing a chart's colors, and removing a chart) seems like vandalism when they are done without explanation. Now after her reverting, I see that the IP address continued to repeat itself, which is not the way to do it. In fact, she went above and beyond by telling the user to specifically go to the talk page instead of just a typical template. Now, for you, I'd first like you to explain this edit before I go further. Unless I'm missing something, that looks like vandalism from you to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously that is something that I don't do. if I want to vandalize I would do something a bit more creative than that. Also the other IP is not removing a chart, user Jeanewhitney is the one removed the chart, see it again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174959479&oldid=174957391
- ironically after calling that edit a vandalism, she later readded the same chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dancing_with_the_Stars_%28US_season_5%29&diff=174960584&oldid=174959479
Could someone please review Xgmx (talk · contribs). He has consistently tried to add links to his website SSFree for which he has been warned several times ([48], [49] and [50]). He was recently indef blocked for vandalism, and was unblocked when he apologized. Based on an older version of his user page [51] he is 14, so I argued that he should be given a little leeway, but even after his block he started stumping for SSFree again [52]. Burzmali 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- 14 or not, the fact that he's ignored warnings and went back on his apology makes me want to indef-block him for spam. However, I will hold off on judgement until he gives his side of the story either here or on his talk page. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just here to correct you, 15 now. Kind of weird how you just realised I added my site on several pages. I did that like 4 months ago and your just now realizing it. Well that was before I was blocked, but now that I'm unblocked, if you look you will see that my forums are no where on the pages, except of course my own user page. Also if you look at my forum you will see that several companies use it as their forum as well (we let some companies use it, its a marketing strategy). So in fact if you say I'm spamming links, well it might actually be true that the SS Free is the official game's forum. Also we never put a link on Wikipedia, without first making sure their is a similar link on the SS Free back to Wikipedia or that the SS Free has a forum for that specific game, movie, music, tv show, or miscellanious other. Please also see that I have served time for this already, if you don't recall me being indefinatly blocked.--Xgmx 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even if I view your actions in the most favorable light, how do you explain this? Burzmali 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Tjalling Beetstra, Criminologist1963 and COI
I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.
A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Wikipedia that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.
Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.
A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.
After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Wikipedia guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Wikipedia to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.
When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic_ritual_abuse_in_The_Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Wikipedia, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.
I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't yet looked into the background of this case sufficiently to comment on the nature of Crim1963's contributions, but the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands sure comes across as original research and synthesis. We could AFD the article, but that wouldn't address the COI concerns. AecisBrievenbus 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- This whole situation seems to be related to Biaothanatoi's POV-pushing on Satanic ritual abuse and related articles. The overwhelming majority of criminologists and sociologists believe that "SRA" was almost entirely a myth, a moral panic in which numerous innocent people were swept up. A handful of psychiatrists disagree, and still believe that SRA is real. It is this minority POV that Biaothanatoi wants to dominate the article. An official FBI investigation in 1992 found that there was no reliable evidence of SRA; see [53]. The most definitive book on the subject, Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend, also rejects SRA. All that is left is a handful of fringe therapists. With the help of Abuse truth, an apparent single-purpose account, Biaothanatoi is trying to skew these articles towards his own perspective. He has, on occasion, engaged in ad hominem attacks both on sources and on other editors while so doing. Yes, this issue should definitely be investigated more thoroughly. *** Crotalus *** 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Crotalus, if you have concerns about "POV-pushing" at SRA, then please address them there. There are a number of editors engaged in developing and improving that article, and we represent a range of viewpoints on the subject. The concerns that you raise here have been addressed there by several editors, including myself, at length, in good faith, and to the satisfaction of other editors.
- In contrast, to support of your own POV, you've misquoted the 1992 report, referred to a website whose authors misrepresent themselves as "consultants", pointed us to a fifteen-year-old book written by a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and engaged in a fruitless ad hominem attack of your own. You might find a more up-to-date resource online at this research paper on child sexual exploitation, including ritual abuse, by Professor Liz Kelly for the European Commission in 2000. The debate on ritual abuse has moved on since your sources were written in the early 1990s.
- Beetstra has a clear financial and professional interest in posting material on Wikipedia in which he declares himself an "expert" and provides links to a website advertising his services. I'd appreciate it if administratives could look into this and take some action. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do intend to address the POV-pushing on that article when I have more free time after final exams. As for your statements above:
- Please explain how I have "misquoted" Lanning. Furthermore, if you argue that Lanning's work is outdated, then please cite a case after 1992 where the FBI took a case of "satanic ritual abuse" seriously.
- Why should I care if Satanic Panic was written by "a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation"? Furthermore, why is a 15-year-old book an inherently unreliable source on this subject?
- Liz Kelly's paper, which you cited, does not contain the phrase "satanic ritual abuse." It does contain several discussions of sexual abuse in institutional settings, but these cases had corroborating evidence (unlike the American SRA craze) and they did not include allegations of satanic activity. If any ritual at all was involved in the abuse (which is not clear), it was probably Christian in nature (since much of it took place in Catholic group homes). If you want to make a separate page for "Institutional sexual abuse" or "Sexual abuse in Irish orphanages and group homes," go ahead. The page in question is titled "Satanic ritual abuse," and the professional consensus on that specific subject is that it is largely an urban myth.
- If Beetstra's papers were published in reputable journals, and represent a mainstream view, then they may very well be reliable sources, regardless of who is adding them.
*** Crotalus *** 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Crotalus, this is not the place to have a debate about SRA. Needless to say, my own opinions on SRA are a little more complex then you appear to presume - I am not simply a "believer" in the subject matter, as a perusal of my userpage makes clear.
- Kelly's report contians multiople references to "ritual abuse" and I suggest you read them and consider that the evidence base on ritualistic forms of child sexual assault may have developed somewhat in the fifteen years since your sources were published.
- Please head over to Satanic Ritual Abuse and I'd be happy to discuss this further. As for Beestra/Crim1963's changes, he cites himself as an "expert" and links to a commercial website in which he offers his services. That looks COI to me. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Satanic ritual abuse" is poor English. They're abusing satanic rituals? Neil ☎ 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, I agree that the assemblage of words is problematic, and that is discussed in the article at the moment. --Biaothanatoi 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
As User:John254 points out here, Eso si que es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pun on the word "socks." Two questions: is this grounds for a username block in itself? and is there reason to believe that this user violates the sockpuppetry policies? His activities so far have been mildly disruptive but not beyond the pale in themselves. I am neutral on both of these questions but thought them worth asking others. Chick Bowen 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it means 'That is what it is' roughly in English(I never took Spanish, j'ai pris le français dans l'école secondaire, but I've picked it up over time), can't comment on the pun. Dureo 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does have a double meaning (Ess - oh - cee - kay - ess : SOCKS - very clever!), but they haven't done anything yet; I'd just keep an eye on them. Neil ☎ 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's hope the Clinton's former cat doesn't try to set up an account. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- My first thought in dealing with this editor was that it was a sock. There's even an old joke about a Spanish speaking customer in a department store where Eso si que es is the punchline. The name is clearly meant to be SOCKS, and the user's contribs indicate this is not his/her first account, but I suppose "watch and see" isn't a bad tactic. - auburnpilot talk 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also recall some Spanish language class provider used this in its advertising; see how easy it is to speak Spanish. Carlossuarez46 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- My first thought in dealing with this editor was that it was a sock. There's even an old joke about a Spanish speaking customer in a department store where Eso si que es is the punchline. The name is clearly meant to be SOCKS, and the user's contribs indicate this is not his/her first account, but I suppose "watch and see" isn't a bad tactic. - auburnpilot talk 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's hope the Clinton's former cat doesn't try to set up an account. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does have a double meaning (Ess - oh - cee - kay - ess : SOCKS - very clever!), but they haven't done anything yet; I'd just keep an eye on them. Neil ☎ 12:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate name
I've had my user name for over two years. A new user just took the name Notmyrealname7 (see edit history here). Not sure what the policy is here, but I often edit contentious pages and have previously initiated grievances. Is it legit for this user to take a name that's so close to mine? Notmyrealname 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You definitely should report it. Goto Wikipedia:Username#Reporting_inappropriate_names to get guidance on how to report it. It qualifies under criterion 1: Confusing names "Usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion."Balloonman 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at NMRN7's edits (TP), I gave him a uw-username warning - the only edit (s)he's made is good-faith, and I hope (s)he decides to get a username change. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Something fishy, though - very first edit is a properly-formatted and policy-quoting request for unprotection of a salted page that has Arb Comm issues [54]. BencherliteTalk 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a note beneath Jéské's explaining what the issue with the name is, since the template could be pretty baffling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at NMRN7's edits (TP), I gave him a uw-username warning - the only edit (s)he's made is good-faith, and I hope (s)he decides to get a username change. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Prester John
While looking at MfDs I noticed this very odd one: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination). (For starters, it appears to be the first nomination, not the second). User:Prester John has been getting in hot water again over his userpage. I'm guessing the users involved weren't sure on how to handle the situation, so they listed the offending userpage for deletion. I closed the MfD (for being under the wrong venue to resolve the dispute) and blanked his userpage with a message saying he should only restore the non-offending content. He's already reverted me and given me a little vandalism warning to boot, so I'm noting the situation here. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I very respectfully disagree with you Ned Scott. With all do respect I reverted your edit. I think it is a little optimistic to think Prester John will voluntarily remove offensive material. But, I do implore admins to look over the MfD [55], and his block log and edit history. Make specific note of how many times he has been warned.--Agha Nader 07:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that he can be blocked if he puts it back.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your edit to his userpage seemed entirely appropriate, and his reversion as vandalism was not. It's probably best to let the MFD run, but whether the content can stay isn't necessarily dependent on its outcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- If they really want to use MfD.. ok.. but I'm not sure why anyone would want to wait five days for something we can handle now. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any obligation to wait, in the sense that just removing the material was perfectly fine. But if he is intent on edit warring over the removal, which he may be, MFD permits a more decisive resolution of the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did go through and remove the offending material; I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds in doing so. I left a note on his talk page explaining what I'd done. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any obligation to wait, in the sense that just removing the material was perfectly fine. But if he is intent on edit warring over the removal, which he may be, MFD permits a more decisive resolution of the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good question: should editors remove offensive material from user pages; and who determines whether it is offensive? Some people have strident political positions on their pages, or have preserved the substance of deleted articles which they found politically to their liking in user space. We give wide latitude to users, a user even had pentagrams and swastikas on his user page and that wasn't deemed offensive to the community sufficient to remove them against the user's will. While I have great respect for FisherQueen, I think it overstepped bounds. Carlossuarez46 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
IP faking semi-prot.
Special:Contributions/71.191.91.213 shows an IP to be adding the semi-protection templates to various pages which aren't semi-protected. This IP needs a block and the damage needs undoing. ThuranX 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- IP hasn't edited in over 4 hours.Balloonman 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem at Card sharp
Thoroughly-sourced changes at Card sharp (and Card shark redir) are being reverted by 2005 (talk · contribs) who labels his reversions "Rvv". Not a huge deal, but could probably use a talking to about what "vandalism" means and how reliable sourcing vs. personal PoV works. [56][57][58] — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like SJP (talk · contribs) already talked to 2005 (talk · contribs) about it. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Similar but unrelated incident, and it hasn't stopped. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I left a level 3 warning on that user's talk page. Carlossuarez46 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Russbot
Russbot just altered a Bedřich Reicin category in which it put the word "category:" twice, screwing up the categories of said article. Who knows what other articles it has screwed up.--Bedford 09:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- All edits between 5.42am and 5.45am (all the Czech soldier articles) have this problem. At a glance, it seems to be the only one Russbot has fouled up though... The Rambling Man 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've rolled back all Russbot's edits which were still on top (about 80%) for the Czech soldier articles. The others will need to be modified by hand. Russbot can come back and play again once he's making the right changes! The Rambling Man 09:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to The Rambling Man for alerting me to this error. I've tracked down the problem and fixed it (there was a relatively recent change in the template syntax for {{Category redirect}} and the bot hadn't been updated to recognize it). Did a manual run this morning to make sure it works right. --Russ (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
212.162.164.144
- 212.162.164.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistent antisemitic vandalism - diffs:[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] Here is where he blanked his user page removing numerous warnings. He doesn't edit every day or even every week, so I don't think a 24 or 48 hour block will have any significant effect.
I reported this at WP:AIV and they told me to bring it here because he hasn't edited in a while. --Steven J. Anderson 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- A procedure note first: Current consensus is that users are free to remove warnings from their user talk page, that serves as an acknowledgment that they read them. That being said, and due to the nature of the edits and that there is little doubt this is a single user, I'd support a long term hardblock on the IP (1 month?) to drive the point home. This is a customer IP that does not appear to be shared. Any objections? -- lucasbfr talk 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Inasmuch as he has been warned a block is warranted. The only thing I am unsure of giving it now, almost two weeks after the last edit. - JodyB talk 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good news everyone, He edited today ;). I let a second pair of eyes handle it. -- lucasbfr talk 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Inasmuch as he has been warned a block is warranted. The only thing I am unsure of giving it now, almost two weeks after the last edit. - JodyB talk 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure that anon IP addresses have the right to remove warnings from a Talk page, since it is not "their" page. Corvus cornixtalk 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
One month block. Carlossuarez46 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this page and tell me what you think. Looks like the user removed some templates back on the 10 november and received vandalism warnings for it. It doesn't look like vandalism to me, certainly not simple vandalism that requires a template. Possible test edits, possibly good faith but clueless, but no matter. That isn't what is bothering me.
The user then tries to remove the vandalism warnings from his page and receives further vandalism templates and a block for doing it. This looks like major newbie biting to me. When an IP is clearly static, and when the IP is clearly not a vandal, why do we not allow them to remove the templates. Is it plain stubborness? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is a good question. It may be that we need further discussion about this but there seem to be many who think removing warnings from one's talk page is vandalism. It is not. WP:UP#CMT makes plain that a user may remove such warnings. Of course, they still exist in the history of the page. Some users are embarrassed by the admonitions and wish to remove them. Such is not prohibited. I think there may be some confusion because that has not always been the practice. I believe we allow them to remove the warnings. We have much bigger issues to spend our time on. - JodyB talk 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the protecting admin, I have an issue with removing warnings while vandalism is in progress, as happened here. The same policy page makes clear that removing a warning implies that you read it ... to me, removing warnings and then continuing the same edit pattern is a way to try to avoid the consequences of your actions by preventing other users from seeing how many you've already gotten.
Flip edit summaries and ownership assertions like this did not help this user's case with me. Perhaps it was edit war rather than pure vandalism, but the net effect is the same, as is the remedy. Daniel Case 13:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Come on, seriously? If you take a look at the time line of the entire escapade, it should be clear what has happened here. I made an edit, specifically, removing a template which User:Fogeltje felt should be there. That's fine. He then proceeds to watch my user page. I blanked the page... I get it, I read the warnings... and it stayed that way for hours. It seems more like stalking my page with an attempt to humiliate than any kind of actionable page blanking on my part.
- As the protecting admin, I have an issue with removing warnings while vandalism is in progress, as happened here. The same policy page makes clear that removing a warning implies that you read it ... to me, removing warnings and then continuing the same edit pattern is a way to try to avoid the consequences of your actions by preventing other users from seeing how many you've already gotten.
- All of my supposed vandalism and edit warring at this point comes from doing exactly what everyone says I should be able to do.. removing content from my talk page when I've read it. Does anyone really believe that this is an important part of the encyclopedia which needs protection?
- Did I behave like a petulant child on occasion? Sure. Most of it came from my pure incredulity that "protecting" a page intended for talking to me was such a priority... nevertheless, I accept that I am responsibility for my poorly thought out response. 70.173.50.153 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- See above. I don't believe anons have the right to remove warnings from Talk pages, as they are not "their" pages. Corvus cornixtalk 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Once a vandal, always a vandal, eh? Yeah, forget reform. Forget shared IPs. Forget giving anybody a chance. We need to block this guy, he's a major threat to the encyclopedia, removing all those critical {{test1}} messages from a page no one is ever going to read. I must admit I'm at a complete loss to understand why the contents of this talk page are important. Once the page was protected, did they really need to be blocked? Seems a bit much hurry. Don't we all have better things to do than play police with things that aren't even remotely a problem for the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- See above. I don't believe anons have the right to remove warnings from Talk pages, as they are not "their" pages. Corvus cornixtalk 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Luna, Theresa, JodyB, and for the most part 70.173.50.153. No edits had been made in the previous week, the previous edits were all still (top) - there was no vandalism in progress. I can sometimes see the need for full protection at times like this to stop the RC patrollers edit warring on the user's talk page, but never the need for a block. 'Anons' are editors like you and me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. They can't create articles and can't move them. This was by design after those capabilities were stripped away from unregistered users. For good reasons, too.
Given that many anons are used by different users and are frequent bases for vandalism and sockpuppetry, we have every right and obligation to be less forgiving when they are used to edit in violation of policy and consensus, whatever misunderstandings are claimed later. That's why I keep the templates up ... other users who might leave messages have to be able to know what kind of user they're dealing with. And there is really no such thing as a truly static IP ... this was mine for a while but now it's not anymore. Nor do we have the reasonable certainty that the same person is behind every edit that we do with a registered user (how many times have you gotten an unblock request along the lines of "My brother started editing while I was out of the room!"?).
The blocking came first, then the protection. I was more than a bit annoyed when the page was blanked immediately after the block. That just flushes every good faith assumption I could have. Daniel Case 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. They can't create articles and can't move them. This was by design after those capabilities were stripped away from unregistered users. For good reasons, too.
- So you blocked him before you protected the page.For what?! He was a productive editor. You obviously didn't check his contributions because if you did you'd know that a) his only "vandalism" was to remove some templates back in November b) He isn't claiming that he didn't do it only that it wasn't vandalism. Or do we define removing of a vandalism warning itself as vandalism? If the IP changes and is no longer his why do we need the warnings? Your argument makes no sense to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a disgrace - treatment of Nishidani by admins
== The real disgrace is that the Stalinazi Roland Rance is being permitted to sabotage masses of articles in order to insert his racist and neo-fascist biases into them
STOP STALINAZI RANCE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rance disgrace (talk • contribs) 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This concerns the Norman Finkelstein article. As Nishidani still appears to be blocked, I am copying his observations here from his user page:
permanent link to the talk page Reformated by -- lucasbfr talk 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC), see rationale below.
In my view:
- The initial blocks imposed by admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on three editors showed poor judgement. To resolve an edit-war, editors need to discuss on the talk page, and they can't do that if they're blocked. Page protection would have been better, although in this case I think it would have been premature.
- Neither RolandR nor Nishidani committed any violation of Wikipedia rules, yet they remained blocked after the other editor User:Andyvphil was let off (on a technical argument that his first "revert" was not a revert), despite sailing very, very close to the 3RR wind. User RolandR has now been correctly unblocked.
- Nishidani is an excellent editor who adheres scrupulously to WP rules on verifiability. He also shows scholarly erudition, and has made enormous improvements to many articles. Of the three editors involved here, he is the one who least deserves sanction.
- This incident raises several other, more serious issues. I will let Nishidani's words above speak for him.
--NSH001 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the section, and replaced it by a permanent link to the talk page, to the revision just prior to this thread. First because this prevent any edits to the section, and it also allows much easier commenting here: The sections titles in the collapsed part were breaking the page. -- lucasbfr talk 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I should have gone through and turned all the section headings into level four headings before adding them here; I think that would have solved the problems about breaking the page. I did think it was very important that Nishidani's words should appear here (rather than just a link) so as to draw attention to the injustice. I still urge everyone to read Nishidani's talk page carefully. --NSH001 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the section, and replaced it by a permanent link to the talk page, to the revision just prior to this thread. First because this prevent any edits to the section, and it also allows much easier commenting here: The sections titles in the collapsed part were breaking the page. -- lucasbfr talk 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the words of the Message Board Help forum at GameFAQs, "Fair. Next." Will (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Next"? Wtf does that mean? Nish is still blocked.[64], and he should never have been, and certainly shouldn't be blocked now. Cav is going around the protections in the 3RR (the "clearly disruptive" wording[65]) and "disruptive editor" policies (the "frivolous accusation" procedural protection[66]) by banning on grounds ("edit warring") where there is no explicit check in policy on his discretion. There is no excuse for Nish ignoring my edit comments and restoring the text to the footnote without addressing the missing ellipses and unmentioned added italics I had pointed out, but it was absurd to ban him after only two reverts and the failure to unban him when RolandR was unbanned, merely because he'd pissed off another admin, was unconscionable. Andyvphil 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I unblocked User:Andyvphil, and, I did not do so, because of any wikilawyering over 3RR. I did so, because after consulting the blocking admin, I still felt that 72 hours was excessive, for a user with no prior 3RR blocks. I can't comment on the other users, as I didn't review those blocks, but, I wanted to correctly represent why I unblocked (what was said above is simply not correct). As an aside, can we get rid of the collapsable talkpage section? Maybe link instead, it is making it VERY difficult to edit this section in Iceweasel/Firefox. SQLQuery me! 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, I have "barged in like a bull in a china shop to wield his arbitrary judgement on a page of whose complex history he seems wholly unaware.". This is partially correct. I am not aware of any of the issues surrounding Norman Finkelstein, nor do I wish to be involved - it is simply my place to stop edit-warring.
- I therefore stepped in to stop edit-warring (note how the block log states edit-warring and not 3RR), or if you like, "breaking the spirit of the 3RR". I checked the blocking history of all three users. Nishdani has been blocked for edit-warring twice before: 8 and 24 hours respectively. RolandR has been blocked several times, and though not all were upheld, it still shows a clear history of edit-warring. Upheld blocks were for 24 and 48 hours. Andyvphil was the user I felt bad blocking, however - no prior history of edit-warring, so 72 hours is a bit harsh. However, I can't very well block him for 24 hours and the other two for 72 and 48 - differing block times would just lead to me being accused of favouritism, and after 24 he may very well go back and revert the article again, much to the displeasure of the still-blocked other users. To conclude: my block of Andvphil was harsh, but understandable in the interests of fairness. The other two users were blocked for edit-warring, and I stand by that judgement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I should add that I have never been on active assignment outside of Devon, have no idea who Norman Finkelstien is, and the very suggestion that I should avoid articles about places where the US, UN or UK military are based is ridiculous, because that covers about 40% of the places on the planet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Chase Me states above that "the block log states edit-warring and not 3RR". That may be the case, but the first I knew about this was when I logged on, to find a message on my talk page stating "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule". There was no indication as to where I had allegedly violated this rule, and it was only by checking Chase Me's contributions that I learned that this was in relation to Norman Finkelstein. On that article, I had made just two edits in the previous 24 hours, and two more in the preceding month. This is scarcely indicative of edit-warring. I don't think that either Nishidani or I should have been blocked at all in this case. And, even if Andyvphil should have been blocked, a 72-hour block for a first offence is certainly excessive, as even Chase Me agrees.
- It is revealing that Chase Me admits to having no knowledge of Finkelstein, since this means that he could have no understanding of the context in which rhese disputed edits were taking place. What we had here was a conmplex situation, where editors who had previously complained about Andyvphil's disruptive behaviour on Ilan Pappé, then discovered him making similarly disruptive edits on Norman Finkelstein. In both cases, this consisted of removing well-documented material favourable to these radical critics of Israel, while inserting poorly-documented and tendentious hostile quotes. Andyvphil had clearly stated his intention of introducing such material in the Pappé article, despite opposition from most editors, and even if this meant continual edit-warring [67], so it was reasonable to suspect him of doing the same in the Finkelstein article, particularly after he had four times in one day removed the same relevant contextual passage. I state this, not in order to justify my edits (or Nishidani's), but to support Nishidani's allegation of Chase Me "barg(ing) in like a bull in a china shop to wield his arbitrary judgement on a page of whose complex history he seems wholly unaware".
- Nishidani's continued blocking is indeed a disgrace. It does not serve the needs of Wikipedia, but seems merely a punitive retribution for his harsh comments about another admin. This is not the function of a block, and it should be rescinded at once. I also think that, since these blocks were entirely unjustified in the first place, but are likely to sit in our block logs and be used against us in the future, the logs for all three affected editors (Andyvphil, Nishidani and RolandR) should be amended to remove this block. And I believe that Chase Me has demonstrated that he is not fit to be trusted with the tools of an admin, and should have his power to block editors withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I should add that I have never been on active assignment outside of Devon, have no idea who Norman Finkelstien is, and the very suggestion that I should avoid articles about places where the US, UN or UK military are based is ridiculous, because that covers about 40% of the places on the planet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Is nobody going to to lift this ludicrous block on Nishidani?
- even the editor with whom he was in dispute thinks he should not have been blocked (see Andyvphil's comment above)
- Nishidani hasn't done anything here to deserve being blocked
- Nishidani is going to be left with an unjust stain on his block record.
- Of the three editors involved, Andyvphil was the one closest to breaking 3RR; the others were nowhere near.
- Admins need to exercise extreme care when dealing with Israel/Palestine articles (which obviously includes Norman Finkelstein). In this case, the blocking admin was misled by Nishidani's block record, and this incident is just going to compound the problem. See Nishidani's talk page for the reasons why. Nishidani is not the only example of this phenomenon, Palestine Remembered being the supreme example.
- the refusal of the reviewing admin User:Swatjester to allow Nishidani's unblock request is deeply disturbing. He appears to have a conflict of interest here; the unblock request should be looked at again by a truly independent admin.
- the correct admin action in this case would have been to have first posted a note on the talk page, asking editors to resolve their differences there, and warning that the page would be edit-protected if not. As I mentioned above, it is pointless blocking them, as that prevents their attempting to reach consensus on the talk page. This dispute (of the kind that goes on all the time on I/P articles) had not yet reached the point where blocking or protection was warranted.
--NSH001 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I can not resist adding my voice to this issue. I have seen a lot of User:Nishidani's work and it is of notably high quality, so I was rather surprised when I found out about it. His block messages says:
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule.
OK, so it's a WP:3RR. For what article? Looking at his block log it indicates: Norman Finkelstein. Looking at the history page, Nishidani's edits for the last month are:
- 03:18, December 2, 2007
- 20:32, December 1, 2007
- 06:46, November 7, 2007
- 22:40, November 3, 2007
- 22:39, November 3, 2007
We all should know what a WP:3RR violation is:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
There is not a single set of three or more edits "within a 24-hour period". So when he asked for a review and was denied, I am sure that he was rather mystified, as was I.
Then he is told that the violation is not the WP:3RR as initially listed but was something else entirely: WP:EW. So, again, looking at this above edits, none of them seem like edit warring to me. There are several minor style issues and then restoring of verifiable, quoted references. The comments even invite editors to discuss the issue for better suggestions. There should be nothing wrong with these edits. What else more do you expect of him? This block seems highly unjustified and is owed a decent review by others. Bendono 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree this block seems excessive or even unwarranted. Blocked without warning for two reverts at the beginning of the editing session. This does not seem like edit warring worthy of a 72 hour block. I am not convinced by the unblock review either. I would like to see an immediate unblock with time served, and an agreement not to return to make the same edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- As stated previously, I'm happy to unblock the users if they decide to go back to the talk page, instead of constantly reverting each other. Edit warring serves only to increase the strain on the servers - it has no other effect. If someone makes an edit that you don't like, possibly revert once - else, the talk page is the only place that should be visited. If another admin is willing to unblock all users concerned, I'm happy with it too - so long as they do not go back to edit-warring! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- This appears to have been an excessively shady and poorly thought-out series of actions by both Cavalry and SwatJester. The initial block was, at the very least, excessive, punitive, and poorly explained. Subsequently, Nishidani's remarks that members of US and British armed forces (currently at war in Iraq against Arab insurgents) are unsuitable arbiters of an Israeli-Palestinian WikiWar was taken as "Being insulting towards admins" and used as an excuse to decline his unblock request. The rationale for declining unblock contained no discussion of policy or relevant conduct; it seemed to be simply a question of petty "revenge". All of this could have been avoided simply by protecting the article which was the locus of dispute and encouraging a proper, reasoned discussion on talk. Instead, experienced contributors were slapped with dubious blocks. Very worrying. <eleland/talkedits> 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Tiamut 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Arguing before an audience of admins that they should curb their behaviour is unrewarding. The appeal of collegiality over fairness to the peons will win out most of the time. As I remarked on my talk page (which I urge you to consult if you have any inclination to believe RolandR's tendentious misrepresentation of the underlying facts) while I was blocked, "admins who have looked in at this have been very resistant to commenting on the particulars" (which I was insisting was necessary, under 3RR policy, to establish "clearly disruptive behavior" in the absence of actual 3RR). Thus although Swatjester should probably have recused himself from denying Nishidani's appeal, it is unlikely that many other admins would have made a different decision, judging from the comments left on my page.
- And I want to make clear that my comment that leaving Nish under block when RolandR was unblocked by AuburnPilot is not directed particularly at the latter, since Nish's request for unblock had been taken down by Swatjester by then, and AuburnPilot was probably simply unaware of that block. Andyvphil 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eleland, I've been told again and again by other, more experienced admins that a block is infinitely preferable to a full-on page lock. A page lock would prevent anyone from editing the article - I understand in this case that my block lengths were a bit excessive, and I will apologise to the users in turn, but they must in turn realise that discussion is infinitely preferable to reverting. even a brief look at the edit history of the entire article shows that no-one was willing to come to a consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- In that respect you have a good point; the preference here seems to be for blocks over protection. It looks like you had to protect the article anyway, though. In my opinion, if there is clearly enough recent disruptive activity to implement protection, but only debatably enough recent disruption to justify blocks, protection would be a wiser course of action. <eleland/talkedits> 01:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I commend you for your intention to apologize to the users. Discussion is indeed a good way to solve conflict. In that spirit I hope that in similar situations in the future you will consider discussing things with the people in question before you block them. Haukur 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Calvary, you're right: protecting a page prevents anyone from editing it. Also consider that blocking someone prevents them from editing any page. Concentrating on content, instead of contributors, is not an idea limited to personal attacks. Cheers, GracenotesT § 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and unblock per the above. Haukur 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- You beat me to it... I was gonna unblock as well.Balloonman 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Concern for my adoptee
This edit, and the one after it on my page, lead me to think (no, believe) that my adoptee has been using sock puppets to disrupt the Wikipedia. I am now going to A) talk to him about the policy; and B)label the other accounts that I know of as sockpuppets. I just don't know if any other action needs to be taken. I am deeply concerned that User:Iamandrewrice is never going to learn how to be a positive contributer and am at my wits end. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been reviewing the behavior of Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) since the initial thread on ANI. In his 3 weeks on Wikipedia, this user has managed to violate most of the core policies, including making legal threats, using sockpuppets and gross incivility to numerous editors. Jeffpw has had remarkable patience with Iamandrewrice, mentoring him and attempting to mold him into a productive user. However, this experiement has failed as the user is eithe[r unwilling or unable to follow the advice given to him by Jeff and many others. He's been blocked twice (legal threats, vandalism) and has recently implied that he's created multiple sockpuppets to evade blocks. Since there's no sign that Iamandrewrice's behavior is going to undergo a miraculous change, I'm requesting that this user be blocked indefinitely. I believe that a review of his contributions will lead other editors to the same conclusion. Chaz Beckett 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been following this carefully and yes, Jeff deserves a very large chocolate barnstar. I'd agree that an indefblock appears to be warranted. I've asked Iamandrewrice for an explanation of the edits Jeff has concerns about,
so far with no responseto be told that I am not the person on the account (despite the edits Jeff brought up) Tonywalton | Talk 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) - I too have followed this from the sideline since being in dispute with him. That episode resulted in Jeffpw's adoption of Iamandrewrice. He has since shown significant progress as an editor and has worked hard on several articles. However, the amount of incivility towards his mentor has been astounding as has Jeffpw's patience and goodwill for which I awarded him a barnstar and some encouraging words. If this is the path that Iamandrewrice has now chosen, as it would appear, then I guess an indef block is the only solution to this. That said, it really all boils down to how much Jeffpw can continue to mentor someone who at times seem more eager to prove himself right regardless of Jeffpw's firm warnings to stop acting out. I don't think anyone would blame Jeffpw for simply deciding to back out of this arrangement. EconomicsGuy 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to be a fairly unambiguous statement that Jeff's done just that (and no blame to him) Tonywalton | Talk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been following this carefully and yes, Jeff deserves a very large chocolate barnstar. I'd agree that an indefblock appears to be warranted. I've asked Iamandrewrice for an explanation of the edits Jeff has concerns about,
thats not true! i have not purposefully vandalised as you will see! My edits were all with good faith! and I was learning very much from jeff... Iamandrewrice 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are constantly incivil to Jeff, as in these edits [68] [69] [70]. This is how you're treating someone you're "...learning very much from"". Sorry, you've been informed that this type of behavior is not acceptable, but the inappropriate behavior has continued and possibly even worsened. Chaz Beckett 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I am basically crying now! I put my trust in you as an adoptee... and was hoping you felt the same level of care... I was, and still am trying so hard... if you look at my edits, none of them are vandalistic ... EVEN that Monkton one, as that with good faith! Iamandrewrice 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you have an inability to see past yourself. Jeff took on the responsibility of adopting you when others thought you were a lost cause. He has attempted to put you on the right path. Instead of being grateful you demonstrate a selfishness that is totally out of line with the way Wikipedia works. Then when you are challenged on your behaviour you attempt to put the blame back on the one person who had faith in you. "Crying"? My ass! You are one of those kids, for whatever reason, thinks it's always someone else's fault. Your behaviour is your fault, no-one else's. --WebHamster 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- A quick observation. Is it not more likely that User:SpidermanHero is a sock of User:Joeseth1992 - especially given User:SpidermanHero claims his name is Jose? Yes, the first message left on User:SpidermanHero was from User:iamandrewrice but that is arguably to be expected given User:iamandrewrice has claimed to know User:Joeseth1992 in real life. And User:Joeseth1992 did have his recent block extended for using socks to get around it. Also (and I haven't the diffs at the moment as I'm in a rush) User:iamandrewrice did claim User:Joeseth1992 wanted to improve the grammar on Wiki and User:SpidermanHero did make such an edit (albeit an incorrect one, capitalising a direction)[71]. I am convinced User:Joeseth1992 and User:iamandrewrice are separate people in real life (and they have left enough personal information about themselves on their user pages to make it apparent they are friends on MySpace and Bebo, for instance. My only main concern is that User:iamandrewrice has created the account to disparage the person his username suggests he is. That person does exist, and is connected to the person behind User:iamandrewrice on Bebo if nowhere else. Given all that can be obtained from the details both left (mainly email details in userboxes) is this not more likely to be a group of school friends that have got out of control, rather than socks? Whitstable 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- this diff would support that assertion. Someone came complaining that Iamandrerice had taken their name to use here. I expressed concern at that time, but it was decided Iamandrewrice could keep the name. Jeffpw 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sockpuppets are actually a very minor (and recent) part of the problem. Let's assume they're not sockpuppets, but a group of friends. Now we have a situation where Iamandrewrice is playing his usual game of creating drama and then playing the "I didn't know any better" card. This card made its first appearance when he made legal threats then, when blocked for this behavior, claimed to not know the definition of "legal action" (despite claiming on his user page that English is his native language and that he's studying English language and literature). So he's either lying about using sockpuppets or he's using sockpuppets, neither one is acceptable behavior. Chaz Beckett 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree completely with that - and would also point to [this edit] to suggest that even if the two accounts are no the same person, they have been known to work together in such a way that is disruptive. I nearly filed a CU yesterday because of the amount of blocked users user:iamandrewrice had been contacting, but opted not to. But socks or not, I think the way user:Jeffpw has been treated by someone he has gone beyond the call of duty to help is so unfair that I am fuming about it, and I'm only looking at this from the outside! Whitstable 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just had a thought regarding checkuser - since the socks (or !socks) seem to admit to being pupils at the same school, isn't a checkuser likely to prove very little? The IP will be either the school's proxy or at least should be expected to be in the same IP block in any case. Tonywalton | Talk 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- He posts at times when one would normally expect a UK school to be closed, therefore it may be he logs in here from school and home. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, well made. Tonywalton | Talk 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- He posts at times when one would normally expect a UK school to be closed, therefore it may be he logs in here from school and home. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just had a thought regarding checkuser - since the socks (or !socks) seem to admit to being pupils at the same school, isn't a checkuser likely to prove very little? The IP will be either the school's proxy or at least should be expected to be in the same IP block in any case. Tonywalton | Talk 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree completely with that - and would also point to [this edit] to suggest that even if the two accounts are no the same person, they have been known to work together in such a way that is disruptive. I nearly filed a CU yesterday because of the amount of blocked users user:iamandrewrice had been contacting, but opted not to. But socks or not, I think the way user:Jeffpw has been treated by someone he has gone beyond the call of duty to help is so unfair that I am fuming about it, and I'm only looking at this from the outside! Whitstable 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sockpuppets are actually a very minor (and recent) part of the problem. Let's assume they're not sockpuppets, but a group of friends. Now we have a situation where Iamandrewrice is playing his usual game of creating drama and then playing the "I didn't know any better" card. This card made its first appearance when he made legal threats then, when blocked for this behavior, claimed to not know the definition of "legal action" (despite claiming on his user page that English is his native language and that he's studying English language and literature). So he's either lying about using sockpuppets or he's using sockpuppets, neither one is acceptable behavior. Chaz Beckett 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- this diff would support that assertion. Someone came complaining that Iamandrerice had taken their name to use here. I expressed concern at that time, but it was decided Iamandrewrice could keep the name. Jeffpw 13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- A quick observation. Is it not more likely that User:SpidermanHero is a sock of User:Joeseth1992 - especially given User:SpidermanHero claims his name is Jose? Yes, the first message left on User:SpidermanHero was from User:iamandrewrice but that is arguably to be expected given User:iamandrewrice has claimed to know User:Joeseth1992 in real life. And User:Joeseth1992 did have his recent block extended for using socks to get around it. Also (and I haven't the diffs at the moment as I'm in a rush) User:iamandrewrice did claim User:Joeseth1992 wanted to improve the grammar on Wiki and User:SpidermanHero did make such an edit (albeit an incorrect one, capitalising a direction)[71]. I am convinced User:Joeseth1992 and User:iamandrewrice are separate people in real life (and they have left enough personal information about themselves on their user pages to make it apparent they are friends on MySpace and Bebo, for instance. My only main concern is that User:iamandrewrice has created the account to disparage the person his username suggests he is. That person does exist, and is connected to the person behind User:iamandrewrice on Bebo if nowhere else. Given all that can be obtained from the details both left (mainly email details in userboxes) is this not more likely to be a group of school friends that have got out of control, rather than socks? Whitstable 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
More thoughts: This | section here also makes me suspicious. And User:Christine118500 has been chasing around for adoption in a similar manner to how User:Joeseth1992 did. Whitstable 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking that, too, Whitstable. And SpidermanHero is doing the same thing now, as well. It does seem as if they are one user with split-personality disorder, or a group of school friends who have decided to make Wikipedia their target for fun and games. It will be interesting to see what the checkuser report says (I filed it a while ago). Jeffpw 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, Whitstable, and this edit might be seen as ill-advised at best, under the circumstances. Tonywalton | Talk 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent) They (User:Iamandrewrice and User:Christine118500) both pass the duck test and are obvious sock/meat puppets of each other. I'm going to indef both and suggest that one of them may be unblocked only on stringent parole. — Coren (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The other two do not seem quite as obvious to me, however (but very likely). — Coren (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- As per my comments above, User:Joeseth1992 and User:SpidermanHero appear to be the same person. Similar style, and the second account, created after Joeseth is blocked, claims to be named Jose? Whitstable 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For information Iamandrewrice has now posted an unblock request (with a rationale 873 words long!) on his talkpage, in which he admits that SpidermanHero is a meatpuppet. I strongly feel that this editor has been told often enough about policy and had it explained point-by-point where it applies to his edits without success. (Leaving aside questions of possible puppetry) I support the retention of an indefinite block. Tonywalton | Talk 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with maintaining the indef block. There's a pattern of Iamandrewrice creating drama until blocked, then claiming it was all a misunderstanding, followed by being unblocked and then quickly returning to the inappropriate behavior. There are two possibilities here, either he's playing games seeing how much he can get away with or he's truly unable to understand how people are expected to behave here. Either one should result in an indef block. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Chaz Beckett 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, and would mention that Christine118500 has the same pattern. Tvoz |talk 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- As does Joeseth1992 Whitstable 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, and would mention that Christine118500 has the same pattern. Tvoz |talk 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse the indef block. He had plenty of second chances and pretty much blew them all by arguing with Jeffpw rather than pay attention. There is no reason to believe that he will not simply return to his old pattern of disruption and acting out. Fact is he got a second chance that 99% of users who start out like he did never gets and he basically wasted that chance. EconomicsGuy 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Preliminary checkuser shows that the account has been socking. I need a second opinion on the Christine one, hence it's not completed, but Iamandrewrice certainly has - Alison ❤ 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As Christine118500's former adopter, and having observed Jeffpw's admirable attempts with Iamandrewrice, I endorse both blocks. I would add that Christine118500 admitted prior to being adopted that he had been blocked in the past (Christine118Maureen is clear, and others apparently); I discussed the matter with Isotope23, the admin who blocked the previous account, who said in reply that he was willing to let Christine118500 edit and try to reform. Sadly, he has not, and a block is warranted on that ground at least. I do not know whether Christine118500 and Iamandrewrice are the same individual. CU or a more detailed comparison of edit times and styles may reveal more, but it may matter little. BencherliteTalk 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Per the CU Iamandrewrice, SpidermanHero, Joeseth1992 (and, interestingly, Radiation111 and Narnia101) are confirmed. The result on Christine118500 is pending. Tonywalton Talk 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Following another unblock request (which I declined) and yet more verbose "apologies" and promises, I've blanked and full-protected User talk:Iamandrewrice. Tonywalton Talk 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A new one just arrived. Blackhouse123 is claiming to be friends with Christine118500. He also made this edit which isn't very helpful. IrishGuy talk 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another? Just seen this edit by User:Burningandrew within four minutes of account creation. Whitstable 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- And another Dom58 the Second. They're kindly signing up at Petition to unblock User: Christine118500 (twice deleted). BencherliteTalk 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Plenty more socks now identified by checkuser. I blocked a bunch of them already and the checkuser case has now been updated - Alison ❤ 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think, by now, any illusions of good faith are reasonably ignored. Block-protect-ignore. — Coren (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my God. I was out seeing clients for the last few hours, so missed these latest revelations. I said to Tonywalton yesterday that I thought I had adopted Rosemary's Baby. Now it is clear I really adopted Sybil. Oh well, it was a good learning experience for my next adoptee. Thanks to everyone who gave me support throughout this. Jeffpw 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think, by now, any illusions of good faith are reasonably ignored. Block-protect-ignore. — Coren (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
One Two Three Four,
How many More?
Five Six Seven Eight,
Well you'll just have to wait!
- )
Christineandrew 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
And yet more, it seems. User:Andrewsclone just made this edit Oh, and see above post by User:Christineandrew Whitstable 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another just created: User talk:Andrewsbaby to quote user page
you know who i am people
back from the dead? or already dead ;)
laterz yeah? yeah...
- Sigh Whitstable 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- confirmed / blocked the underlying IP - Alison ❤ 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- A static IP, I hope! Tonywalton Talk 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A look at suspected puppet User talk:Dom56! also suggests the following are puppets: user:Guys09, User:Toast123 and User:Dr. Reeves Thanks Whitstable 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dom56! for some more possible ones. BencherliteTalk 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For information Further from Andrewsbaby (on their talkpage, now a protected redir to the userpage):
ok people
theres just one thing i want and then this will all stop... seriously... I want you to unblock my IP address... that is my only request... then I wont bother you with these accounts anymore... but doing that is just unfair...
Tonywalton Talk 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- We can't unblock the IP address unless the sockpuppeteer reveals which IP address is being used. We also know that more than one address has been used. --Yamla 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, (and I'm not sure about "can't". Would doing so be a good idea?). If they're complaining about collateral damage (for instance, and I'm speculating here) perhaps the reason they seem so keen to have an IP unblocked is that one of the autoblocks is going to hit something like a school proxy, with ensuing awkward explanations from themselves as to how their activities got it blocked. If they're on a dynamic IP then meh? they can easily get another one (as I'd guess they are doing). I'm not sure whether this, followed immediately by this may be of interest. Someone didn't log in. Tonywalton Talk 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Repeated changes to Asia (band)
Transferred to WP:RFPPfor now --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What is presumably a single anonymous editor (in various IP ranges, including 4.238.124.* and 66.19.20*.*) keeps making the same change (largely consisting of removing sections of text) from this article (relating to a period of the band's existence under a different lead singer). Multiple editors, including myself, have been reverting these changes. This has been going on since early on 1 Dec.[72] Any suggestions for what we should do to stop this going on? Any help an administrator can offer? Bondegezou 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Page need semi-protecting for a while. Copied this to WP:RFPP. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I have now managed to engage the editor in some sort of dialogue on one of his IP address's Talk page,[73] but he's still making the same change.Bondegezou 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
ESP
I protected extra sensory perception due to Colbert idiocy. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You should have known in advance that would happen :P --WebHamster 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- He is obviously not Stephen Colbert :). On a more serious note, we seriously should have ColCom position who is assigned to watch colbert and protect the articles/issues he mentions. It gets to be annoying after the 300th time it is done. spryde | talk 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Collectonian and Tin Man (TV miniseries)
I'm not sure, but I think that Collectonian may be attempting to exert "ownership" over Tin Man. He She has reverted good-faith edits as "vandalism" because it didn't fit his viewpoint that any reference to the original Oz characters is OR, which is plainly not true (one can point out some similarities so long as he or she doesn't say there's a connection, and that wouldn't be OR in the least). — Rickyrab | Talk 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- She is trying to keep unsourced original search and editor opinion out of the article. Pointing out similarities is no different from implying a connection. Other editors reverted the same additions earlier, I just happen to be the only one online at the moment policing the article.Collectonian 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't know Collectonian was a she. My apologies. Nonetheless, it would be easier if the show's own stated descriptions themselves didn't imply a connection! ("Re-imagining of the Wizard of Oz"? come on, that's a blatant implication of a connection.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is a sourced statement, not my own opinion. Collectonian 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that common sense is enough evidence to link the characters with their counterparts in the Baum novels. Isn't there a WP:COMMONSENSE policy that is useful in these cases? Kyaa the Catlord 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let's take this discussion to the talk page of Tin Man (TV miniseries); let's not waste any more of the admins' time on this, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't know Collectonian was a she. My apologies. Nonetheless, it would be easier if the show's own stated descriptions themselves didn't imply a connection! ("Re-imagining of the Wizard of Oz"? come on, that's a blatant implication of a connection.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Behavior of user Ilkali on numerous pages
This user appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the change of case is appropriate and regardless of any consensus against him. He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again. He has done this most recently on the Misotheism page, where it became clear that whether or not he had a case, he was going to reapply his edits regardless. (Witness his repeated edits and reapplication of reverted edits on November 29 and 30.) This behavior has apparently been going on for months on numerous pages, with the most egregious incident apparently being his edits to the Derren Brown page back in September, where the page had to be protected to stop his behavior. Despite clear evidence against his position presented by others, he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV. On numerous pages, "other contributors have clearly and patiently tried to talk to him" to no avail, and his content "continues to add content that is disagreeable." When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it." Full disclosure: He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action. Craig zimmerman 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of these accusations have already been addressed elsewhere, but I'll provide a short response to each of them here.
- "appears to be on a crusade to decapitalize the word "God" in as many places as possible on Wikipedia". Only when it is a common noun, as explained in great detail on the two talk pages.
- "He makes unilateral edits that are reverted by admins (based on a consensus of editors that his edits were inappropriate), only to reapply those same edits again and again". I reverted User:Dbachmann's edits when he and I were the only ones involved. At this point, there was no consensus. When User:Craig_zimmerman joined, I ceased. The three of us discussed the issue (to varying degrees), mostly on the MoS talk page. During the process, three of four editors agreed that common nouns should not capitalise, with the fourth not making any clear statements in either direction. With the orthographic conventions largely cleared up, it fell to analyse the actual edits to see if the changes were appropriate. To this end, I presented arguments in support of specific edits ([74]). At this point Dbachmann and Craig_zimmerman both declared unwillingness to discuss the issue. I resumed reverting.
- "he insists on unilaterally making his changes based on his POV". 'Common nouns don't capitalise' isn't a POV. 'Determiners are almost exclusively used with common nouns' is not a POV. etc.
- "When asked why he believes he has a case, he frequently retreats into (paraphrase) "I've already explained my position and won't bother doing so again for people who refuse to understand it."". (Why did you paraphrase instead of just quoting me?) The only person to whom I responded like this is Craig_zimmerman himself, and this was because he repeatedly argued against a position that I didn't hold, ignoring what I had said elsewhere in the discussion. I was not the only editor to suggest that he didn't understand my position.
- "He recently cited me for Wikiquette violations after he unilaterally deleted rebuttal comments I made to him on talk pages and I complained about this action". I'll let the WQA itself address this one: [75].
- Ilkali 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a content dispute which got a little hot. I suggest some dispute resolution, since you don't need admins to resolve this issue at this point in time. --Haemo 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like that, but it's difficult to resolve a dispute when one side of the disagreement is unwilling to do anything other than revert changes. Ilkali 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Though this would have been more concise as inline comments...
- By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that his argument was soundly rebutted and summarily contradicted, but this did not stop him from continuing to cling to his POV on the subject. Those who rebutted and contradicted were deemed "unwilling to discuss."
- Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's, and this user has strong POV's that contradict both editorial consensus and documented English-language usage conventions as provided in great gory detail.
- The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general. This talk page section offers explicit examples of his language directed at multiple editors, including his tirade at dab in which he said "If you had any understanding of the distinction at hand, you wouldn't say that my edits were made through indiscriminate search-replacing." (Not that "the only person to whom I responded like this was..." would be any sort of excuse for such behavior in any case.) "I'm not obligated to teach you syntax just so you can talk productively about this topic but I'll explain how you're wrong" (followed by no real explanation of what was wrong with the original statement—perhaps it was he who was failing to understand?) is yet another example. Other similar texts appear in the Derren Brown disruption discussion.
- Despite the fact that Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent, and despite the fact that his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed, and despite the fact that consistently he has failed to make the case that he seems to believe he has made, he continued his disruptive reversion behavior in the cases cited above. This behavior has occurred numerous times in the past with perhaps the most notorious and flagrant example being the Derren Brown article, where the issue of his behavior was apparently only resolved by protection of the page from his disruptive edits. I contend that this is a repeated pattern of deliberate disruptive behavior that warrants appropriate action. Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that
- Though this would have been more concise as inline comments...
- "this is entirely a content dispute related to these specific passages now and has nothing to do with general MoS on capitalisation. Misotheism is discussed as a position towards monotheism in particular in these passages, and hence God is capitalised. Ilkali, you are now, by your revert-warring, indulging in WP:POINT. Review WP:DISRUPT for possible sanctions that may be taken against such behaviour.
- Craig zimmerman 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- "By "unwillingness to discuss the issue" he seems to mean that [...]" - What I mean is that both editors declared unwillingness to discuss it. You on the WQA and Dbachmann on his talk page.
- "Opinions about what constitutes usage of a common noun, etc., are indeed POV's" - If my understanding of these terms is a POV, then presumably yours is as well? And by your own reasoning, your arguing for your favored version of the article means you are pushing your own POV?
- It's a ridiculous claim. We're not primarily disagreeing over the information in the article, just the means used to convey it. This isn't a POV issue.
- "The paraphrase was intended to summarize how this user talks to those who disagree with him in general" - Where did I refuse to explain something to Dbachmann?
- Ilkali's arguments about what is and isn't an example of the usage of a common noun have been inconsistent" - Can you back this up?
- "his analogies in support of his ideas were flawed" - Yadda, yadda, yadda. Even if the issue of who was right were directly relevant here, nobody is going to assume I was wrong just because you say so. Let them read the talk pages and decide for themselves. You don't have to fill every comment here with as much bile as possible.
- "Note that administrator response to his citation above ("arguments in support of specific edits") was that [...]" - You forgot to mention that said administrator was Dbachmann, and wasn't acting in his capacity as an admin (rightly so, since that would involve a conflict of interest).
- I hope that by now people are seeing a pattern in how CZ represents people and events. Ilkali 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
User 83.67.73.117
- 83.67.73.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Fairly new editor that fits the description of a WP:SPA, who has been blocked once previously for inserting misinformation. Editor is now contributing almost entirely to Talk:Bosniaks, where his comments are consistently in violation of WP:TALK, and often WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE as well. Editor has been warned multiple times but persists.
- Previously discussed in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:83.67.73.117, which recommended posting here to ANI. Note though that the editor has responded there [76] and on his talk page [77].
- Despite the warnings, the editor appears uninterested in discussions directed at improving the article, and instead uses the talk page as a forum, where his opinions are often little more than trolling [78]. --Ronz 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here, here. I would also like to voice my opinion that this anon's actions are totally inappropriate. Frvernchanezzz 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
We appear to have one of the candidate pages for the Arbitration Committee Election nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Endlessdan. Could I ask an admin to have a look? The candidate page is here. The nom is already on record as opposing the candidate, but this seems to be a little much. Thank you. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's been speedy kept for obvious reasons. The institutional role of ArbCom is certainly not something so fragile or sacrosanct that we must defend it from irreverent nominations. --Haemo 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ostensible breach of WP:TALK by User:Perspicacite
Our guideline WP:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages states: "The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes." Perspicacite has now removed the questions (and the comments of other editors) without providing an appropriate response or canvassing the removal of other editor's comments on the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=175534728&oldid=175532620
When I asked him on his talk page to replace the material and discuss matters in future, he removed my question with an edit summary of "No": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APerspicacite&diff=175541745&oldid=175540365
May I revert this excision and the sourced material that was removed in successive reversion(s)? Alice.S 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alice.S has repeatedly spammed the talkpages of articles where I edit. Her spam was moved to her talkpage. She has done this previously on Talk:Rhodesia, Talk:Tokelau, etc. Jose João 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- These two have been at each other like cat and dog for weeks now. Someone else needs to have a look at how best to resolve it as they have both completely ignored my advice which was to avoid interacting with each other. --John 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What Perspicacite alias Jose João calls "spam" are requests for editors (including himself) to comment on why he is removing sourced material. In both the cases he mentions there is no support whatever for his position on the relevant article's discussion pages. I wish he would address himself to the edits and not the editor and stop producing smokescreens. In both cases he removed comments by editors other than himself or I without their permission. Alice.S 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alice.S has never added sourced material. The only comments I have ever moved were hers. She knowingly restored an anonymous user's vandalism to ACW earlier today. Why hasnt she been banned? She does not contribute anything. Jose João 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is simply not true. I wish for someone with knowledge of the subject matter to examine the (mainly technical) edits I have made and tell me why they are being reverted (but only by P). I need to learn what it is that Perspicacite objects to. I now assume that it is the editor that he is reverting rather than the edits but I am fully prepared to be educated if there is actually something wrong with my edits. Most other editors are scared of being attacked in an ANI or ArbCom by him and don't dare comment but the only ones that have commented, have consistently failed to support his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARhodesia&diff=174630777&oldid=174630708 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=174402424&oldid=174398606. Alice.S 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- None of that, as usual, is true. Jose João 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have, once again, suggested a way forward at my user talk page. --John 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- None of that, as usual, is true. Jose João 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is simply not true. I wish for someone with knowledge of the subject matter to examine the (mainly technical) edits I have made and tell me why they are being reverted (but only by P). I need to learn what it is that Perspicacite objects to. I now assume that it is the editor that he is reverting rather than the edits but I am fully prepared to be educated if there is actually something wrong with my edits. Most other editors are scared of being attacked in an ANI or ArbCom by him and don't dare comment but the only ones that have commented, have consistently failed to support his reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARhodesia&diff=174630777&oldid=174630708 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngolan_Civil_War&diff=174402424&oldid=174398606. Alice.S 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The two of you need to engage in dispute resolution and stop cluttering this noticeboard. Since talking obviously isn't working, you might consider getting a mediator. Shell babelfish 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. This board is definitely not the appropriate place for this argument, and it appears that a lot of arguing has gotten you no where. I would suggest either completely avoiding each other or getting a mediator, as Shell suggested. Natalie 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Admin FeloniousMonk
FM has been violating WP:AGF and making baseless accusations against me. This started when he "discovered" that I had not been logging in to my user account to edit. (The story behind that is a long one, but to be brief, I am no longer regularly editing and have retired my username.) In not logging in, my IP address was used and, like many IP addresses, it is not static - the last three digits change from time to time - something completely out of my control. FM immediately started accusing me of sockpuppeting, ignoring AGF (which is strongly encouraged for admins here and for handling possible sockpuppets here). I have never denied I was still editing and never hid my identity for any reason. I readily admitted that I was Jinxmchue. This information, however, did not stop FM from continuing to make his accusation and claiming I was doing it do disrupt, avoid blocks, and to disassociate my edits with my username. I asked him to provide proof of his accusations, but he simply ignored my request and described it as "trolling." Of course, his sockpuppeting accusations were never officially made on WP:SSP (and it's not in the November archive, either), likely due to him knowing that the accusation lacked merit. Evidence for FM's behavior can be seen in the following links:
- [79] - smearing me (note the Wikilawyering)
- [80] - smearing both me and Crockspot (and ignoring the edit-warring of others)
- [81] - more smearing
- [82] - I've never denied my identity
- [83] - note that the page is protected despite no official report on WP:SSP
Furthermore, when admin Guettarda wrongly re-blocked me for supposedly violating an edit block (see here), I requested a block removal. FM (along with Guettarda) has been intimately involved in the issues involving editing an article which led to my initial block. Despite this gross conflict of interest, FM handled the block removal request (denying it, of course). Admins with the same agendas and POV working together like this to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed is simply astounding and should not be allowed. A neutral admin should have handled the block removal request.
FM's hostile attitude towards me is unacceptable (and I admit my hostile reactions towards his behavior were also unacceptable, but I don't have admin powers to abuse). 67.135.49.177 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you're not disruptive, mind telling me why you've been edit warring on Discovery Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Will (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- You know what? I had typed out a lengthy response to you, but I'm not going to post it. This Incident report is not about me. Please keep it on topic (i.e. about FM). If you want to discuss me, look above or start your own report on me. 67.135.49.177 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to drag this off-topic. I will not respond any further to your or anyone else's off-topic comments. There is already a section on this page for the comments about me you want to add. 67.135.49.177 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- FeloniousMonk says you are disrupting the project. You take issue with that accusation. Sceptre points out a place where you are being disruptive. How is that off-topic? Natalie 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to drag this off-topic. I will not respond any further to your or anyone else's off-topic comments. There is already a section on this page for the comments about me you want to add. 67.135.49.177 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
List of designated terrorist organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crossposted onto the article's talkpage and #wikipedia.
I have removed all organisations on this list due to the article being in the category Category:Articles that may contain original research since December 2006, as a test case to my "long-term problems" proposal. Editors are requested not to revert it, but to use sources to build it in a non-biased verifiable way. Thank you. Will (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing here requires admin intervention, so I'm marking as resolved. Carlossuarez46 04:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
68.149.135.29 (talk · contribs · 68.149.135.29 WHOIS) and The strokes (talk · contribs)
It is patently obvious that after facing a couple warning templates for trying to own a template, and then being warned by me for this edit summary, he logged out and posted these as an ip user: [84], [85] and others. So, the question I have, is should The strokes be blocked as well, perhaps for the same 72 hours his IP was, or should an RFCU be filed first, or just leave it since the IP as blocked? Resolute 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- At this point, if the disruption continues around the IP block (i.e. from a logged in account), then the account can be blocked for evading the original block. I don't think a "premptive" block of the account is necessarily a good idea, which is why I didn't do it. I'd rather deal with a situation as it manifest rather than second guess it.--Isotope23 talk 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Problems with auto XFD process?
I see from the thread "User:PresterJohn" above that the MfD for this is listed as a second nomination and there appears to be no first nomination. This happened to me earlier when I used WP:Twinkle to AfD Pick Me Up Magazine, was notified that there was already an existing AfD and forced to redirect. I also had to go round & change a couple of notifications manually. I still haven't found an original Afd but I believe it has been speedied in the past. Any idea if there's a problem here? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could Twinkle be having a problem with "patrolled" articles? Corvus cornixtalk 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe. I'll drop a copy of this on its author's page. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Report has sat on AIV for almost an hour now. This user was warned about disruptive editing (serial POV, incorrect information, interfering with users' talk pages). They have neither ceased their behaviour nor asked for clarification about the warnings, so I assume that they know precisely why they have been warned. Since the AIV, they have made further disruptive edits that seemingly nobody wants to clean up (knowing that the user will only revert again). Can someone drop in a block please? IP may be shared or a residential gateway, but contribs suggest this is all one user. 85.92.190.81 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Stormie has blocked both 85.92.190.81 (talk · contribs) and 128.240.229.67 (talk · contribs) for 4 hours, citing edit warring as the cause. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
User's only activity is to delete legitimate criticism of Randell Mills and hydrino theory, claiming that they are violations of NPOV. Has dis-regarded multiple warnings. I reported this to intervention against vandalism, but it was removed by User:Dlohcierekim, who judges it a content dispute. However, I do not understand how the account's activity is anything other than disruptive deletion of content. In the mean-time I will warn TStolper1W with 3RR, and recuse myself from further editing in this. Michaelbusch 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- TStolpher1W has just been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. I have un-recused myself to restore the criticisms to the articles. Michaelbusch 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked User:Concerned cynic continues to edit tendentiously via an IP while his main account remains blocked. In the past, he has manifested in groups of three (usually 2 IPs and his main account), though at the moment he is mostly using only the one IP number from his university.
I am not sure how to approach this. Should I file another checkuser for User:Concerned cynic? Should I initiate an RfC so that the mathematics WP community can evaluate his whole body of work over his IDs and his various IPs? There are also other issues such as deceptive edit summaries that have annoyed the community lately. He works on fairly arcane topics, so what is at issue with his edits may not be immediately apparent.
What is the best course of action? Is this the right venue? There is more to this story, but I don't with to ramble on here if I'm not in the right place. --Pleasantville 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
SPA account Standshown is deleting or changing all articles which are speaking about Serbian puppet regime during WW II. In article Serbia (1941-1944) he has deleted table of puppet state using like argument Montevideo Convention. In article Puppet state he is deleting list puppet regimes under control of Germany and Italy using similar argument and refusing discussion in which article we need to transfer data deleted on this article (if we accept his wishes).
His POV thinking is very clear because he is deleting puppet regimes of Germany (because they are not states) but not deleting from the list Far Eastern Republic or Finnish Democratic Republic which has been puppet states or puppet regimes of Soviet Union.
To end my arguments that this is vandalism I will only add that signatories of Montevideo Convention are american states and that European or Asian states has never accepted in state documents this definition of state.--Rjecina 01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Satoe2158 user page deleted for advertising
has had his userpage deleted twice for advertising. He has not responded to talk page posts except to place {{{hangon}}}. I've left him with a link to WP:Userpage and told him that he must stop doing this. Dlohcierekim 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Subgen (talk · contribs) has taken to making personal attacks against me over at Talk:Universal Life Church. I left a warning, but a hand could be used. Thanks. GJ 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- It has to be said that the above talk page is a law suit waiting to happen. An admin with a mop needs to do some cleaning sharpish. --WebHamster 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, still need help with him. GJ 05:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like some admin opinions please
I came across this completely by accident today: User talk:68.44.228.244 (it is deleted now, but admins, please, go see what this looks like to an innocent IP receiving it). At first glance, of course I was just appalled, so I went to the history to see why someone would put such a thing. It turns out, this is a template, that has the Template:Humor banner at the top, but it is not included when substituting or transcluding, so when using this template, the person who reads it, has absolutely no idea it is a "joke". At first, I thought, "well, we can just add to the end of it, This template is intended as humor, and should not be taken seriously, or, remove the noinclude tags, so the {{humor}} template shows up, right?"
But then I started thinking about it. And while everyone who knows me, knows that I appreciate fun, I believe that one can have fun while doing serious editing, and believe it is a good thing, I also think that there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point. To have even a humorous template say "I've hired a hitman to take out your whole family, one by one, and then finish with you." is unacceptable, in my personal opinion. And the fact that this was used, by an anon IP, on another anon's page, who had no idea it was a joke, is disturbing. I wonder what that person thought? I realize most people would dismiss something like that, but what if this was a child editing? I consulted with an administrator I highly respect, and they felt the same as I, but I'd like to know if I am perhaps over-reacting? Or am on the other end, should this be speedied as unacceptable, even as a joke? I'd honestly like some additional eyes, and opinions. Thanks so much! Ariel♥Gold 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- This actually comes from User:Deon555/Templates/Hitmanvandal. I've added the note to the template itself so when subst, you can still tell its intended to be humorous. I'm not sure that's ever going to be funny, since it would be incredibly biting to anyone new and I can't imagine needing a template like this. My preference would be deleting it entirely. Shell babelfish 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see the template has already been deleted. It said in part "I've hired a hitman to take out your whole family, one by one, and then finish with you. We don't like vandals, you see." It would be difficult to be any less appropriate. I have indefinately blocked the anon who placed that on the other anon's page. Should action be taken against Deon555 (talk · contribs) who created the template? -- Infrogmation 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've undone your block. Indef blocking of an IP is almost never a good idea; unless you've got evidence that it's a static IP, you should only go with short blocks. Secondly, that edit was from about a month ago; there could have been dozens of people to use that IP since then. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see the template has already been deleted. It said in part "I've hired a hitman to take out your whole family, one by one, and then finish with you. We don't like vandals, you see." It would be difficult to be any less appropriate. I have indefinately blocked the anon who placed that on the other anon's page. Should action be taken against Deon555 (talk · contribs) who created the template? -- Infrogmation 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Making death threats no longer warrents a block? Noted. Suggested action, if any? -- Infrogmation 05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that death threats don't warrant a block (though the fact that it's an IP certainly does factor into it). I'm saying that a block coming a month after the edit, when the potential for collateral damage is so much higher, is a bad idea. Blocking so long after the fact for the sake of going through the proper motions isn't productive, and the block becomes punitive rather than serving as a deterrent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Making death threats no longer warrents a block? Noted. Suggested action, if any? -- Infrogmation 05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Death threats are indeed still blockable, and, if we were talking about an account, I'd be endorsing the indef block, too, however, this is an IP, and, as was pointed out, that was a while ago, it does not appear that the same person is controlling the IP anymore, at least, to me. Endorse unblock... SQLQuery me! 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocking a /16 for a fortnight with account creation disabled
Please review Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s latest blocks, there are four /16 ranges blocked for 2 weeks with account creation disabled. It's based on a policy drafted over a year ago, and on IRC tonight we've had someone who was collateral damage to these. I'm not faulting Sarah at all, but I'm asking if the policy should be changed to allow account creation, or maybe he doesn't use these IPs anymore, or what not. --Golbez 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know me attending the SFUSD has nothing to do with this, but the IP at my school is currently blocked for one year with account creation disabled. Maybe it's a shared IP she was blocking? -Goodshoped 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Er, unlikely, since her blocks were only for two weeks. --Golbez 05:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Goodshoped, User:DerHexer blocked your school's IP because of vandalism. I've never blocked that IP before. Sarah 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was actually using ranges given to us by a checkuser last time. Unfortunately he does still use these ranges - check out AN (he's the anon on about private checkuser). Goodshoped, what does 156. have to do with these blocks? The ranges I blocked were Bell Sympatico. Sarah 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
www.erotikebooks.com
This is at least the 2nd time http://www.erotikebooks.com/ebooks/load.htm been linked from an article. It advertises a likely malware executable. Can this site be added to the blocklist? / edg ☺ ☭ 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I could only find it once in the article you provided. Maybe the page should be protected? It's not enough for a blacklist. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd recommend protect and blacklist. -Goodshoped 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- blacklist or protect for 2 links??? There's more serious spam than this to be concerned with. Just remove it and warn ~~
- What article is it being added to? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- History of erotic depictions. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- What article is it being added to? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- This appears to be resolved. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This user last night wished to have hear from me again. Fine, no problem. Tonight, this user is trying everything (including tagging images I have uploaded for deletion) to pick a fight. I am not going to argue with this person but if an admin could step in and tell this user if he wants me to leave him alone, he needs to do the same. Thanks...NeutralHomer T:C 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Neutralhomer has now three times blanked discussions from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 4, rather than discuss the proposed deletions of images he uploaded which violate the FURG because they are of a excessively high resolution. I am not going to revert as while I don't feel this may cross the WP:3RR rule, I also prefer to steer clear of the line rather than tiptoe around it. JPG-GR 06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- When the images are that big (and that is the only one available)...there is kinda no way around it. Also, I am not using the FULL version, I am knocking it down to 200px. But that is not the point. The above user stated that he wished not to hear from me, but tonight he makes it almost impossible not to talk to him, since he is the one tagged images (images I have uploaded) in what can only be seen as an attempt to start an arguement or fight. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)I have tagged all three images with the {{non-free reduce}} tag and hopefully the "size" issue should be taken care of within say 24 to 48 hours (depending on when it is seen). - NeutralHomer T:C 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Only one available" to you perhaps. When they are of that size, they are easily "replaceable" ("easily" as in there is most certainly a replacement, not so much "easily" as in easy to be found). This is a violation of the FURG, unless I am misinterpretting it.
- As for me stating that I did not wish to hear from you, that didn't stop you here, hours after my request and hours after my last edit and hours before my next. It's quite clear my talk page is on your watchlist. - JPG-GR
- Both you two should stop it. Just use {{non-free reduce}} on the image pages and let someone else put a reduced version on. IFD isn't necessary but NeutralHomer, you shouldn't delete the listings. That doesn't help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was unaware of {{non-free reduce}}, but will use it in the future. Thank you, Ricky. JPG-GR 06:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal Attack
User:Jai Dixit, formerly User:Lokantha has left a scathing comment on my talkpage titled: "You need to see a psychiatric bro!" [86] This goes against all of Wikipedia's policies. His behavior is uncivil and impolite. I am surprised that this user has gone so far as to tell me to see a psychiatrist!
The user has also uploaded images under false licenses [87], thereby putting Wikipedia in legal trouble.
This user has also suspected of engaging in sockpuppetry. His IP sock is User:74.140.120.11. This was proven when he left a comment saying "Sockpuppetry involves different usernames, not IP addresses"
I hope appropriate action will be taken against an impolite, uncivil editor who tells others they need medical help. Please take the appropriate action. Nikkul 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that the two of you have a content dispute over some images. While the comment you point out wasn't appropriate, a simply personal attack warning should suffice. You might want to try dispute resolution. Also, in regards to the image, when he realized his error, he put it up for deletion himself and in short order at that. Bringing that up looks like you're just trying to pile on things to make this report look like it has more weight. Shell babelfish 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I might be stepping into something right here, but I found this user's userpage on vandal patrol, simply because the words he was using about a former admin were so inappropriate (it appears his IP was also editing the page). Someone who knows more about this situation might want to handle this. The Evil Spartan 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Harassment of Durova by anon
I made my views on the Durova affair known but no matter what I think on that issue, the user harassment is a separate one and should not be tolerated.
An IP editor, switching the IP's for the second time edit wars with Durova at her talk page [88] to reinsert the press article on her conduct despite Durova made it clear that she does not want that there. Edit warring with the user over his talk page is unacceptable. One of the anon accounts is already blocked by Alex Bakharev after anon disregarded my warning. Harassment resumed from another IP in the same range. Someone, please keep an eye on the history of Durova talk and block harassing anons from same IP range on sight. It is obviously the same person and no further warnings are necessary. --Irpen 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protect the talk. Just be grateful there isn't an article on her :/ Will (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Durova incident slashdotted.
Durova incident slashdotted. [89] I've protected the archive page as a precaution. Keep eyes open please. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've also semiprotected Durova's user page, the talk page already is. Should at least keep out the random vandals, we can always full-protect later if need be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Date warrior
User:Carnun talk continues to date war after repeated warnings and blocks. A look at his edits shows numerous era style changes against consensus all with the edit summary "common usage" --Steven J. Anderson 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's arguable whether they are against consensus, but I've given him a final severe warning to stop messing around. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem with vandal in dynamic IP range 206.170.103.*
I understand that with the issue of dynamic IP ranges, other people may be using it. However, in this case, a user in this IP range has vandalized persistently, albeit infrequently, three articles on my watchlist. My concern is that this user may have vandalized many more articles in the past. Here is a brief summary of this user's vandalisms:
- Persistent, yet infrequent, vandalism in article Raiden Fighters 2 since October 25, 2007. The vandal added deliberately misleading information to the article. The user performed numerous edits at a time to prevent easy reverts.
- Upon semi-protection of the above article, the vandal attacked two pages in the same series: Raiden Fighters and Raiden Fighters Jet. The vandal added the same misleading information as was added to the Raiden Fighters 2 article.
Judging by this person's actions, it is apparent that this individual's motive is to cause trouble in the relative safety of a dynamic IP address. I suggest that this IP range be monitored. This IP range resolves to AT&T Internet Services in Monterey Park, California, USA. JudgeSpear 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)