Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive17

Contents: April 12, 2005 - April 17, 2005

School Inclusionist

Interestingly, User:School Inclusionist made his first edit a few hours after GRider's ban and shows quite a familiarity with this issue despite this being his first day. Gamaliel 01:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an obvious sock created to vote disruptively in VfD debates. Asking for a sockcheck. Snowspinner 01:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of how obvious it is, why was a block necessary? Everyking 01:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from WP:SOCK: "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes. [...] [A]ccounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian should be blocked permanently. [...]

"[U]sing a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account.

"Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart."

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked. [...]

"Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently.

"Reincarnations of blocked disruptive users will be reblocked if they continue being disruptive, or if they edit in a way which suggests they are likely to continue being disruptive..."

Based on the above quotes, I'd say that a block was legitimate and justified. I'd also contend that a username like "School inclusionist" is inapropriate as its highly likely to have been created for a single issue and will cause/inflame disputres, and therefore is very unlikely to contribute anything positive to the encylopædia (regardless of whether schools merit inclusion or not, conflict is never desirable). Thryduulf 02:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how any of what you quoted accounts for the block. Everyking 02:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not intend to be disruptive and thought I was being helpful by editing school articles and hopefully making them better. Contrary to some of the stuff said above my only relation to GRider is that I agree that school articles can and should be improved! Can someone please remove my block now? School Inclusionist 02:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edited via User: 208.62.7.133. The account is still indefinitely blocked. If we want to keep this up then the ip should also be temp blocked for block avoidance. I'm not going to do it, however. BrokenSegue 03:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a developer should check on this. Please bring it to WP:RFAR and request clarification. I'm not going to unblock School Inclusionist but I think there is some serious conclusion-jumping going on here. Rhobite 03:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've already asked for the sockcheck. To be clear, I did not block School Inclusionist as a GRider sock. I blocked it as a disruptive sock. Creating an account with the explicit purpose of voting a controversial position in deletion debates is disruptive. Snowspinner 03:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Update:I've gotten some outside information (Not a sockcheck) that says that School Inclusionist is not GRider, but that it is a sock of an established user. The sock was also apparently run through a proxy, so as to make a sockcheck pointless. So we have a sock created to be bitchy about the school deletions, maintained by an established user who has gone out of his way to disguise his identity. I'm not unblocking this one. If nothing else, it serves to close out the proxy. Snowspinner 03:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymity

I have a question about the School Inclusionist issue... there are a number of other recently created socks-to-make-a-point (User:School deletionist and User:GRuder come to mind, and User:Navid whose first edit is VfD'ing a FA). Why is there a policy to allow these people to hide behind anonymity? If one creates a sock that is then blocked for vandalism (as the first two I mentioned), shouldn't the original user be held accountable? If one creates an account for WP:POINT or insulting someone, shouldn't the original user be held responsible?

That sounds like a good idea, though it isn't policy yet. But blocking accounts clearly created for disruption (as these have) is within policy. And School Inclusionist was also pretty clearly created to try to get GRider into trouble. - David Gerard 10:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In a related point, it has been alleged that a certain user has two established accounts, used for double-voting. If true, that sounds unacceptable. If false, it should be possible to clear his name of the accusations. But the anonymity policy makes both impossible. Radiant_* 10:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Usual thing to do is shrug off the accusations. Or ask on their talk page and they answer "no." Then the answer should be accepted in good faith unless there's good evidence otherwise.

(I have the power of limited sock-checking, but it's somewhat controversial so I can't use it very much - clear ArbCom purposes, pretty much. I recently used it to check on an apparent sock abuse by Rienzo, which it turns out almost certainly was him. That level of thing. Casually looking people up, I can't really do, and the devs who can generally won't, often 'cos they're too busy.) - David Gerard 10:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:216.52.110.253 and User:Kiand

Three revert rule violation on Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kiand (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:24, 11 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:40, 11 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:45, 11 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 21:48, 11 Apr 2005
• ...and many more.

216.52.110.253 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:34, 11 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:43, 11 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:47, 11 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 21:49, 11 Apr 2005
• ...and many more.

Reported by: cesarb 01:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Huge revert war on Cat. User:Kiand asked for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Edit War Assistance. --cesarb 01:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked both for 30 seconds—a suitably lame block for a remarkably lame edit war. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POofYS

POofYS (talk · contributions) is an account that is being used in a very strange way: on its user page, we're told that the account is being used by a large number of people, including students. In fact, edits are being made to the relevant (Korea-related) pages mainly by people who aren't logged in, sometimes signing themselves "POofYS". What should our attitude be to this sort of thing? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

m:Role account -- Curps 16:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Ah, I had read that at some time. OK, so "Use of role accounts is not sanctioned on most Wikipedia projects (including en:)" — what should we do, then? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Treat it as a single, somewhat quirky user? As long as the account does no harm, I guess it's fine. If someone does something silly with the account and gets the whole department blocked, well, that's about the time they might consider changing their procedures O:-) . Either way, it hurts them more than it hurts us, so *shrug* . Kim Bruning 16:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accounts are not to be multi-user. I've blocked it just on the claim of being a public account, as per blocking policy. If they really want it to be anon but apparently from the Press Office, they can use an Korean government IP - David Gerard 17:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As long as they keep the password under wraps, I don't really have a problem with this account. They can keep tabs on each other and as far as I know they haven't broken any rules. I recommend unblocking. Mgm|^(talk) 17:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of a logical reason why multiple people couldn't use an account. But then again, I'm a moron. So can someone explain the reason(s) to me? Everyking 18:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that there's no way to know what a particular person's edit history is; what seems to be an account actually just functions as a shared IP address. The point here, though, is that it doesn't accord with the Wikipedia rules; any discussion, therefore, should take place with regard to a proposed change of rules.

I don't see, in any case, why all the people in this case don't just open their own accounts. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This account has identified itself in the past as the "Press Office of Yi Seok" (See Yi Seok), but at last one post from an anon account has been signed "POoYS". It is not a Korean government entity. Yi Seok is a pretender to the Korean "throne", although his cousin Yi Ku seems to have the stronger claim to be head of the Royal House, since his father was the crown prince. A couple of years ago Yi Seok was invited by a Korean city to live on the grounds of a historical site, in the hopes he would enhance tourism. Before that he lived out of his van. And before that he lived in Southern California where he owned a liquor store. These are pretty small-time people living in the glory of their dynastic past. The account is used to make edits to a variety of articles to further Yi Seok's claims and idiosyncratic views about Korean history. "Press Office" is the grandiose term used by one or at most a small number of people associated with him. I was trying to counter all this for a while, but eventually gave up since the POoYS people were a lot more motivated to get their POV into articles than I was to keep it out. --BM 19:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true that Yi Seok is only a pretender to the Korean throne, but then again Caroline, Princess of Hanover is only a pretender to her title as well (though it's used officially in Monaco, Germany is now a republic). Probably we should rename that article back to Princess Caroline of Monaco, but it seems that in practice we do have a bit of tolerance for royalist pretensions. Anyways, last time I got involved in Yi Seok the POoYS folks did have a bit of a propensity for edit war. It's quite possible that POoYS is a single person posing as an office to puff up his importance. If they're banned, they'll probably just go back to using multiple anon IPs, so I'd rather unban and keep track of their contributions. -- Curps 19:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, your example is bad on two counts. First, Caroline is Princess of Hanover because she married the Prince of Hanover. She is Princess of Monaco in her own right, being the daughter of the late Prince Rainier, the ruler of Monaco. I don't think the Prince of Hanover is a "pretender", anyway, since German titles of nobility are legally held and can be defended in German courts, just as in France, even though, of course, Germany and France are republics. If you go to Germany and call yourself the Prince of Hanover, the "real" Prince can sue to stop you. This is almost the only remaining legal significance of the titles. It is sort of like an Internet domain name. I don't know if there is anything similar in the Korean courts, but I don't think so. Second, Yi Seok is only a pretender to being pretender, because if there is a "pretender" it is Yi Ku, his cousin, whose father was the Crown Prince. There is almost no basis for Yi Seok's pretensions, although he is a grandson of the last Korean Emperor. He tries to make much of the fact that Yi Ku lives in Japan and is a Japanese citizen, as if you need to live in Korea to be the real "pretender". As far as your theory that POoYS is a single person "puffing up his importance": I'd buy that. Puffing up their importance seems to be what these folks are all about. We have at least one other example of Wikipedia being used in this way, but there are probably others. User:Tancarville has slanted several of the Wikipedia articles on Maltese nobility to support his father's claim to be a Prince. He runs a pest extermination company in Sydney, Australia. --BM 20:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any anon which claims to be a logged in User and is not logged in with that account should be reverted on sight and blocked from editing. RickK 04:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I just got an email from POofYS saying: "Does it not make sense that one person is handling this account with research prepared by other people? Is this not the usual practice with a head editor? Thankyou. HEAD EDITOR" So, um, I'm not sure if it's one person or not. If it is one person I wouldn't block it, it was that they said they were multiple people. If anyone feels it's reasonable to unblock, please go ahead and do so. (POV-pushing is not itself a blocking reason, nice as it would be if it was ...) - David Gerard 09:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That flatly contradicts what it says (or said) on the page itself. In fact, most of the editing was being done by people who weren't signed in, sometimes manually signing as 'POoYS'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SEO advertisers

User:Jehochman seems to be using Wikipedia for advertising, and may also be operating sockpuppets. I'm not sure though, could someone else have a look too? Kim Bruning 17:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And who is: User:Jigarmehta (see also User Talk:Jehochman)? This is kind of strange. Kim Bruning 19:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio dump

130.182.164.64 (talk · contribs) keeps inserting this at Fathers' rights. Clearly copyvio. has already done it 4 times but it doesn't strike me as 3RR case, --SqueakBox 18:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Has now opened an account at Moberme (talk · contribs) to continue his copyvio dumping, 5 times now --SqueakBox 18:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've left a warning on User:Moberme's Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

85.140.28.0/24, Mahadreck, Creedmoor_chassidism, et al

These IPs have been posting ficticious content to several articles, apparently in a deliberate effort to discredit Wikipedia. See this history for a list of IPs that have been used.

I believe the /24 should be blocked but have not done so because it is unclear whether blocking policy supports it. Comments welcome. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's intentional, it's close enough to vandalism for a judgement call, I've just applied the judgement call. 72 hours this time - David Gerard 21:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PL/I and 129.97.*.*

Apparently some students at the University of Waterloo are having some fun trolling at the PL/I page. It is clearly trolling because of the absurdly over-the-top nature of their posts to my talk page[1]. Can someone revert the page back and maybe vprotect it? I am tempted to do it myself, because the 3RR rule specifically does not apply in cases of vandalism. -- Curps 20:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, they seem to have quit. -- Curps 20:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Brian0918

Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brian0918 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:40, 10 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:26, 10 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:29, 10 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 23:31, 10 Apr 2005

Reported by: 119 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Brian0918 has been revert warring in a content dispute by calling the other user's edits "vandalism". I contend that the opposing user's edits do not constitue an "indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". The users, an anon IP with slightly different IPs each time, and Brian0918 have been fighting over
  • what portrait image to use,
  • the line "what his propaganda called the Third Reich" versus "the Third Reich", and
  • the line "The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe" versus "The military-industrial complex he fostered dominated most of Europe at its zenith."
• This is clearly a content dispute, and Brian0918 is not correct in reverting the user four times. 119 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Anonymous user not blocked since they edited once and then reverted only three times. silsor 23:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Note that I was talking with at least two other admins on IRC at the exact time that happened, and they agreed that it was vandalism. One of them protected the page (I didn't ask them to, they said it was the best option), and the other admin said he was going to block the IP range for 24 hours (though apparently he never actually did). The anon was repeatedly disconnecting and reconnecting to change his IP every couple minutes, stacking up edits (I guess in the hope that some of his changes wouldn't get rolled back). The anon also made POV additions to other controversial pages (such as Joseph Stalin) which the other admins I was talking to on IRC proceeded to revert. Also note that the version I was reverting to was the result of a consensus on the talk page and on IRC among myself and at least 3 others who cared to contribute. I left a note on the talk page for the anon to contribute but he has yet to. I didn't realize I had reverted so many times; I considered it vandalism since the user was repeatedly changing his IP. In the future I'll just ask someone to protect the page instead of reverting repeatedly, or leave a note on the talk page and wait for the anon to respond. Sorry about that. --brian0918™ 23:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Consensus" means "polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as neutral point of view". As you just told me on IRC, you think that consensus is (quote) "whoever feels like being there at the moment". I don't think these are in line. I also disagree that being anonymous gives an editor any illegitimacy. IMO reverting in this content dispute doesn't grant you immunity from the 3RR because you discussed it with a few people, and being an administrator, you shouldn't have edit warred on the page. With regards to the user changing IPs, it was probably because you kept blocking him/her to enforce your version while calling them a "vandal". If another admin disagrees that this was a content dispute they can unblock you. silsor 23:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • He was changing his IPs before I came along. I was retroactively blocking in case he was limited to his IP choices. --brian0918™ 23:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I also think that as an administrator, you should be held strictly to the 3RR. silsor 23:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • How do the anon's three changes constitute vandalism? I do not see how the anon's choice of image, minor change of wording, and change in scope regarding the effect of his rearmament program are inherently damaging or in bad-faith. 119 23:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It was the fact that the anon kept repeatedly changing his IP for no apparent reason that made me think of it as vandalism. Also the fact that he was reverting to an very old, non-consensus version. As for my statement on IRC about what consensus is, I wasn't being serious, and as silsor said, IRC is not Wikipedia. --brian0918™ 23:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • You're kind of side-stepping it by talking about what you thought at the time. What I am asking is, are the anon's edits vandalism, or are they not? 119 00:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • From WP:3RR, "This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism." Simple vandalism is things like page blanking and nonsense. silsor 00:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to add, for the more complete information of participants and viewers, that this edit by the anon IP(s) in question, which sparked the "war," is actually a reversion to a very old version (circa 3/19). This version was edited into the "current version" by brian0918 and saved by Wyss after much discussion on the talk page. Since then, it has remained stable until the above reversion by the anon IP(s). The "stable" version I believe to represent consensus, since it was reached by discussion on the talk page: Tony Sidaway, brian0918 and myself holding the position for the stronger wording, while Wyss expressed concerns over its POV. However, since Wyss himself saved the "stable" version identified above, and didn't continue the discussion, this is strong evidence to me that a consensus of interested parties was reached. Note: I have really only interpreted the opening paragraph, and not the photo. Demi ^T/_C 23:59, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I've been informed that the anonymous user's first edit was in fact a revert to March 18, so consider him/her blocked as well for the same amount of time. silsor 00:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of the Three Revert Rule and how Wikipedia works

Wikipedia works because most people want the article to get better, and can agree to a certain extent on how that is done. While there are still a small percentage of people who want the article to get worse (more biased, or less informative), they are drowned out in the flood of good faith editing. The three revert rule exists because sometimes two (or more) people who are trying to make the article better can't decide on how to do it. Because sometimes people resort to force instead of dicussion, the 3RR is a safeguard to prevent edit-warring in place of consensus reaching. This is not disputed by anyone (that I know of). However, there are consequences of this that seem to be missed here:

1. The number three and the time period 24 hours are arbitrary. These constants are used by the people invoking the rule to judge whether a series of reverts constitutes edit-warring. One person can revert innocently, another can re-revert almost as innoncently, but a third revert of an edit is an indication of an edit war. It is not, however, proof.
2. The rule is not to be applied in cases where it is clear that the reverts were of bad faith editing, such as vandalism, testing, spam, and purposeful PoVication

Now we have a jurisprudence, let us analyse the facts to see if the 3RR applies in this case. It appears to me (though I have not the time nor inclination to examine the edit history) that brian's reverts were all revertions of bad faith edits. The anonymous user who was reverted used multipled IP adresses to (re)insert PoV content, or otherwise disrupt the article. If it is considered by anyone that the anonymous user in question had a valid point in his edits, and that discussion of his views needs to be done prior to revertion of his edits, please come right out and say it, because I don't think it actually is.
Conclusion: Brian was trying to maintain the quality of the article by reverting edits made in bad faith. He was not entering into a stale edit war with another well-intending Wikipedian. Therefore, the 3RR does not apply in this case, and brian should not be blocked. The anonymous editor ought to be blocked, but because of his wide IP range, it wouldmight not be possible without disenfranchising many other potential editors.
Action: unblock Brian0918
nsh 01:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that in all of this, no one has yet demonstrated how this user's edits were vandalism. On the talk page, I see one section by Brian0918 in which he says 83.109.*.* "keeps readding the same content over and over without first consulting or replying on the talk page, and despite repeated reversions." That is not vandalism, Brian0918 is in no better of a position than the anon there--so exactly why is this vandalism as is being casually assumed? I also think it is careless for you to make judicial-like proclamations when you say you have not so much as examined the page history. 119 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• They certainly weren't vandalism. However, they were all reversions to a previous version of the article that lost important, talk-page-vetted edits by brian0918, myself and Tony Sidaway. I'm not complaining that that the 3RR was misapplied in this case: however, I believe it's incorrect to say "brian0918 is in no better of a position than the anon there." I think a better resolution of this situation would have taken into account both brian0918's violation of 3RR as well as an accurate picture of what was happening with the page content. Demi ^T/_C 04:37, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Brian asked me to unblock him, and I have done so, conditioned on him not editing that article for the next 24 hours. →Raul654 01:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my proposed modification of the 3RR. --brian0918™ 01:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:SPUI

Blocked for 24 hours for [2], because it was so flagrant a piece of vandalism. Snowspinner 01:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked by Raul, it sems. This seems reasonable to me. Snowspinner 02:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It was a joke, Phil. Everyking 02:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So is a lot of vandalism. Snowspinner 02:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

So was this block :P silsor 02:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm inexplicably tempted to respond "So's your mom" just to guarantee that this discussion will advance no further. Snowspinner 02:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

no urmom silsor 03:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

For that sort of vandalism, I would have blocked him for 30 seconds or so -- assuming blocks can be made that fine-grained. --Carnildo 03:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox problems?

I got a request for admin help, but I'm a newbie-enough admin not to know quite how to handle it:

There has been users just dump over 140k of stuff into the Sandbox. I am thinking just one person is doing it, yet he takes on many personas (perhaps sock puppets). Can you watch the Sandbox and see what is going on please?.

Anyone able to help, please? Grutness|^hello? 02:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The requester has sent a bit more info: Much of the dumped material seems to be either to do with Fonzie from Happy Days or deroatory comments about gays. What's more, the following header was found in the sandbox:

<You go girl! We politely ask you to leave the line above alone during Easter Mass. As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 6 hours. The sandbox is indeed a nice place to play! Let's add our junk and nonsense in here and create the nastiest place on Wikipedia! Let's go!>

Sounds like a vandalised sandbox... Grutness|^hello? 02:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:128.95.133.213

Three revert rule violation on John Kerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 128.95.133.213 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 22:31, Apr 12, 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:37, Apr 12, 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:41, Apr 12, 2005
• 4th revert: 22:46, Apr 12, 2005
• 5th revert: 23:02, Apr 12, 2005
• 6th revert: 23:10, Apr 12, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 03:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User was warned of the three revert rule and continued reverting. User claims "You cannot ban me because your only form of ban would be Via IP address. You should understand that an IP address can EASILY be changed. Don't start a fight. Either fill in the words in the quote you want or accept the truth. There is no POV in the edit. It is factual. You have no right to argue. Report all you like." Rhobite 03:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • User is now up to 13 reverts on the article. Gmaxwell 03:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps he can't be banned, but there's always the other, milder slap on the wrist for a rabid POV-pusher: protecting the version he doesn't prefer. I've done that. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• you relise that we are really not meant to do that (not that I'm complaining).Geni 09:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think it should be allowed if someone's avoiding being blocked. Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• User vows to continue reverting the article to his preferred version, even threatening to use a bot to insert the quote he wants to add: [3]. He has also made some vicious personal attacks on Talk:John Kerry, accusing other editors of lying and "corruption." sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 20:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another Oliver North Sockpuppet

User:Therighteous, the latest Oliver North Sockpuppet (see history), has made blatantly POV edits, and when I reverted him he vandalized my user page [4]. Can someone show him the door? TIMBO (T A L K) 04:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalized my user page again [5]. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's gone on to User:Jersyko - see User Contributions for Therighteous. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also User:Cdc - Jersyko 04:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked. CDC (talk) 04:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We;re under major attack. Several IDs, may of them with "Melenchuk" in the User name, are going after several different pages, includin gvandalism in progress, several User pages, and Howard Dean. RickK 05:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The vandal seems to be one person. Is there any way someone could find the IP and then block that from editing (even under a username)? Seems like that would do it, but I don't know how tricky/possible it is. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, thanks RickK - we'd need a dev for that. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If they get blocked but keep coming back with a new name, they're probably getting a different IP each time - fresh dialup sessions or AOL user or something - David Gerard 09:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This user is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Libertas/Ollieplatt/et al, given the selection of articles being vandalized (and the trolling of Grunt). The latest incarnation is User:Lagavulin, who appeared out of nowhere and is now placing TotallyDisputed tags on a variety of articles, several of which have been among Libertas's favorite targets for a long time. RadicalSubversiv E 21:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using a deleted page

If an article is deleted by VfD process (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation anthropology) - is it then appropriate to move it to one's user space (User:Ungtss/Creation anthropology) and continue a discussion on the (not deleted) talk page ([6])? Radiant_* 10:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I'd like to have an answer on a similar case, too. Interested parties might check out User:Manfred Riebe and his various subpages, migrated from the German Wikipedia when it became apparent that he'd be banned there (he is as of April 4, 2005). Content mostly in German, dealing with the German spelling reform, over which he got into conflict over at de:, and a longish rant against his being banned on de:. Looks like abusing Wikipedia as a free home page provider. It's a case where the same mechanism (copy to user space) is even used across wikis to preserve deleted articles. Note that here on the en: Wikipedia, this user has so far kept a low profile and has not yet (AFAIK) been engaged in any controversies. I just wonder about the appropriateness of his using en: as free web service to present forks of articles over at de:. Lupo 11:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also see it:Discussioni_utente:Manfred_Riebe: apparently he tried the same stunt over at it:. Discussion (in Italian) at it:Discussioni Wikipedia:Politiche di blocco degli utenti#it.wiki - terra di asilo politico?. His various German pages there seem to have been deleted. Lupo 13:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Likewise for the Democrazy (movie) vanity articles - User:.0/The Deserter, User:.0/The Man in the Movie, and probably some more. I've been looking at them vaguely unhappily since their article-space incarnations were deleted in early February, but dread vfding them, given the sockpuppet support they got the first few times around, and the "abuse userspace however you like" support they would this time. The recent arbcom case that touched on this subject isn't very promising either. —Korath (Talk) 12:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I liked Nazi Japan, which was speedied, so much that I copied it to User:Tony Sidaway/BJAODN/Nazi Japan. I was taken with the idea of Hitler ruling Japan. I'll delete if there is a problem with this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might throw in Suffice's posting on his user page of Damon Saito Mattinson, who was not merely non-notable but apparently completely fictional. I could probably delete the text myself, but I'm reluctant to mess around with someone's user page. --Calton | Talk 13:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. If it's been deleted from main space and you put it in your user space ... it might be hosting. The recent ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2 didn't make it very clear. VFD again? - David Gerard 12:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I didn't find anything clear about that on the RfAr you mention. I'd throw the Creation Anthro page back into VfD if you want, but given Ungtss's behavior (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ungtss) that will likely be a long and painful progress. Would it be an option to speedy this under 'recreation of previously deleted material'? Would it be an option to add some text to WP:CSD and/or Wikipedia:User page stating that this is not really a good idea? Radiant_* 15:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've got a few deleted articles in my userspace. Feel free to list any of them on VfD to help establish a precedent on the matter. Of course I really wouldn't want to see them gone and I feel pretty strongly about my right to keep them. Everyking 16:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really think it's a matter of scale, and a dash of common sense. Many of us keep deleted stuff in our user space because we took a shine to it - I myself have User:Jnc/TooManyBoxes. A few things kept for non-contentious reaons, fine. A large-scale campaign that offends people, not so fine. Noel (talk) 01:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very occaisionally I also request deleted articles be moved into my userspace. I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do. We should really try to keep VFD out of user and policy space, it's REALLY not meant for that. Kim Bruning 16:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, VfD is not meant for that. Then again, the userspace isn't meant as a hosting service and an opportunity to troll. Perhaps when users stop abusing their userspace, VfD listings of userspace will stop being necessary. Snowspinner 16:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd listing of userspace and policyspace will stop. I suggest listing on RFC instead. Kim Bruning 17:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFC doesn't cause the bad pages to go away. Snowspinner 17:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

RFC stops the bad user from making the bad pages. :-) Kim Bruning 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a two-pronged approach. :) Snowspinner 17:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

A two pronged approach would end up deleting the evidence you need for the RFC, so both prongs will fail. :-P Kim Bruning 18:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem here. The assumption seems to be that once something is gone, it's gone forever. But when I keep articles in my userspace, I don't just do it so I can gaze lovingly at them from time to time; I do it with the idea that someday it will again have an article, so I'm just preserving the information until opinions about it change to what I feel is the correct decision. Everyking 18:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fine and sensible, but I think the more appropriate place is your hard drive. Snowspinner 18:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, some people have massive user pages filled up with all kinds of stuff, and subpages twice as long as that. At least preserving an article has a more direct relationship to the encyclopedia itself. Everyking 19:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any harm in keeping a page or two in your userspace, as long as these pages aren't linked from the main encyclopedia space (and I believe we have a bot to check that?). Of course someone keeping hundreds of deleted pages in userspace would be pushing it, but I don't think anyone's doing that. Radiant_* 08:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:BriteHumer and reincarnations

Since when can't we do precautionary blocks of reincarnation accounts? I'd like someone to ask an active developer to track his IP and block it. Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I e-mailed Jimbo with a request to ban User:BriteHumer shortly after discovering that BriteHumer vandalized my userpage with personal attacks. Then I realized from his contributions history that BriteHumer apparently was looking to be banned after vandalizing Jimbo Wales' Jimmy Wales article, etc. Considering your activites shown in the IP Block List, I'll leave banning BriteHumer permanently to you since you're closer to the people with higher permissions. Adraeus 11:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could. He keeps making new accounts. If we want him blocked for good, we need an IP which only developers and probably Jimbo can get. Anyway, it looks like he stopped for now. Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

He must be using more than one IP because if he logged in again from the same IP he would be blocked (anyways what are you comaplaining about I think martin2000 got up to at least 20 socks)Geni 12:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

20 is nothing - see how many Iasson socks there are at User:Sjorford/Playpen#It's the Faethon Family Smile-Time Variety Hour! Thryduulf 13:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Agasides

...has made some spurious edits and nonsensical VfD votes, and is a self-proclaimed sock of User:Iasson. Radiant_* 12:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Banned. Snowspinner 12:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

You always have such a pleasant and easygoing approach to conflict resolution. It really warms the soul to see it. Everyking 13:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He does what needs to be done, as opposed to--I dunno, whining pitifully, for example. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with blocking (self-proclaimed) socks of banned users? Thryduulf 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I could claim Mel Etitis as my sockpuppet and he'd be banned. Adraeus 19:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, no, I'd have to proclaim myself your sockpuppet (self-proclaimed). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you certain? I swear verbs prefixed with "self-" referred to an action taken by the self. For instance "self-identification as an atheist". Adraeus 05:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. Silly me! self-proclaimed: "so designated or characterized by oneself; self-styled." [7] Adraeus 08:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're looking at the action, Everyking is looking at the agent. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, Everyking. If you have a point, make it. If you don't, stop badgering. Radiant_* 14:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I made my point. The point is always the same: he's too harsh. And he says it on his user page: he will do things at will outside of policy, too, according to his own common sense. I think he needs to seriously lighten up and start observing policy instead of his own judgment. The fact that I complain so often is just a reflection of his amazingly frequent involvement in matters like this. Everyking 15:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He blocked the sock of a banned user. There's a policy for that, even. So how is that harsh? Radiant_* 15:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I found it a rather witty exchange -both sides-. Was a fun thing to read first thing in the morning  ;-) Kim Bruning 14:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring Agasides' (hard-to-read) self-proclaimation of being a sockpuppet of Iasson, since the user who changed the password probably did that, a look at his contributions clearly shows the same list of articles that Faethon and Iasson were so fond of editing. --Deathphoenix 14:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking these accounts really isn't necessary. Change the password to a random smack on the keyboard and laugh at the persistence of idiocy. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He's done it again, as User:Agatharcides this time. A legitimate user is called User:Agatharchides (note CH). Radiant_* 08:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • • No he wasn't. See User:Agatharchides. Now disabled. --Calton | Talk 10:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If he's aware of the other user, then could we block this under the impersonation rule? user:Iasson should be aware the rule exists as user:Lasson was blocked because of it during his RfC. Thryduulf 10:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My regular IP address has been blocked falsely - I am not "banned"

Please see this item on the block log:

"03:23, 7 Apr 2005, Neutrality blocked 216.153.214.94 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Banned user Rex disruptively editing from a (static) IP address. If he wants to make legit edits, he can edit under his username.)".

Without getting into the details of the many run-ins I've had with Neutrality, I'll just point out that his rationale for blocking me appears to be false. I am not a "banned user".

Also, regardless of whether or not Neutrality thinks I ought to use the "Rex" account of Rex071404, the fact is that the Wiki does not require that I log in. That being the case and since it's clear to various Admins who 216.153.214.94 is, I see no logic of any kind in Neutrality's indefinate block of me.

Also, Neutrality has shown himself to be rather blind to the ramifications of his block against me - as evidenced by his self-contradictory position. One one hand, he blocks my IP address yet, on the other he says "If he wants to make legit edits, he can edit under his username". This is nonsense. Neutrality certainly knows (or at least ought to know) that if .94 is blocked by IP address, I cannot edit from that address, logged in or not.

I am asking that my IP address of 216.153.214.94 be unblocked.

FYI: This log-in and edit performed from alternative IP address because I was unable to log-in via 216.153.214.94

Rex071404 17:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) is indeed not banned (obviously), and I could find no evidence of his editing "obstructively" from the 216.153.214.94 (talk · contribs) address (though Neutrality (talk · contribs) was heavily involved in what amounted to an edit war with him on John Kerry. I've unblocked the address, at least until there's some explanation of what was indeed a self-contradictory reason for the original block. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he wants to edit constructively, he can do so under his regular username. My IP block has had the desired effect of forcing Rex to use his username. He must be accountable to the community at large, and especially the Arbitration Committee. And I had no "edit war" with Rex at John Kerry. Rex vandalized the page, in violation of Arbitration rulings, and many users (including myself) rolled back/reverted his changes. I find it frankly disappointing that an admin would immediately unblock the IP address of a known problem user—the subject of three Arbitration cases—without consulting the blocking admin first. It is especially disheartening that the user in question is able to edit anyway under the Rex username. Neutrality^talk 05:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please notice that Neutrality is missing the point. His blocking rationale was indeed falsely premised and self-contradictory. I edit from 216.153.214.94 and Neutrality certainly knows this. If that IP address is blocked, I cannot edit from it regardless of whether I log in or not. When one is "blocked" via IP address block, log-in or not, no editing can be done from that IP address. Also, please take notice that at Rex071404 and 216.153.214.94 I have left copious details for all editors and admins to make plain how to contact me. I've given up trying to reason with Neutrality. He never replies to any of the talk page comments I leave for him. In fact, those comments which I leave on his personal talk page, he deletes. Rex071404 06:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Neutrality stated that Rex071404 was banned when he wasn't, but I'm to blame, because I didn't realise that Neutrality didn't mean what he said, and so I should have asked him what he really meant. Have I got that right? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem user or not, as long as he is allowed to edit an article he is allowed to edit the article under any IP he wishes. And if the IP is used by him exclusively and has a note who he is, I don't see any reason why that IP should be blocked at all. If he disobeys any remedies from his ArbCom cases though he should of course be penalized for that, regardless under which name or IP he edits. Just my two cents. --Conti|✉ 10:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 08:53, 13 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:25, 13 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:17, 13 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 08:36, 14 Apr 2005

Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 19:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• William M. Connolley was just banned for 24 hours five days ago for 3RR violation on this same article, and he's still at it. — Cortonin | Talk 19:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I fear that I am obliged to admit my guilt. Apologies, an accident. (William M. Connolley 19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)).
• blocked for 24 hoursGeni 19:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 4 reverts in 23hr 43min makes a sinner, while 4 reverts in 25hr 50min makes a saint, huh? Y-ep. Guettarda 19:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • nope evidence of playing on the edge of the 3RR has be brought up in front of arbcom in the past and I assume it will be in future.Geni 19:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

198.61.20.7

Please consider blocking User:198.61.20.7. From this IP, only two articles are edited:

• Inserting copyios in Sinhale:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinhala&action=history&limit=250&offset=0
• Inserting advertising in Kaftan:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaftan&action=history&limit=250&offset=0

I've asked to stop but no answer: User talk:198.61.20.7

Pjacobi 20:42, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

User:Carlshooters/User:Johnnyio

Three revert rule violation on Ward Churchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Carlshooters (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 19:45, 14 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:52, 14 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ward_Churchill&diff=12310673&oldid=12307216 19:59 -20:39 14 April 2005

Johnnyio (talk · contribs):

• 4th revert: 22:48, 14 Apr 2005
• 5th revert: 23:03 14 April 2005
• 6th revert: 23:23 - 23:31 14 April 2005
• 7th revert: 23:39 - 23:48 14 April 2005

Reported by: Viajero 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This individual is going on a POV rampage in the Ward Churchill article. It is pretty obvious that the two usernames are the same individual. Alas, providing clear diffs is difficult because many of his reverts are done in small batches, one minute apart. Three other users have reverted him tonight: undersigned, Zen-master, and Cberlet. -- Viajero 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Willy on wheels forever

This user claims he is not Willy on Wheels... but I think his username needs to be changed. Seriously. And he seems to be opposing RickK. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Willy on wheels forever was blocked forever by ABCD at 01:23, 12 Apr 2005. dbenbenn | talk 02:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Calles loco/User:Sla boy/User:Tj raza

For some reason, this User and his sock puppets first came to Wikipedia to vandalize User:Jimbo Wales and George W. Bush, then inexplicably went on to make attacks all over the place on User:Ken Bogan. I've blocked all three accounts, be on the lookout for more. RickK 23:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Now: User:Amigo de compton, supposedly remorseful. It's possible that neither he nor his nemesis are who they purport to be. Assume good faith, right? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)=== User:Lagavulin ===

This user is the latest manifestation of the recent sockpuppet army trolling Oliver North, Howard Dean, Laura Bush, Republican Party (United States), etc (who, as I've repeatedly indicated, I strongly suspect of being connected to banned user Libertas/Ollieplatt/et al.). However, he's shifted M.O. slightly, to slapping TotallyDisputed tags on dozens of articles without justification, and making large "NPOV" removals. I think a block of some sort would be in order, but I'm neither an admin nor a neutral party. If not, somebody needs to keep a close eye on his contributions -- I'm fed up with this nonsense and will probably be taking a bit of a wiki-vacation. RadicalSubversiv E 00:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He might be a sock, or he might just be kind of trigger-happy with the TotallyDisputed tags. At Republican Party (United States) (where I encountered him) and other pages, he seems to slap tags on the pages without really being able to fix them, and he tends to just remove material when he thinks it's biased or has some doubt to its veracity – quite annoying wikiquette. If it makes us cite sources and make sure what we have is correct, though, then it might result in a better article. (But man, those tags make the article so ugly!) TIMBO (T A L K) 01:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's not just slapping tags on articles, or removing material which is uncited. He's also removed well-sourced material (see Howard Dean). IMO, we need to deal strictly with people who are clearly here to cause conflict, rather than contribute encyclopedic material. RadicalSubversiv E 02:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Howard Dean, good point. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• See also: User_talk:MacGyverMagic#User:Radicalsubversive. E, why haven't you tried to talk with this user to see why he was slapping on those tags? First assume good faith. Accusations of sockpuppetry come later. Especially when it's only a suspicion. This user seems perfectly willing to discuss. Mgm|^(talk) 04:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

If by "suspicion" you mean an overwhelming series of coincidences and an amazingly similar pattern of behavior, then I suppose this is only suspicion. "There is a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring obvious bad faith." (WP:FAITH). RadicalSubversiv E 05:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means bring in a developer to check. The user has indicated willingness to be investigated. 131.211.71.58 06:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard

Gene Nygaard is personally attacking me while making little sense - see User talk:Gene Nygaard#California State Route 57 and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Some state highway categories. --SPUI (talk) 03:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Argh, now he's taken it to 3 reverts on Hutchinson River Parkway. Anyone want to help out (or convince me that I'm wrong)? --SPUI (talk) 04:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He changed the sortkey on Ohio State Highway 25 from 025 to 25, which puts it between 249 and 250. --SPUI (talk) 04:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with using the initial "0", it appears, is that 'all such entries (meaning highways 1-99) get lumped under "0" on the Category page (see Category:Ohio state highways). The occasional oddity of of "25" between "249" and "250" seems worth the trade-off. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the case where there are a lot of state highways, it makes sense to put all two-digit routes in 0 to preserve order. When there are few, the three-digit routes can be preceded with the letter A to put them after the two-digit routes. --SPUI (talk) 05:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two things: 1) This is the administrators's noticeboard, and I don't see how this discussion has anything to do with them. 2) The Category:Ohio state highways has 10 highways: of those, 6 are lumped under "0" because of your classification schema. The term "foolish consistency" comes immediately to mind. --Calton | Talk 05:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's because there aren't articles on most of the three-digit ones yet. --SPUI (talk) 05:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See points 1 and 2, above. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See point 3, the fact that it's easier to set up a consistent structure now than to switch to it later. As for point 1, I was looking to get some advice, and I've seen similar things brought here. --SPUI (talk) 06:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reread points 1 and 2, especially the last sentence. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reread the fact that you continue to not make sense. Thanks for making more work for me to revert. --SPUI (talk) 16:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see what the problem is. --Calton | Talk 21:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Johnnyio

Johnnyio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — This user is a pretty nasty vandal/troll with a bunch of sockpuppets. I'm posting this here (he's already on Vandalism in Progress, although he's vandalizing that also) because he seems to be following User:Boothy443 around and reverting every single one of his edits with the edit summary "rv known troll." Anyone who looks at RC knows that Boothy is a obviously not a troll. Block, perhaps? TIMBO (T A L K) 04:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It mostly looks like heavy POV-pushing, with the exception of this edit [[8]] which is a threat. This also looks like violation of the 3RR, if it is accepted that these are sockpuppets (perfectly obvious to me); I'm a little unclear on policy here, so I haven't blocked them. Oh, and I just learned that I'm a corrupt academic leftist, LOL; that's a genuinely new insult. Antandrus 05:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well KingTurtle has just banned him in any case. Seems like the thing to do. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Threats against Mel Etitis by 209.239.6.131

The vandalism which, in part, reads fuck you alongside have fun at your little university teaching. ill be there soon mel, cant wait to "meet" you can easily be interperted as a threat. 209.239.6.131 should be permanantly blocked, and I, myself, find a mere warning to be insufficient considering the nature of the abovestated message conveyed during said vandalism by the Anon. [9] El_C 06:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure the IP is static? 131.211.71.58 06:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unsure. The ISP (Execulink) offers both static (for extra $) and dynamic ips; wrt the latter, not sure what the length of their DHCP lease is. El_C 07:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 24 hours for abusive and threatening behaviour, after they also posted abuse to User:Joy Stovall's page. They claimed to be associated with User:Clout. I would have no objection to a permanent block if they continue after the block expires.-gadfium 08:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More Stolen Public accounts that are potentially abusive sockpuppets

see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/D.J. O'Connor for Agasides (talk · contribs), Agatharcides (talk · contribs) and Agatharchus (talk · contribs). When blocking don't forget to reset user:Iasson's ban. Thryduulf 08:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to the continuing proliferation of Iasson/Fethon socks I've created User:Thryduulf/Users named after ancient Greeks to help spot new ones. Thryduulf 09:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, it's probably best to just rename the password instead of blocking, and to leave a note on the user page, such as on User:Faethon. If you're not an admin (and I'm not), mention it here to have an admin reset Iasson's ban. Since Iasson will probably never give up, it might be best to set up some "guidelines" for how to deal with his accounts so we're consistent. This is getting a little ridiculous. --Deathphoenix 12:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should definitely come up with a set of guidelines for this. I managed to change the password of User:Agatharcides, was blocked in the meantime, and then my actual account was autoblocked for sharing an IP with User:Agatharcides. --Deathphoenix 12:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had blocked User:Agatharcides as an obvious (and disruptive) sockpuppet of User:Iasson. Since the password has been changed, I have unblocked Agatharcides and removed the autoblocks. Carbonite | Talk 12:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine (and thanks, BTW), I'm on a dynamic IP anyway. I'm just thinking that we should probably come up with a few guidelines on what to do with public accounts (such as: log in, change the password, leave a note that it's no longer a public account, make a post to the admin's noticeboard to reset Iasson's block if you're not an admin). That way, we're all on the same page with how to deal with the Faethon Family Smile Time Variety Show. --Deathphoenix 18:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf - good idea creating a page to keep track of these; however, you might want to rename it "Iasson sockpuppets" or somesuch in case he changes his MO. — Dan | Talk 21:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a think about that. As it generates false positives I don't want innocent users to be tarred with being Iasson's sockpuppets. Thryduulf 12:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think whatever public account we discover, we have to mark it as ex-Faethon's sockpuppet account, and currently soccpupet account of the person who reverted it, as long as after reverting it it belongs to the person who reverted it. I erased all false references of sockpuppetry from the ex-public accounts, and I put as sockpuppetry suspect the name of the person who reverted the account and confirmed that he did it here. Agesilaus I 15:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not have control over any user that was a public account. As I explained elsewhere, as per the guidelines I change the password to something random so that it is effectively blocked, and are then not sockpuppets of myself. Thryduulf 16:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, user:Agathinus, was a user named after an ancient Greek and my password was the same as my username. As such I hearby request that the ban timer on my main account, user:Iasson, be reset to 1 year from my last contribution - 05:33, 19 Apr 2005 UTC. Agathinus 12:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) (user:Thryduulf)

Thryduulf confirming that the above was me. Thryduulf 12:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An excellent plan, Thryduulf. I also request that the ban timer for User:Iasson be reset to 1 year from my last contribution, since my password was the same as my username. --Agathocles 23:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Confirming that the above was me. --Deathphoenix 00:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could I add to the guidelines deleting the e-mail address (if specified) while changing the password? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not content with creating just one sockpuppet in a day, I created this account (Agathocles of Bactria). Because my password was the same as my username, and I tried to impose my experimental systems on Wikipedia (see WP:VIP). I request that user:Iasson's ban be reset again. Agathocles of Bactria 11:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Thryduulf)

Confirming that the above was me. Thryduulf 11:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also request that the ban timer for User:Iasson be reset to 1 year from my last contribution, since my password was the same as my username 146.124.141.250 12:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, User:Ageladas, never seem to learn. I have admitted to being another sock ([10]), but my password has been changed now. Ageladas 12:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Ferkelparade)

Confirming that was me -- Ferkelparade π 12:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, Agesander, am an idiot. Not only am I a sockpuppet of user:Iasson, named after an ancient Greek, and created as a public account but my first edit was to a VfD [11] and my second contribution was to blank WP:NPOV [12]! Please, please, please, please extend user:Iasson's ban timer but the IP address I first user (note that this will be from a Greek ISP, not 212.137.57.25, which is a UK government IP used by user:Thryduulf. Agesander 13:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

/Confirming the above was me Thryduulf 13:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The next user in the series user:Agesilaus I vandalised my user page [13]. Thryduulf 13:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And you vandalized mine.[14] Agesilaus I 13:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This nonsense has gone on for too long. On the most recent User pages of the sockpuppets, I've placed a short sockpuppet notice and protected the page. Carbonite | Talk 17:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the sockpuppeters who took the public account control they entered a random password? I dont! They still have the password, and they are going to use the sockpuppets to vandalize, and accuse me (Faethon) for that. They did it already a lot of times, and they are going to repeat it! So please put the names of the persons that really own the account know, and mark it as ex-Faethon account from the list of greeks (watch out, the list is in history, not the current one). Thank you... Agesilaus II 18:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Faethon/Agesilaus II, I think that is unlikely. However, if they do, you are to blame. Users are responsible for the security of their accounts; a user who gives away his password still bears responsibility for the actions of that account. It is irresponsible of you to continue to create these accounts. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am no longer a public account. Please reset Iasson's ban timer. --Agesilaus II 22:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Confirming that the above was me. --Deathphoenix 22:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, Agatharchides, am checking in, just for completeness' sake, to declare that I am yet another "public account" sockpuppet (though I was deactivated 10 days ago, so don't reset the ban timer on User:Iasson on my account -- not doubt he'll be doing something in future to reset it himself). --Agatharchides 23:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Calton)

Just confirming that the above is me. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Carbonite? They still got many of my ex-public accounts, and they still waiting to vandalize through them. So please, put a sockpupet warning to all my ex-accounts, mentioning the name of the abuser (if you know him) along with the name of my historical Faethon list of greeks. This is not about Calton of course, he seems an honest guy to me, and I believe that he revealed that he pocessed an old account of mine, just because he regreted of what he did and he wanted to be forgiven and to be considered as a good wikipedian for now on, which respects the policy that requires a random password to be set to all ex-public Faethon accounts. Thank you Calton. Agesipolis I 04:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iasson, old son, can I be frank?: you're an idiot. Go away. --Calton | Talk 13:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps: I've changed the password of User:Agesipolis I, so you can remove the block on this user. --Deathphoenix 05:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, Agesipolis II, am a Grecian nitwit and badly need to be hit upside my head with a clue-by-four. Once again, Iasson needs his ban timer reset. --Agesipolis II 14:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Calton)

Confirming it's me, above. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont know about Iasson (and I dont care also, as long as I am not him) but I know about you, and you have to receive a ban because you called me an idiot. This is an abuse and a personal attack. Carbonite and the rest admins, where are you? Are we allowed to call other persons idiots? If Calton is not going to be punished for what he call me, I am going to call anybody idiot, for now on. Agesipolis III 14:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE LEAVE ME ALONE AND DO NOT CHANGE MY PASSWORD ANYMORE!!!!!! I want to contribute to wikipedia and write articles, not bother with people like you.... 213.16.157.248 15:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. You have been banned from contributing for 15 months by the arbitration committee for disrupting Wikipedia.
2. If you want to become a respected contributor you should have thought about it earlier.
3. If you don't want people to change your password, don't make it the same as your username. Its that simple. Thryduulf 15:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, he did not call you an idiot. He called himself an idiot. As long as you keep creating public accounts, you will be subject to these self-insults. Incidentally, I, Agesipolis III, also declare that I was a public account, but am one no longer. Please reset Iasson's ban timer. Oh, and because of the arbitration case against you, you are not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. --Agesipolis III 15:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Confirming that the above was me. --Deathphoenix 15:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration was not against me, it was against Iasson. How many times I have to tell you? You may do whatever you want with him and chase him in case you find him voting in Vfd or using sockpuppets, but please leave me alone and stop vandalize my account and taking my passord. And about Calton, as far as I can see now he called Iasson idiot, not myslef, but his abuse remains the same, and he has to receive a ban for calling someone an idiot. 213.16.157.248 15:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the request for clarification on Iasson's case, and according to the findings of Iasson's arbitration case, for purposes of dispute resolution, Iasson and Faethon are one and the same. Therefore, any arbitration findings against Iasson also apply to Faethon. You cannot use this lie to get around your arbitration enforcement. --Deathphoenix 17:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another Lasson sockpuppet on Mike the Headless Chicken

Agesilaus II has now appeared redoing the previous nonesense put up by Agathocles of Bactria can someone nail him - I can't? Brookie 19:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've changed the password, so it's no longer a public account. --Agesilaus II 22:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) (User:Deathphoenix)

Oh no more Iasson/Faethon socks

I, Agis III, hearby insult myself and my inteligence becuase I was a public account. user:Thryduulf was kind enough to put me out of my misery, but lacks the permissions to extend user:Iasson's ban timer. Agis III 16:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

confirming the above was me. Thryduulf 16:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you please.

1) Document when you change the passwords of these public accounts somewhere else

2) Keep changing our public account passwords

3) Don't bother informing the rest of the people in the front page of the account you stole from us, that you are the owner now.

Thank you

Agis IV 16:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please will an administrator explain why there hasn't been an IP block yet?

IP block for what? For having a public account? Of for disrupting a user and stealing his password? Agoracritus 17:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. For being a sockpuppet of a banned user
2. for disrupting wikipedia to make a point

Thryduulf 17:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see also User:Agoracritus

You are disrupting wikipedia to make a point by changing with no reason our password! We are NOT a sockpuppet of ANY banned user. Anyway, smart guy, lets see if you can understand plan C now, as long as Plan A (Faethon) and B (List of greeks) was easy ones. Eat our dust! Agoracritus 17:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"public" accounts. Thryduulf 17:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) [When you mean plan C do you mean plan C1 or plan C2?]

Mea'n flin, ond dw i ddim yn siarad Groeg. Thryduulf 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked on m:CheckUser, and he's coming in from ranges belonging to forthnet.gr and otenet.gr. Admins should take care to block the accounts (indefinitely as socks), rather than change the passwords. This will then raise an IP block. Be sure to remove the IP block after a couple of hours - David Gerard 20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi David. Of course we come from greek providers, althouth we could use some anonymizers, but thats not what we want, as long as our goal is our public accounts case to be legalized in wikipedia. The point is that you have to make a trial against public accounts or ask consensus about that. The point is that you have to have rules, and follow the rules you define and not doing whatever you like. The decision you took in Iasson's case does not cover our case, and it is unfair to ban us because of Iasson or to consider anyone coming from our country to be Iasson. The Faethon group is not using sockpuppets, and we are not casting peculiar votes in Vfd. So why dont you want us? We are waiting for a trial decision against us, then we are going to stop publishing our password. In the meanwhile, please unblock the accounts you illegally blocked, and give back our ex-accounts and currently abuse sockpuppets to Thryduulf and the others. They tried hard to get them and it is not fair to take them from them. They are now thinking what our plan C is, so , in the meanwhile, we think they are not going to use them to abuse wikipedia. (213.16.156.235 07:00, 24 Apr 2005 / IThinkTheyWillNeverLearn! 08:13, 24 Apr 2005)

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Public accounts which explains why public accounts are a Bad Thing for Wikipedia. Thryduulf 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We both know that public accounts blocking policy has been created DURING[15] Iasson's /Faethon's trial, by David Gerard, and the obvious reason for that is because ArbCom was unable to condemn public accounts without a policy. We also both know that, in the same time, a poll[16] has been created asking community whether we want public accounts to be mentioned in Blocking policy or not, and the current result is still 50:50. So please dont tell lies about this so called public accounts policy, because it is an illegal policy, created by a single person, without asking community consensus. (213.16.156.64 21:55, 24 Apr 2005)

The current result is still 50/50? There are a grand total of TWO votes, and one of them is yours. But it's all meaningless, really, since there hasn't been a single vote or poll you have ever heeded or respected on Wikipedia, even when the vote was unanimous. And all your bilge about "illegal" this and "policy" that is pure sophistry, and not one single person reading this buys what you're selling. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Faethon, if you want a "trial", see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson#Ban of public accounts which states "Any and all so-called 'public' accounts to which the password is generally known shall be blocked indefinitely as it becomes known they are public accounts; no arbitration ruling is required for these routine blockings." Please don't come here and tell us what we have to do. Public accounts were not allowed before you came to Wikipedia, and they will not be allowed after you tire of disrupting our encyclopedia. As has been explained to you many times before, having public accounts interferes with the security of Wikipedia, and makes it difficult if not impossible to selectively block vandals from editing. It is very egotistical of you to think that you know the right way to run our community and that we are all wrong. It is highly telling, that in all the time you've spent here and on meta, not a single other person agreed with you—not even your "friend"/self Iasson (he/you actually asked you to stop, too). — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, I was just reading through some of the old talk on Talk:Scientific method and was surprised to see a comment by RickK, written in language quite unusual for him. Going through the history, it appears to have been written by Iasson/Faethon/Agasides. I made a note of it on the talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't me. I'm not sure I even understand what it means. RickK 04:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The socks that wouldn't die

I've just disabled another Iasson/Fethon/etc public account user:3.141592653. Thryduulf 11:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately this possible copyvio-original_research was written by a public account, so we managed to disable it. But what can we do, in case there is a private account which posts copyvio information in his/her userpage? Even worst, what can we do if he/she posts original_research-like information, that is actually copyvio that we cannot spot using a google search? Are we allowed to vandalise private accounts in case they post in their userpages copyvio or hidden copyvio that seems to us as original research? I think Wikipedia is in great danger with this sort of private accounts. Raving Loony 11:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

copyright violations apply anywhere on wp. I believe orginal research is discouraged but not prohbited in user: space. Thryduulf 11:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot easily distiguish copyvio from original research. An original research document posted to a private account user-space may be actually a harmful copyvio that may threaten Wikipedia's existence. I think we have to create a Votes for account deletion (or Vfad) Raving Loony 11:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see WP:PFD. Thryduulf 11:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That funny! :) I think you confuse accounts, with persons. I am talking about accounts. I think that any account having in its userspace original research documents has to be proposed for deletion, as suspicious for possible copyright violation. Raving Loony 12:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The contributions of this account are interesting. silsor 12:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

And that off-key prose style is so familiar. At least he named himself well, this time, and learned to keep his password to himself. --Calton | Talk 12:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you mean Iasson, yes I am watching his case and I am having fun of it. My username was inspired by a tag someone put in Iasson's userpage. I also helped you to spot the exact list of greeks, in Iasson/Faethon Arbcom. I am from greece, thats why my prose style is familiar to you. Raving Loony 13:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't help anyone with the ArbCom thing. And no, Iasson, I highly doubt all or most Greeks write in your unmistakenly fractured, subliterate style. So unless you take an intensive course in English composition to clean up your syntax over, oh, the next 15 months or so until your ban expires, you'll be spotted in a heartbeat every time you post a full sentence. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just undertaken a very unscientific survey. I read two pages where one could reasonably expect to find Greeks contributing - Talk:Greece and Talk:Athens, and I haven't found any other examples of your writing style - even from those explicitly stating they're Greek. Thryduulf 13:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've better undertaken a scientific survey instead. You ll find out that my writting patterns are not like the patterns of Iasson. My patterns may are similar, because we are both greeks and we think with a similar grammar syntax, but not identical. Try it. Do you have any scientific tool that is able to investigate such similarities? Raving Loony 14:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know a very simple test which you can perform immediately, "Raving Loony":

1) Log out.

2) Edit this page

3) Type "~~~~" just below these posts.

4) Click the "Save Page" button.

5) Examine the result.

Very simple. Go ahead do that now, please. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In greece we have four of five internet providers. It happens my provider to be one of the providers mentioned above, by David. Those two providers are the biggest providers in greece, aprox 80% of the greeks are using them. Raving Loony 15:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I started this conversation with you, because I thought wikipedia is in danger due to accounts posting original research in their user-space. Could you please stop accusing me of beeing Iasson, and lets discuss the subject? 213.16.155.80 15:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See? I made a mistake, and you can see my Ip. Satisfied? So lets talk about the subject now.Raving Loony 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good snag, guys. With this as the first edit, not to mention the "scientific tool" comment above, this is definitely an Iasson sock. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:JailWardChurchillNow

User:JailWardChurchillNow and User:TonySidewer have both been given 72 hour blocks for disruption on Talk:Ward Churchill, where they've made clear that they're editing to POV push and for no other reason. Snowspinner 17:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

JailWardChurchillNow was blocked indefinitely (with an invitation to register a proper name and participate) as an unsuitable (inflammatory) username. TonySidewer was blocked indefinitely for impersonating me. Apparently these are socks of a mission vandal. Any reincarnations should be blocked on sight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Julie Simone, User:Mrbrak, Kristine Imboch

There seems to have been a protracted stealth deletion campaign at Julie Simone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), beginning in January. A number of sockpuppets, who only ever edit that article as well as User:Mrbrak (edit | [[Talk:User:Mrbrak|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and less often Kristine Imboch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), seem to be involved: each edit has either a meaningless, overly general edit summary ("formatting", etc) or none at all, and each edit deletes a small part of the article, disguising the deletions with seemingly pointless rewording in other parts of the article.

This page was previously reported in Vandalism in progress (see Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2005/01), which is how it ended up on my watchlist. However, each individual edit was innocuous enough not to raise an alarm. However, the cumulative effect was to reduce the article to almost nothing: [17] -- Curps 18:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is weird. I wonder if the person or people behind this are trying to prove something or just screwing around? It seems a bit too well-thought-out and persistent for a juvenile prank. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I expect that whoever is behind this has some kind of purpose: I can't imagine somebody making this kind of effort otherwise. I have to say, though, this is pretty impressive. Nice catch, Curps! – ClockworkSoul 23:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a demonstration of WP:POINT to me. A few more edits, and the article would be down to the point where it could be listed on VfD as being content-free. --Carnildo 00:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Waste of Time

Pointless Waste of Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could others please keep an eye on this article and its VfD? I blocked John Cheese (talk · contribs) earlier today for 24 hours for vandalism and for violating 3RR on that page and now this seems to be under attack by various sockpuppets and anons. Could be an organized campaign. jni 19:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The vanderlism rate on that page was insane. I've protected it (so now we just have the VFD to worry about. Oh funGeni 19:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See this in case you're wondering why there's so much vandalism. Xezbeth 20:22, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still amazed. The first person mentions he doesn't like an entry. Did he ever think about telling us instead of just vandalising the article and the VFD and getting others to do the same? I'm thinking about forwarding this to one of the people researching Wikipedia and see if they can find out why they do it. Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

What gets me is the site's main page has "This site is intended for mature audiences..." at the top. Looks like it. Xezbeth 20:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Music. cheack cans colling findge. cheack. idiots vaderlising vandalising wikipedia. cheack. my evening completeGeni 20:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

account on wikipedia: free

becomming a wikipediaholic: time consuming

gaining respect as an editor: rewarding

dealing with vandalism: necessary

correcting the spelling of an administrator on the administrator's noticeboard: Priceless

There are some things that are copyright, for everything else there's Wikipedia. Thryduulf 21:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

niceone :DGeni 21:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hmm appears to have slowed somewhat. Mr Treason was more anoyingGeni 21:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it was just a couple of kids. Most of them are apparently blocked now, though. – ClockworkSoul 23:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Bobber2

Someone might want to take a look at this guy. He seems to be making a lot of 'bad' edits, although it doesn't seem to be vandalism as much as unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. I'll try and fix some but I'm quite new myself, so it would help if someone more experienced had a look. --the wub (talk) 21:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe the proprer place for that would be Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. --cesarb 00:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404's self-imposed block

Rex071404 has imposed a block on himself; see statement at his userpage. I've chosen to enforce this self-exile by imposing a six month block of his IP address and user name. Should I be doing this? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:56, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Of course not. He should not be obligated to serve out any self-imposed sentence. Everyking 23:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as policy is concerned no. Personaly I don't see any point. If he can keep to his self imposed block then that would appear to be a pretty good declaration of good faith. If not deal with it in the normal arbcom way. By blocking him you invalidate the whole gesture.Geni 23:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since it looks to me like part of the motivation for a self-imposed sentence was to take one at half the length of the likely arbcom imposed sentence, I'd say go ahead and block. Snowspinner 23:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Did he ask you to block him? -> Policy: No; Morally: It's probably alright. If not, then I would say definitely no. You shouldn't use your sysop powers to enforce somebody's self-imposed ban. Like all other users who have gone on a wikibreak or have left completely, Rex should be left to handle this himself. Also, if he later decides to come back, he shouldn't be prevented by technical means. You're effectively forcing him to fulfill this ban on himself. IIRC, sysops aren't even supposed to block themselves, so blocking somebody else would be completely out of line. But all this is IMHO of course. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is he still blocked? Do I have to be the one to undo it? Everyking 20:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless he has committed a blockable offense, like repeated vandalism or violating an ArbCom ruling that calls for blocking, I don't believe he should be blocked. Certainly not for simply stating he won't be editing for this time. Is there any other reason to block him? Otherwise, Grunt, I think you should unblock him. This block appears to be inappropriate to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Rex. I believe that it is an inappropriate block and against policy: "self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited." Although the policy says that self-blocking is prohibited, I think that we can infer that it would also be prohibited for a sysop to block another user. But even if not, the blocking policy also says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances, unless there is exceptional widespread community support." AFAIK, blocking other users to enforce a ban is neither sanctioned in the blocking policy nor does it have widespread community support. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this all changes if he violated an arbcom injunction or did something else that warrants a 6-month block, but there seems to be no indication of this. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, Grunt should not have blocked him. He did not ask to be blocked, you had no reason to block him, and even if the ArbCom imposed a block they aren't supposed to carry it out themselves (correct me if I'm wrong here). --Duk 19:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Privacy questions on Image:MVC-261S.JPG

Image:MVC-261S.JPG, i have serious qualms about posting of a picture with someone’s license plate number next to their face, i am not saying that this is her plate, but this could be construed as a invasion of privacy, and also that the less scrupulous users of Wikipedia could uses this for less then appropriate uses, thoughts? I have also listed the image on WP:IFD --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fyi, plate is referring to the Mostek 6502 microprocessor used in the Commodores (and Apple II and Atari); no idea if it's her plate or if she's User:Scorch; ya might want to ask... — Davenbelle 08:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's a picture of Jeri Ellsworth holding a vanity plate owned by an acquaintance of hers, Eric Kudzin, who is a Commodore software geek and fellow participant in the Chicago C= (Commodore) Expo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMO, that's reason enough to remove the "UE" (unencyclopedic) reason from my vote. If we can verify the source of this picture, I'd remove my vote entirely. --Deathphoenix 15:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be from Randy Harris, photographs covering the C= Expo 2002. The picture is MVC-261S and is labeled "The inimitable Jeri Ellsworth holding Eric Kudzin's unique license plate". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. There didn't seem to be any sort of copyright statement, but it's a personal web site. Would it be fair to assume {{fairuse}} for this image? If so, I will remove my Delete vote. --Deathphoenix 23:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A "Copyright statement", whatever that might be, is not required. If he took the pictures, he owns the copyright; if he didn't, then whoever did take them owns it. In this instance, if he chose to sue, I don't think fair use would fly. If someone still wants to retain this picture on Wikipedia, they should ask him for permission to use it in a manner that is compatible with our media licenses. --02:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Wendydrag

Three revert rule violation on Pat Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wendydrag (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]

Reported by: --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User is editing the article in a severely biased and POV manner, has even indicated so in the talk and in edit history. Though i recognize that the user is a "noob" dialog with the user has proved frivolous and user seems to be unresponsive to not editing in a pov manner.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, this edit looks like a ban dodging sock puppet. Compare to the last Wendydrag edit. The username of the possible sock puppet is Boothy444, an apparent emulation of Boothy443 who reported this 3RR violation. — Cortonin | Talk 06:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The USer has been blocked for 24 hours by User:JCarrikerGeni 18:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Xiong

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates hist.

Xiong (talk · contributions):

• 1st revert: 22:31, 2005 Apr 15
• 2nd revert: 00:42, 2005 Apr 16
• 3rd revert: 05:44, 2005 Apr 16
• 4th revert: 06:05, 2005 Apr 16

Reported by: Netoholic @ 06:15, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Comments:

• This has got to be the strangest action I've seen. Xiong keeps "archiving" this talk page, which is full of some really recent discussion and wide-open threads. His method is to blank and give a link to the page history. This is not how talk pages are usually archived, and in this case, he is doing it in a way that doesn't make any sense. Two of us ([22], [23]) have asked that hs stop. Can someone please block him for the 3RR, and also restore the page? -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Let me see if I can get him to understand how to archive properly. Noel (talk) 19:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts

I've just discovered that Mr Tan (talk · contribs) is the same person as Wikizap (talk · contribs) (at least it appears to be so; Wikizap has just left me a message and signed it Mr Tan — and the standard of English (near incomprehensible) and tone is the same). So far as I know the two accounts haven't been used for nefarious purposes, but this is still deprecated, I believe. What is the normal procedure in such cases? Should I just leave it unless they're misused? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can {{Sockpuppet|Wikizap}} it if you're sure it's a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, that template says: "This user may be an abusive sockpuppet of...", so you might want to subst it and remove the word abusive. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tan also posted onto Wikipedia:Changing username, requesting that the accounts be "merged". – ClockworkSoul 18:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

last I checked sockputes were technicaly still allowed.Geni 20:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As long as you anounce it and never vote twice in the same poll. Having sockpuppets means we have to watch for violations like this. BrokenSegue 20:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he requested the accounts to be merged, I don't think he's got any evil intentions. Maybe we can recommend him to link between the accounts. I doubt developers have enough time to reattribute edits. Mgm|^(talk) 21:34, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have various problems; he's posting from the Wikizap account but manually signing as Mr Tan, and earlier he was manually signing and giving a date seven days in the future... He's also been accusing other editors of writing poor English when his own is sometimes scarcely understandable. He seems not to have felonious intent in this case, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In my experience, he is well-intentioned, but not necessarily an easy person to work with. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

User: 200.30.222.170 (I)

200.30.222.170 (talk · contribs) Ruopollo (talk · contribs) In Salvador Allende (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): here here here here as ruopollo here here Ruopollo does exactly the same revert as 200.30.222.170, and here and here. This guy has reverted 8 times, can someone block him --SqueakBox 17:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC). At this moment this character gets his way because no-one wants to stiop him from his 8RR binge. We have inaccurate text at Salvador Alende. ??? --SqueakBox 17:35, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Because noone wants to block he has done another 4 reverts here, here here and here and is the current version. Can someone please block? 12 reverts should not be tolerated and is wasting the time of good editors, --SqueakBox 20:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

13th revert here. Please can someone do something to stop this ridiculous situation, --SqueakBox 21:02, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

User: 200.30.222.170 (II)

200.30.222.170 (talk · contribs) In Salvador Allende (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1st revert: 16:57, 16 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:00, 16 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:00, 16 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 17:03, 16 Apr 2005
• 5th revert: 17:06, 16 Apr 2005
• 6th revert: 17:07, 16 Apr 2005
• 7th revert: 20:36, 16 Apr 2005
• 8th revert: 20:39, 16 Apr 2005
• 9th revert: 20:50, 16 Apr 2005
• 10th revert: 20:56, 16 Apr 2005
• 11th revert: 20:59, 16 Apr 2005

This user is out of control. He keeps reverting to a POV statement in the intro despite consensus from numerous other users, many of whom are concerned themselves about running afoul of the 3RR because of this individual's rampage. 11 identical reverts in one day! He needs to be stopped immediately. 63.173.114.141 21:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him from editing for 24 hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I've just unblocked him. ClockworkSoul told me that in fact no-one had told the anon about the 3RR, or explained what would happen if he broke it. I've explained matters both to the anon and to the editors at Talk:Salvador Allende. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Javier Solana

There's a chap who has been inserting stuff like "666 the number of the beast" into this article for months now. Now he's doing weird big edits--possibly reverts to an earlier version, I honestly don't know. He is using an Earthlink dynamic IP and clearly does not intend to participate in Wikipedia or abide by the decision to block him for earlier vandalism. Might be worth having a look at what he's up to. I expect we'll have to protect soon, but I don't like to cave in so easily. Maybe he can be reasoned with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is reverting, as many beast vandals do, to an earlier version of the text, probably because it is considered more accurate to beast believers than the current neutral version. In my opinion the old text was full of planted evidences about how Solana is getting too much power in order to convince Christiands who have read elsewhere that Solana is the Beast, a view publicly espoused by User:Cumbey, who was a major editor of the reverted version of the text. See [here, --SqueakBox 02:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Concur with SB. I suspect nothing short of a "block on sight" will get rid of this, so perhaps an RfC is the place to start, awkward though that is with "moving target" IPs. Alai 06:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's with this "ass pus" crap?

The damn stuff pops up at the top of a page and I can't find any record in the edit history. I can remove it from my screen, but I can't find where it came from. RickK 07:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• A vandal user:Pella kenshett was doing it with a table, it was being reverted pretty quickly by another user. I have blocked the user for 24 hours (might be necessary to block for longer--nixie 07:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also from user:BlikSplik, blocked for 48 hours. Should they be blocked for longer? --nixie 07:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, permanently. No, I underestand what they're doing, what I don't understand is why it's showing up on pages that don't have a history of being vandalized. RickK 08:12, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's being added to templates that appear on those pages. --SPUI (talk) 08:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, thanks. RickK 08:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ass puss? I've been getting "Pelican Shit" (yes, I'm aware of the various Pelican Shit pages and how they're being protected). It's good to know I wasn't going insane or anything. --Deathphoenix 02:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pelican shit banner

I'm seeing a Pelican shit floating banner on this page and can't spot where its being generated. Thryduulf 15:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was on {{Shortcut}} and done by Darren2 (talk · contribs), who has now been banned. You're probably now looking at the cached version of that template. violet/riga (t) 15:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It must have been reverted, because I don't see it. It could've been on {{shortcut}}, since that's where I saw it yesterday. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can always see it if you look at the diff, like this. RickK 23:12, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Great, now they're vandalising templates in new and interesting ways. --Deathphoenix 02:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandal impersonating Jimbo Wales

There is an anonymous vandal impersonating Jimbo Wales. We might want to take action quickly on this one. User_talk:JIMBO_WALES. RK 16:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• He was blocked indefinitely about a half-hour ago. – ClockworkSoul 17:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone

After nearly four weeks away, this sometime problem user is back. He has attempted a cut-and-paste move of Haile Selassie of Ethiopia to Haile Selassie, probably out of ignorance. He makes a lot of edits, many of which are pretty good, but tends to act in an anti-social manner. Some more eyes on his edits are required. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration notice - User:Irate

This case is now closed. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate#Final decision for the full decision - including a three month ban. Please also see WP:AER for a request to block this account. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A real shame. I hope we can account for rulings like this by saying our dispute resolution processes are still young and maturing, but honestly I'm not seeing much positive development. The crack-them-over-the-head approach seems increasingly common, and increasingly severe. Everyking 22:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you have against blocking someone who's contributions are entirely personal attacks and who removes all attempts to discuss the matter with him as "vandalism?" Snowspinner 22:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think it violates the spirit of Wikilove, I think it distracts us from building an encyclopedia, bars contributors and is essentially just a matter of petty politics—which you are of course well acquainted with. Everyking 22:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what would you have us do with disruptive users who will not engage in discussion? Snowspinner 22:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if that was true, it would be a serious issue requiring some deliberation. But I was myself the victim of a arbitration case prepared by you that was 100% false, so why would I believe any accusations you make against anyone else? Everyking 22:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evidence, presented by myself, Smoddy and Matt Crypto, shows Irate's inability to communicate and his constant personal attacks. Yes, he also made positive edits, but the overall effect he had on Wikipedia was a negative one. violet/riga (t) 22:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm biased, of course, but I'm glad the ArbCom ruled on this. We had to jump through a lot of hoops to bring this user to book (discussions on Talk pages/IRC/mailing list, an RfC, an arbitration case), and Irate had plenty of chances to reform himself, but he chose to continue behaving badly. Everyking -- have you actually studied this user's behaviour? You'd be wise to do so before hinting about the credibility of the case — it's pretty clear-cut. Moreover, in my opinion, this was a case of Wikipedia being too tolerant of problem users, not too lenient. It would have saved us a lot of hassle if admins could have, from the beginning, been permitted to give Irate a 24 hour block every time he lashed out with personal abuse — this would have solved the problem last month, without wasting everyone's time (so we can get on and write an encyclopedia, you know). — Matt Crypto 22:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I'm an administrator who errs on the side of caution, who tries to discuss often and block infrequently. But have you looked at the RFAr's evidence page before you made your comments? Many people tried to reason with him; at best, they were ignored; at worst, he vandalized their user pages. Once during his RFAr he agreed to stop making personal attacks but soon resumed. I'm all for Wikilove, but Wikilove can only go so far. If people cannot modify their behavior to work well with others, then stronger measures may be necessary. Our first goal is to create an encyclopedia, and frankly I believe Irate was hindering that, both directly in his contributions and in his disrespectful dealings with other users. I see nothing about this matter that could be considered "petty politics". I really hope that Irate can reform and learn to work with the community, and perhaps when he returns from his ban you can work with him to act with more civility and respect for other editors, and to respond to messages on his talk page instead of deleting them as "vandalism". Then this won't be a problem in the future. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way I look at it, a great many people in this world are not calm, cool-headed, or particularly rational. Nevertheless they have a great deal of knowledge to share and there are a great many ways they can contribute to the project. I don't believe banning Irate will help the project. Someone above said Irate has made good contributions. Well, what does that mean? To me, that means a lot; it means this person was not around just to cause us hell, but was interested in contributing to our encyclopedia, and we've banned him just because we couldn't find a way to tolerate him and let personality differences fall by the wayside. I think that represents a real failure of the community. We need to find a way to hold productive discussions with people we don't like without thinking all the while, Hmm, now how will this look in front of the ArbCom? How many points will this get me? Everyking 04:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should we have to tolerate gross and public verbal abuse by editors, no matter how good their edits might be? What a peculiar idea. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Everyking 05:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I realize we disagree on this, but please understand that (I believe) most Wikipedians disagree with you: we should not tolerate this level of personal attacking, just because someone can offer a few good contributions as well. Yes, we're trying to build an encyclopedia. Those who are not calm, cool-headed, or rational will have to learn how to interact with others to be part of this team, a community who is working towards a common goal. Interest to contribute is not sufficient. I understand you believe that the Wikipedia community failed and not the editor, but you must realize that most do not agree. Furthermore, even if such users make some positive contributions, they waste the time of other contributors and even drive them off. I believe the community and the encyclopedia are harmed more by allowing rampantly abusive insults. Also, in the case of Irate, I suggest that you modify your sentence to read: "We need to find a way to hold productive discussions with people we don't like without them instantly reverting our comments as 'vandalism'." — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it isn't like I defied the ruling and unblocked him. I just expressed my opinion about it. The fact is that we mistreat our own volunteers, sometimes with incredible harshness, and I get angry when I see that happening. Everyking 05:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, would have greatly preferred Irate to simply have stopped making personal attacks than getting banned for 3 months. I don't know about the others, but that was my goal in the dispute resolution process. But the plain truth is that he simply refused to alter his behaviour; he said outright "I don't give a fuck about Wikquette". What should we have done? Would you prefer that we allow abusive editors to carry on unhindered, completely unsactioned? You criticise this ruling, but you haven't presented any reasonable alternatives as to how we could have handled this user better. — Matt Crypto 17:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a warning, a reminder of the importance of civility, and a personal attack parole (to be enforced by 24-hour blocks) would have been sufficient. Everyking 18:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Because we're trying to build an encyclopedia" -- right. And I'd venture that for every editor like Irate that we tolerate, we drive off two other editors who see no reason to accept public abuse. Think of it in terms of sheer utility. Perhaps you don't get bothered by being called vile names; I venture you're a distinct minority. If I wanted flames, I'd go to usenet. The need for civil cooperation isn't a side-issue; it's at the core of how one puts together a collaborative open encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't think civil cooperation isn't important. I think it is very important, and should be strongly promoted and encouraged. Of course that's the ideal. The problem is, it appears to me that what we've done to Irate by banning him is more abusive than whatever insults he tossed around, because one is just words while the other has a directly practical effect. I suppose I could be wrong about that, but that's how it looks to me. Everyking 06:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just look at his edit wars, particularly regarding Category:Liverpool with 82.35.37.118 (talk · contribs) – totally unreasonable. I am very much against bans, but he wasted the time and effort of so many people just because he wanted everything his way. He was also trying to send good uses to RFC, failed to adhere to his temporary injunction, and emailed those involved in the case against him so that he could further abuse them. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, a practical suggestion here - maybe you could contact Irate and set up a dialogue with him. You may be able to discuss him returning when his ban expires, and help ensure that, if and when he does, there will be no further problems. Perhaps it might help for you to have a discussion with him about how he communicates with other users, and how he would like us to communicate with him. Please do look closely a the evidence page and Irate's talk page history first though - to get a clear idea of what the issues are. -- sannse (talk) 15:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why does the decision page still say "Final decision (none yet)"? RickK 23:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Because I forgot to change the heading when I filled in the decision. Sorry... fixed -- sannse (talk) 09:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with this decision, since there is a policy against personal attacks, and Irate violated it repeatedly. Personal attacks are very disruptive. On the other hand, it disturbs me to see Irate characterized as if he were simply a vandal and did nothing but go around outrageously attacking people. He did plenty of that, but he also made thousands of reaonable useful edits over a period of months. He was unable to control his anger, and Wikipedia was an environment which did not help him at all, indeed one which was frequently provocative -- "wiki love" and all that blather to the contrary notwithstanding. Wikipedia failed here, too, and considering its values, it should recognize it. -- BM 11:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not therapy, nor can it provide therapy. If Irate hadn't been recognized as a useful contributor, he would have been unceremoniously and arbitrarily booted for being an abusive vandal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• When you say "Wikipedia failed here", what do you mean, and what alternative do you suggest? We have two options here: permit both Irate's useful contributions and his endless personal attacks, or permit neither of them. When you suggest that the environment is provocative, I must point out that, if Irate had the capacity to restrain himself, he certainly gave no hint of it in his entire period here; in fact, he recognized his own irateness and gave himself a name which reflects it. Let's not be too hard on ourselves - it's counterproductive. — Dan | Talk 15:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• While I agree with the need to try and help users and avoid provocation, I don't think this is a fair criticism in this instance. From my point of view, we bent over backwards to get Irate to reform (I was one of those taking him to ArbCom) — as you say, he made positive contributions. However, this user erupted without any provocation -- he was just abusive. He (by his own admission) didn't "give a fuck about Wikiquette". Even if he had been approached by the kindest, most considerate Wikipedians, I don't think it would have made much difference. While we should try our hardest to do "wikilove", we should, at the same time, recognise that a minority of users present an intractable problem. Wikipedia didn't fail here; Irate did. — Matt Crypto 17:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Being one of those that had the most vitriol from him I feel that "Wikipedia failed here" is actually a little offensive. I tried and tried again to resolve the situation but his refusal to participate in normal talk page discussions and in the eventual RfC show that his attitude was unreasonable. My first encounter with him was many months prior to this decision and I think we've been more than fair in this case. violet/riga (t) 18:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• people who are unable to collaborate can put their brilliant prose on wikibooks, and leave it to humbler minds to import their insights into Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 18:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Our social policies are not a suicide pact. They are in place to help us write the encyclopedia. ... We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia. - Jimbo Wales. RickK 20:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the ArbCom should explore more creative ways of dealing with problems like this. While Irate did cause problems with other users, he did contribute to Wikipedia, and was obviously interested in improving it. Treating him like a common vandal or troll is not a very good solution, IMO. Sure it stops the personal attacks, but it also stops the positive attributes of having him here. Our primary goal is to build an encyclopedia. Establishing a community is, and always will be, a consequence of creating an encyclopedia.

In my humble opinion, there are better options for dealing with cases like this than just banning them (the easy way out), like we do for vandals. Unlike vandals and trolls, Irate did want to help Wikipedia by contributing, he was just more inflammatory than other users. One solution that I think would be more effective and mutually beneficial would be something along the lines of the following. I'll use myself in the example:

• Irate is banned from editing all talk pages (talk, user_talk, etc.) for n months. If Irate wishes to communicate through other users, he must do it through Frazzydee|✍, who will act as a proxy between him and the community.
• Irate may only describe his edit in his edit summary. He may not use it as a vehicle for personal attacks.
• Irate is limited to 1 revert every 24 hours.

Now, I think that would be a much better solution. Irate could contribute to the 'pedia without not pissing off others; but at the same time, he's still able to communicate with them. Having me (or somebody else) as a proxy will ensure that he can still discuss articles (this is important) while also ensuring that he isn't a detriment to the community. Unless there's other problems besides his lack of concern for wikiquette, wouldn't this be a much more constructive and mutually beneficial solution? -Frazzydee|✍ 20:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At some point, the effort is simply not worth it. Ultimately this is a project to produce a great encyclopedia, not a rehabilitation facility for teaching people how to properly interact on Wikis. The amount of time wasted by Irate, and angst generated by his unrelenting hostility and personal attacks, can never be justified by his contributions, which weren't particularly earth-shattering. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said above we tried communicating with him and even an RfC, but if he isn't able to work with that simple process, and then went on to violate his temporary injunction, then why would we think that he'd behave under those conditions? violet/riga (t) 20:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, the best thing would be for Irate to curb his behaviour. It seems backwards that we should be wracking our brains to find an elaborate solution to what is, ultimately, Irate's problem. I don't see why we should put so much effort into accomodating users who show zero respect for others. — Matt Crypto 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the best thing would be for Irate to contribute without being nasty to other editors, but the second best is for Irate to be banned. Frankly, no one's contributions are worth others putting up with constant abuse. There are large elements of society we have trouble getting to participate in Wikipedia because they are not so thick-skinned. I care much more about attracting them than someone who wants to imitate Don Rickles. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)