Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive352

I have been trying to 'clean up' the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance article and have encountered lots of problems in trying to do so by user Ghagele (talk · contribs). I have recently created a descriptive paragraph on the talk page to describe the issues I see thus far: Talk:Council_for_Refractive_Surgery_Quality_Assurance#Conflict_of_Interest_Analysis.2C_Editing_History_and_Glenn_Hagele

All in all, Ghagele (talk · contribs) has received two warnings about editing the CRSQA article and has continued to do so with no administrator intervention, to my great, great surprise. He has also now unknowingly admitted to using his IP as a sock-puppet to circumvent the warnings to edit the CRSQA article by editing the talk page without logging in as Ghagele.

I am desperately looking for some logical administration on the subject, as I believe the information I have provided on the talk provides provides premises for some pretty obvious actions. --SirDecius (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see implicit threats of legal action from Ghaegel by extensive references to legal action against web site operators elsewhere, and a discussion by both him and SirDecius about the true identity of Wikipedia users. 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) With respect to the article itself, attention is being paid to it by another admin. DGG (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG - If you are referring to Bearian he has declared: 'I'm moving on. I will not bother changing anything more' as per my talk page, which is why I have requested additional assistance. Thanks for your response, and I believe this will be my last attempt at cleaning up that article. --SirDecius (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SirDecius appears to have strong feelings about the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance and in the last month has edited little outside that area. The spirit of the WP:COI guideline indicates that editors with strong views should work very cautiously on articles relating to their intense interests. Over at the article talk page I offered to make a compromise draft that was as neutral as possible and avoided WP:BLP problems. SirDecius has so far not agreed to support this plan, yet he has made several requests for admin help. I encourage him to return to the Talk page conversation in a cooperative spirit. SirDecius strongly supports the inclusion of a link to an external website called http://www.usaeyes.info that describes the CRSQA as a 'cynical marketing ploy' and asserts that Glenn Hagele is engaging in false advertising. I have tried, so far in vain, to persuade him that BLP is not happy with this kind of a link. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

a block of user Lewinsky and IP 60.242.9.146 is requested for repeatedly posting personal and unsourced information on the page of Evan Thomas.

77.185.56.213 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP complaining here should list both User:Lewinksky and User:Lewinsky in this complaint. both are SPA accounts. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And maybe they should be informed as to why the info is being removed? So far there hasn't been so much as an edit summary explaining why, much less a comment on the article talk page or to any of the offenders. AN/I should not be the first recourse. Pairadox (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A note is on teh article talk now. should further edits occur, I will bring them here. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. You'd think I kibbitz here enough to check the edit dates more carefully. All this happened in August, not this week or month. I think an admin can mark this resolved, and we can be done with it. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This userbox was deleted at MFD recently, was recreated and deleted again per CSD G4, and has been recreated yet again. Please delete it again and prevent recreation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Already deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and salt it; since its deletion via WP:MfD it's been recreated twice. I also warned its creator to stop remaking it and visit deletion review if s/he disagrees with the verdict from MfD. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good call, that. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than opening up a new section, I am opening this one again as this is related. Following the deletion(s) of the above userbox, 8thstar has now come up with the following gem;

User:8thstar/ubx/Marxist

and inserted it into every user's page who used the previous one. Inappropriate? Pointy? Tarc (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitly inappropriate; however I'm struggling to think what it breaches. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of userspace policy... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems disruptive to me. Blood Red Sandman, I don't know if it violates any specifically laid out rule about user space, but there is a general prohibition against editing other people's pages, mostly out of courtesy. Obviously that doesn't count if someone is violating another, more important rule, on their user page, such as the fair use policy. But I think in this case the user is not right to be adding this to multiple user's pages. It also seems deliberately disruptive for the purposes of making a point. Natalie (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such prohibition, only a very, very general sense of "hey, don't be a jerk about it". I've never thought twice about editing someone's userspace; it's whether or not the edit is constructive that matters. In this particular case, the edits to other peoples' userspaces are perfectly valid, as he's only fixing a broken transclusion. The only objectionable element is what he's adding (a T1 speedily deleted userbox), not the editing in and of itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually the original deleted userbox, it's a new one created in response, it appears, to the deletion, that is being added. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

EVula, I guess I'm a little confused then, because a user's editing each other's pages when there isn't a compelling reason to (reverting vandalism, removing fair use or attacks, and so on) is generally treated as unwelcome. Obviously, I'm aware that no one owns their own user space or has ultimate control over it, but I've always gotten the impression that unnecessarily editing someone else's user page is considered rude. To clarify, I didn't mean prohibition in the sense of a policy, more like an aspect of etiquette. Natalie (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some users that, yes, specifically ask people to stay out of their userspace, but fixing broken links is different from, say, changing actual content on a page. By your own examples, I'd consider fixing a broken template a "compelling reason" (though not quite on par with removing vandalism or Fair Use imagery).
I suppose it can be considered rude, but I think it [editing someone's userspace] is too trivial to even call that. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly aware he shouldn't be adding it to other user's pages. Shall we get to rollbacking the additions? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a WP:POINT violation, for the sole sake of spite and disruption. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort of a canonical WP:POINT violation, as he was politely directed toward WP:DRV to address his grievances and is instead spamming a userbox claiming he's been censored. This is on the heels of recreating the MfD'd userbox twice, necessitating its salting. I've blocked him for 24 hours; I'd suggest going ahead with the rollbacks. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started removing them. This would have been quicker if the closing admin on the XfD had removed the links to the deleted userbox, though. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist

I just wonder that how after deletion this userbox can be restored. This userbox is clearly supporting Iraqi insurgency. How this userbox is being tolerated? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a userbox that only states a belief/opinion that isn't hate filled or otherwise offensive is against the rules. I wonder if anyone would be so keen to delete one that supported the French Resistance? Otolemur crassicaudatus seems to be on missions to delete anything his/her sensibilities doesn't agree with. The consensus spoke in the DRV. Leave it at that. --WebHamster 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The userbox was restored following the deletion review. Whitstable (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can still take it to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:MfD is you disagree with the box and the community will decide. CharonX/talk 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Theaveng is being disruptive to the discussion on Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats and is now engaging in personal attacks with rather vulgar language [1] --Ray andrew (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him. In the future, try venues like WP:WQA, since this does not (strictly speaking) require admin intervention --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, he did remove those comments himself moments later, and you never told him about bringing this to WP:ANI. --Haemo (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• 208.108.81.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The 24h block expired November 10 2007, and it is a shared IP (see the IP's talk page). — Edokter • Talk • 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. 5dsddddd has made an unblock request. He was blocked for making a disruptive sock puppet. He says that he will "I will help translate articles. (english -bulgarien [sic.]). I will fight vandalism and also review articles. I will help stop sockpuppetry and assume good faith."

There's a few problems I have with this. Before his block, he did his share of vandal fighting. And although he states he wants to crack down on sock puppetry, he appears to be using a sock puppet 69.113.203.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) himself. Perhaps another admin could weigh in on this? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My impression of the original unblock request could probably be summed up quickly: neither particularly hopeful, nor particularly hopeless -- sort of a nether spot where I'm not entirely comfortable unblocking or leaving them blocked, at least not without more discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think the 1 week block is fair. Considering that the account is blocked for 3 more days, if someone wants to unblock feel free. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A vandal moved Cityscape to a nonsensical title, a move which I reverted. However, I believe two identical page histories now exist, one with the spurious title. Maybe someone can remedy this? Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sometimes there are problems with the display of the page history after a page move or a history merge. Setting the history length to anything other than the default of 50 usually fixes this problem. However I've deleted the redirect. Graham87 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! JNW (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tonight's reading of total warfare:

First read: Talk:Waterboarding#New_rules_for_this_article

Second read (next section down): Talk:Waterboarding#Violation_of_new_rules_on_Waterboarding

I expect this to end up at Arbcom in 1-2 weeks in a major politically motivated mess if something isn't done. I have no idea what needs to be done. I'm very sorry if people are sick about reading about this; I'm not going to touch that page again myself. It's a complete madhouse now from crazy IPs and SPAs. Lawrence Cohen 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to piggyback on MastCell's suggestion above for Neutral Good. Would there be a general suggestion to set three-five NEUTRAL administrators (one who have not posted on the article) who would be willing to act as monitors for this article, say till the end of Feb 08? Let's say any monitor can place any particular edit-warrior or incivil account on probation, to be defined as 1 Revert per week on Waterboarding and any article that can relate to waterboarding, as well as civility parole? If some one on probation continues to edit war, then they can be topic banned or blocked. I'm willing to volunteer, but there needs to be consensus on this. SirFozzie (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't object to anything up to and including riding crop beatings at this point, to be frank, and will only watch that page. I pre-authorize ANY admin to block me 5 minutes as a reminder if I post on Waterboarding or any talk pages under it between now and the 2008 Elections are over here in the US. I really want nothing to do with it again. I would also recommend this parole thing for the article and related pages to last until November 4 2008, by the way. Lawrence Cohen 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the article to full protection again after only 5 hours. When (if?) the article next comes off full protect it needs heavy oversight by the rougest of admins. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think SirFozzie is on the right track. I wouldn't oppose his suggestion, but the problem with appointing "neutral" admins to arbitrate is that inevitably they will get sucked in to the dispute. I don't think we need a protracted course of hand-wringing here. In a bar fight, the bouncers don't wait for consensus to develop and for the combatants to agree on a neutral set of referees. They just grab people, starting with what appear to be the worst offenders, and eject them to go home and sober up. I've given my reasons for starting with Neutral Good (talk · contribs). But s/he is obviously not the sole problem, and if it becomes apparent in his absence that someone else has taken over the role, then we can go from there. Also, 3 months away from waterboarding is not, pardon the expression, torture. Wikipedia is full of things to do. Work on something else for awhile, then come back. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, protecting gives us some breathing space to discuss how to make work on the article more productive. Of course, you can't *actually* work on a protected article, so when the time comes to let consensus do its work again, the article will have to be unprotected. <scratches head>

So the "new" (actually very old) rules don't look too bad. Those might help. Also, splitting out the controversial material from the article might sound like a bad idea, but it might help as a temporary solution. That way you can have a pretty solid article about waterboarding before 2001, and we can later figure out a way to include information from 21st century sources, once people are done fighting over it.

Does that make any kind of sense?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. Why aren't we just throwing them into an arena? One side can be the Jets and the other the Sharks. Best dance number gets their way? ...no? then how about heading to ArbCom, and ULTRA-LIBERALLY topic blocking all involved, including the mystery IP. This is as bad as the Irsaeli-Palestinian Conflict mess, which has also made it to ArbCom. I think community patience withe POV warriors of all stripes is wearing thin. This is as serious an issue as is the constant litany of excuses and policy-wonking that gets some editors 50 to 100 chances to get away with bloody murder, and I suspect we've got three or four major issues that should also go to ArbCom. I kind of wish we could have a consensus by polling page, where we could get registered editors to vote on things like " per these 10 sources, Waterboarding is Torture, per these 10 sources, waterboarding is just plain silly fun. Waterboarding is A) torture, B) silly fun, C) a disease caught from tacos.

Really, this needs the long term examination of a group of serious, trusted, generally outsider editors, which is what ArbCom is. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favor of jamming to arbcom, though I consider the recent influx of arbiters to be fantastic. But I happen to believe a firm application of wikipedia policy fixes the problem without any need for rancor or appeal to any higher authority. If I have a blind spot that is making me silly in all of this it is simply that I really believe that the fix is already found in policy.

With regard to outside editors something interesting happened. A group like that did look at the article. Although not trusted, they were reasonable and took a serious look. They came up with a solution to the core issue. They came up with this. I found it interesting in that it would require everyone to bend and I thought of the old hack about compromise -- a solution that makes everyone equally unhappy.

I have thought about mediation, but I despair that it would not work. Some people are not willing to consider any alternatives to their perfect ideal. There is no way that they will compromise. I think the fastest way to get consensus would be to ban anyone who refused to consider various alternative wordings. If the only editors left were people who ... while retaining their views, were also open to alternative wordings (and compromise) the article might be workable. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to an experiment of that nature. We'll have to try some things out sooner or later, right?

Since people don't typically enjoy being banned on an experimental basis :-P, It should be made easy for anyone so banned to get themselves unbanned again after a short period of time for review.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And if any old group of uninvolved folks can't get anything to move, even though they certainly COULD have socked in a new consensus, (and we're glad they didn't), then there's really nothing left but ArbCom. as to "the recent influx of arbiters" we're getting dismissed left right and center, be the editors like myself, or admins. It doesn't matter WHAT happens. There are some editors who refuse to see waterboarding as torture. Why we can't get a simple solution is beyond me. The 'controversy' section title, as edited by Black Kite, seemed a great approach, as it could detail the US government's position on the issue, and how that has changed since it was considered torture. We could detail how the US Gov't now describes the differences. But we can;'t even get that. This (article) is circular, pointless, and aimless. Let's get Arbcom here. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read this, posting a diff because it'll get archived sooner or later. The problem is that both sides fundamentally see NPOV differently. Unless we get everyone and their second cousin to watchlist this, and weigh in on the NPOV matters, and the true, real way of how NPOV should be is held up by everyone with no way around it (either way, "is or isn't torture"), this will never end without arbitration since people are digging in deeply with political stances. It's an absurd binary question, based on sourcing. Is it, or isn't it? If the US conservative POV has more weight, it isn't. If the global, sourced historical worldview has weight, it is. Neither side is willing to give an inch, and the various uncivil people are just making everyone go round the bend, making things worse and unproductive. Lawrence Cohen 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I too came to this article as an uninvolved admin. See Talk:Waterboarding#Protection. It is becoming more obvious that the only way of fixing this problem is via ArbCom, who, especially with the newly elected arbs, I have every faith will see through the fog created by a number of users.BLACKKITE 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow I had it on my watchlist and was meaning to keep an eye on it, since I knew it would remain a mess, but that really getting ugly now... And that's probably a sock fest. Since I think any controversial measures will be contested up to arbcom anyway, it might be a good idea to launch the case. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now done so. WP:RFAR#Waterboarding henrik•talk 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of sending it to ArbCom is that their verdict will have more legitimacy than something decided by a handful of admins on WP:AN/I. On the other hand, ArbCom is a relatively slow process, and prone to being overloaded. It would be nice to see some sort of community mechanism for handling these issues as a means of off-loading ArbCom a bit (with the proviso that anyone could take the case to ArbCom at any time if the community-based measures seemed inappropriate). As maligned as the old community sanction noticeboard was, some good decisions came out of it. Some disputes were fairly adjudicated, by the community, without recourse to ArbCom. I'm not saying we need a revival, but I'd encourage some thought into the kinds of community-based approaches to these problems proposed here and by User:SirFozzie below. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• El_Greco (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my edits on a daily basis are unduing some sort of vandalism. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, you have a 3RR block from September. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Visit WP:ANI and get consensus, and this will be done. GDonato (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment for review I don't think a 3RR I had with an IP user, who unfortunately got on my nerves should be the deciding factor in RFR. How many users haven't had an encounter with 3RR? I've cooled off since then and will discuss any content related issues. I felt there were too many photos on the Athens page (sort of making it look like a tourist advertisement) and the IP user disagreed, but in the process which spun into a 3RR the IP user kept reverting actual edits, and that's basically what happened. As per my reason above, I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my daily edits are some sort of vandalism related, and I watchlist 1,200 articles (so I can see a lot of it). I mean the first thing I do when I log on to Wikipedia is check my watchlist for vandalized pages. _{El Greco}^(talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the rollback tool is about judgment, and rightly or wrongly there are some users who question yours. My advice: sit it out for a while, ask again later. - Philippe | Talk 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(u)The block was back in September, El Greco's explained what went on, and, appears to understand how to handle the situation in the future. Also, I've looked through a couple pages of El Greco's contribs, and, they seem to use "Undo" just fine. I see no reason to withhold rollback. SQL^{Query me!} 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need to do now to proceed? Resubmit my request for rollback or is it done through here? Or should I wait a little longer? _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have granted User:El Greco rollback. On balance the editor has explained the situation regarding the 3RR block, and his recent edits show both a demonstrable need for the tool as well as the ability to use it correctly. Pedro :  Chat  15:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro!!!! _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

At: Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article came off full protect today and not long after, Reginmund (talk · contribs) removed a section that he has been quite uncivilly fighting on the article's talk page to remove and which is why the article was on full protect in the first place. The consensus discussion on this particular section he keeps removing has not reached a consensus but he took it upon himself to remove it anyway as soon as the article was finally unprotected, and when he did so, he cited "no concensus". As I understand it, content is not to be removed until a consensus is reached and the discussion closed, which is not the case here. This diff is where he removed the content after the article was unprotected. This diff is where I restored the content because the consensus discussion was still ongoing. This diff is where he has removed the content again.

An admin needs to restore the content pending the outcome of the consensus discussion and I feel the article should go back on full protection. -- ALLSTARecho 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying is that the article is currently The Wrong Version (tm)? Admins are not empowered to rule on content disputes. FCYTravis (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is in fact unprotected since 09:12, 9 January 2008. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really vandalism, so I brought it here and not WP:AIV. There is an IP user, 24.59.103.158 (talk · contribs), that continues to revert edits of other users, and refuses to engage in any talk page discussion, despite repeated attempts to do so. The issue is largely around the article American football. Several users collaborated at the talk page, and decided to make changes to the article. These changes represent a full consensus at the talk page, and this IP user simply reverts them without edit summary or comment. Good faith would at first indicate that the user disagrees with the changes, but despite MANY attempts to get them to take it to the talk page, they simply refuse to do so. What can be done? Can an IP address be blocked for this? Its usually not more than 3 times per day, but it is still disruptive and has been going on for several days now.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I already submitted this user to WP:AIAV. Some users have to be blocked for a very short time just to get them to notice that they have a talk page. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - as far as I care a violation of the 3-revert rule is vandalism. -- kainaw™ 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. I continue to leave messages at his talk page, and I don't want to get nailed for a 3RR myself, but this is getting annoying. What can be done about this? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears he has a 24-hour block now. -- kainaw™ 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that will get his attention. I would still like to keep this "on the record"; this users has shown this behavior over several days, he may continue the same behavior once the block expires. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this is the right place to report this. Countdowncafe is adding external links to articles which are pointing to his own site. This is clearly against Wikipedia:El#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. The importance of the links which the user is adding is being debated at [[2]]. He is basically adding links to movie trailers on a movie article. I tried talking to the user on his talk page but was not able to convince him. Can someone help me in getting him to follow the policy?. Thanks. Anshuk (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has major problems keeping things civil and avoiding personal attacks. He just left this on my talk page. In addition he has been leaving uncivil remarks and personal attacks on User:ImmortalGoddezz talk page. I believe he deserves an immediate block. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#uncivility.2Fattacks for more info. Bstone (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of R.S. Wenocur (the subject of an article whose deletion seems to have led to this mess) but, I fully endorse a block. Alfred's been warned many more times (9? 10?) than regular vandals without any sign of improvement. --Kyoko 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been indefinitely blocked. -- ALLSTARecho 05:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a thread about this user, related issues and possible sockpuppetry above. Mathsci (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article tagged with AfD and that has been removed.Awotter (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The deleting user was warned on her/his talk page. If it doesn't happen again, I'd say let the matter drop. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article was G12ed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And recreated as Local Church of Witness Lee, it appears. Pairadox (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else have a look at this? The copyvio and self-admitted OR problems are the same, but I would like to have someone else review this matter (I deleted the article the first two times). Kusma (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we doubt his story that the blog's his, I don't see a speedy rationale. I've opened an AfD for the new page; if it results in deletion, any future clones can be G4'd. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church of Witness Lee, if you're interested. MER-C 11:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As those who know me know, I'm not much involved with anti-vandalism patrolling. I revert merely when I notice it. Which, by corrollary, means that I don't do much blocking (again, typically only if I come across some incident, or whatever).

That said, I find myself currently dealing with two separate users who are evading indefinite blocks/bans.

The first is merely a POV pusher who became disruptive, and refused to change/learn in spite of months of trying to help the user understand. They still are doing the same, and now it's a matter of chasing down IP addresses, and multiple accounts.

The second is just a "mess". This is someone mostly preoccupied with userspace/user templates (userboxes)/user categories. That would be perfectly fine with me (how someone chooses to positively contribute seems immaterial to me), except that the user was indef blocked in relation to several disruptions, including a suicide note/claim. Since then, the user claims to have edited using a friend's account, and just generally has been freely evading their block, including harassing other good faith editors.

Note that I didn't link to anything above, and just posted some general information.

I just want to know what can be done to deal with those who evade blocks in this way.

I will say plainly that though I did a fair amount of reading, and feel I now understand range blocks, and so on, I'm somewhat insecure about it, do to the concern about accidental fall out.

(Note that I did ask User:Daniel who gave me what I felt was a good answer, and I've asked a checkuser about that on their talk page, but received no answer.)

So is there anything else that can be done? Or just checkuser on the range, and (hopefully) range block, and continually watchdog and revert on sight?

If the latter, I think I'm going to ask if someone else would help be the "watchdog".

So anyway, that's the help I'm asking - information, and possibly some volunteers. - jc37 12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you gave us the details of the relevant users, we may be able to give you better help. If you're complaining about sock-puppetry, try WP:SSP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jc37, if you are quite sure that another account is being used, I'd just indef and be done with it. For the first user, there isn't a lot else you can do, short of filing a RFCu and applying a range block, if the range is small enough. But if this has been a long term consistent problem (i.e. a new account shows up every few days or so) a range block won't even be especially helpful, as they are supposed to be short-term blocks (under an hour, I think).

If the second user is socking to harass people, I again would say that blocking on sight is perfectly fine. It would be one thing if they returned and made a good-faith effort to contribute, or ask for their block listed, but they've decided to use someone else's account to mess around. Personally, I'd indef block the "friend's" account, with a clear block reason and message on the talk page. If there really is a friend, and that person is interested in editing, they will keep their goof-off friend off their account from then on. If there is no friend, or the friend is just as interested in nonconstructive contributions, then the indef block is perfectly justified. The information about range blocks from the first situation also applies - you may just have to monitor, block, and ignore. Eventually they'll get tired of it and go away. Natalie (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. At what point do we just throw up our collective hands and give up? If it's clear that we really can't stop the problems, then why try? - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, as for the request for more info, for the first example, here's a subpage with some information (User:roundhouse0 has quite a few more sub-pages): User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne

And for the second example, here's a note that I placed on User talk:Coelacan [3]:

Of the two, (if I have to choose) I think I'd really like someone else to "take over" patrolling on the second. (Though, since I've now gone through nearly all the editor's edits, I have no problem being a "helpful resource".)

Thanks for any and all help/insight/etc. - jc37 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Restored from archive, still hoping for some help.) - jc37 11:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not anyone actually reads the archives (and I'd rather not resurface it—I'll leave that to jc37), but those involved in this discussion should know that the user in question has a history of mental instability and irrationality. I very much doubt that he will simply tire and go away (his performance up to this point certainly proves otherwise to me, on review). Note that I am not an admin, nor do I play one on TV; just a user who got involved in this debacle at the beginning, and who wishes a solution would be found. Octane ^{[improve me]} 14.01.08 2129 (UTC)

• Heliac (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

I'm an avid vandalism patroller, who has been forced into early retirement by recent developments in popups that make them broken in internet explorer 6, my browser of choice. This new privillage would allow me return to wikipedia. I promise never to use it abusuively. thank you--Heliac (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst I take your comments on board about your browser, I am nervous that you have made no edits at all in around seven months. Reversion is not the only thing to do. I am concerned that you will have sufficent policy/process knowledge due to your apparent extended break. This is not an out and out decline however, and I would appreciate other admin input. Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done extended break only just returned. Gnangarra 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that's a valid reason to decline? all you're doing by setting this precident is encouraging anon vandalism, by showing them what rediculous hoops you have to jump through to get an effective, internet explorer 6 compatible revision tool.--Heliac (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there isn't really a lot of hard and fast policy associated with this process at the moment. The best I can advise is to take this thread to WP:ANI for a further review. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits from today ([4] [5] [6]) leave me with little faith in your ability to use this tool correctly. John Reaves 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the concern here is that a user's recent contribution history (say, 3-6 months, per the talk page) is what admins review in granting or declining Rollback tools. In this case, unfortunately, there is not much in that time period to review. As Pedro rightly notes, there isn't much firm policy on the matter, either. My recommendation, and this is purely as a non-admin, would be for you to edit without the tool for a while, showing that not only are you back for good, but that you are familiar enough with policy to properly deal with vandalism. Then, I'd re-request, and see what happens. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Echoing John's comment, above, I'd note further that IP edits are not always vandalism, and that you should show that you are exercising due diligence in making sure that you are reverting vandalism, and that your reversion properly removes the vandalism (instead of keeping it, as with this edit). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I stated originally that my comments were not an "out and out decline" I'm afraid that the diff's given by John would harden my position in delcining. I do understand the browser issue, but that is not enough reason IMHO. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually directly block, but the check is 4 days old and I fear this might be taken as punitive if there is no discussion beforehand. User:UzEE was reported at WP:RFCU by User:Smsarmad for vandalizing his, and an other user's page. (case). Where it gets interesting, is that User:Smsarmad was blocked for a week at the end of December for oh wait abusing multiple accounts after being reported by User:UzEE (RFCU case). My guts tell me to block User:UzEE also for a week, but I'd like to have your opinion first. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Previous ANI case about this issue -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Well all I would say is that I would abide the decision of the board. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

200.177.255.66 has been repeatedly adding (and repeatedly warned about) spam links to information security-related articles. Perhaps blacklisting the adblog address would be the best bet since it merely flogs unrelated software and has no redeeming qualities and the spam links have come from a few other IPs over the past month. -- Jzerocsk (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops...didn't realize there is an AN dedicated to vandals/spam. I will post it there, sorry. -- Jzerocsk (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adsense pub-8580952291424433

• guidetocissp.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

related

• zoabonito.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

201.21.98.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
200.177.255.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
201.1.184.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
82.5.236.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
201.42.119.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
201.26.172.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

seems to be some significant cross wikipedia spamming also. see →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#guidetocissp.com --Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, but could some editor take a look at User_talk:Funk999? This doesn't seem like an appropriate use of a talk page. BuddingJournalist 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I think the user was creating Islamictube.net but does seem intent on recreating it (see the User talk:Funk999#Banning) and deletion log. Perhaps a few questions to the user might help? x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As some may be aware, there has been a lot of discussion of late over whether WP:EPISODE should exist as a guideline or be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The guideline was tagged for merging on December 21st by User:Ursasapien [7]. Discussion commenced and there was no clear consensus for a merge (equal number of supports and objectors with valid arguments on both sides.[8] Despite the lack of consensus and on-going discussion, on January 7th, Ursasapien decided to "be bold" and redirect WP:EPISODE to the MOS with the edit summary of "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP."[9]. It was reverted as vandalism after a few hours[10], but Ursasapien just redid it minutes later now claiming it was based on consensus[11]. His redirect was undone by a different editor[12] and a note left on Ursaspien's talk page. On the 8th, Ursaspien tried a different tactic and replaced WP:EPISODE with a "disambigutation" page[13]. I reverted as, again, there was no consensus and the discussions were still on going.[14]. I also left a note on his talk page. He redid within minutes[15], and a different editor reverted moments later[16].

Despite now having four different editors undoing his actions and even more telling him to stop, he continues to try to argue the case. He claims he is "enforcing" policy and removing "guideline cruft"[17]. He is deriding those who have undone his edits as a "local consensus" and only acknowledges arguments supporting his own position. He also put in a call for more comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). In his message there, he blatantly lies by falsely claiming there was consensus for his actions and in claiming that the people who reverted his edits never participated in the discussion (while at the same time claiming two of the people who have reverted his attempts to clear WP:EPISODE as supporters of his efforts on his talk page). (historical links in case of changes: talk page discussions and his post on the Fiction MOS talk page.

At first, Ursasapien was given the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's only been editing for about a year and seemed to be acting in good faith, but his actions are becoming more and more disruptive. He waited just long enough on his last revert to not quite fit 3RR, but he continues to ignore multiple editors telling him he is not acting appropriately. I feel at this point an administrator needs to deal with this as he has made it very clear that he does not care what other editors think or what consensus is dictating. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Response by Ursasapien

I have been editing WP since September 7, 2006 but many of those edits were before I registered. I have been very active in television projects but I have varied interest. There was a long discussion regarding whether or not WP:EPISODE violated WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. This led me to propose a merge and redirection of the disputed guideline into WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Further discussion ensued, but since it was over the holiday break, it was agreed that discussion should continue through January 7th. Discussion appeared to have ended by January 2nd. The discussion seemed to be split between those who saw the merge as a good idea and those who said, despite this guideline violating policy, they liked it or needed it and it should be kept. I boldly implemented policy and consensus. I was reverted. I discussed and made the change again. I was reverted a second time. I reopened the discussion and answered objections. I got further guidance and won over those who had previously objected. I boldly attempted to implement the change again but was immediately reverted. Despite Collectonian's contention, I feel I have not been given the benefit of the doubt, have been sujected to bad faith, and have been treated uncivilly. My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast. I have not been "disruptive" by any stretch of the imagination. I consider this report to be vindictive and just another attempt to wear down opposition to policy violations. However, I have agreed to wait for further discussion and to get another editor to make these corrections. Ursasapien (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any admin action here. We're all a little frustrated about these things, that's all. Given a little time, this should be fully resolved on WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I might agree if Ursasapien had acknowledged he made an error and acted hastily. However he continued reverted despite multiple editors telling him otherwise and only stopped when he would have violated 3RR. He also continues to state that he is only enforcing policy, despite not having a clear agreement that WP:EPISODE violates any policy, and seems to be out to make a WP:POINT more than anything. He continues to discount the words of other editors, repeating the same mantra over and over. Perhaps he will be more willing to acknowledge and adhere to remarks of an administrator. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant for the sentence, "My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast," to be an admission that I messed up. I have not seen an apology regarding your incivil discourse, assumptions of bad faith, and vindictive filing of this request (despite the situation already being resolved). You appear to discount everything I have said and assume the worst motives on my part. I welcome an administrator looking at our respective post, but I think it is a waste of time as this "content issue" is resolved, for now. If you have a problem with my editing, I encourage you to work through the steps of dispute resolution. Ursasapien (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing vindictive in my filing. I don't ANI people just cause I don't like them. I feel your actions need reviewing and possible admin comment or action. You decided on your own that consensus had been reached, when it clearly had not. You decided to take action against the guideline and what that action when be (without even knowing the proper way to do it). You then continued trying to remove the guideline after you your first attempt was undone and you were told no, consensus wasn't reached yet and you shouldn't be doing it by no less than four editors. You arbitrarily decided that discussion from December 22nd was no longer relevant to justify your saying that those who reverted hadn't participated in the discussion (when, in fact the comments are recent enough to still be very much relevant). While you stopped shy of breaking 3RR, I feel you were disruptive to the point of needing administrative attention. This isn't a content issue, it is a much bigger issue regarding your inappropriate actions regarding a Wikipedia guideline that some could view as vandalism, and your snide and uncalled for remarks against anyone who reverted your efforts.

I also find it disturbing that you are keeping an "interesting editor list" that seems to be more of a like a list of editors you don't like, and it seems odd that you would have such a list for any good purpose considering the remarks and diffs you've made by some of them. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has to go. Considering I had to remove a whole two people from -my- userpage listed under "list of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button", that is way in excess. Jtrainor (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of editors keeping list of other editors. This list serves many purposes. This list has nothing to do with editors I like or do not like. To be honest, some of the list was used to compile evidence of incivility. Others are editors that I truly admire and wish to emulate. Some editors turned out to be sockpuppets, as I suspected. Perhaps the list needs to be trimmed a bit, as some of the editors are no longer interesting to me. There is nothing derogatory like Jtrainor's list. I find it disturbing that Collectonian's assumptions of bad faith have now sent him on a witch hunt. Ursasapien (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm a she not a he. I am not on a witch hunt. I stumbled on the list after you added me to it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a list of editors is not necessarily a bad thing. As part of my efforts as a member of the Kindness Campaign, I keep a list of my favorite fellow Wikipedians, i.e. those I admire or who have been kind to me. This positive list helps me when I want to post holiday greetings on editor's talk pages or serves as a reminder of who to ask for advice from, exists also to make those editors feel appreciated, and so on. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)