Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive56

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been following Karmafist and reverting all of his posts with the edit summary of "Revert abuse". [1] [2], even modifying his statements in one talk page [3]. Since this is in my opinion harassment of Karmafist, I've blocked him for a week. This is also very close to gaming his preliminary injunction. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Very close, indeed. I fully support the block.--Sean|Black 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

First - it is untrue that Pigsonthewing was reverting "all" of Karmafist's edits. He was reverting edits about himself that he considered to be personal attacks. Some of them look to me like they qualify... which is a no-no given that Karmafist is under 'personal attack parole' at the moment.

Second - if we are talking about reverting people's edits you might want to reverse the names in question here -> [4] [5] [6] [7].

Pigsonthewing keeps getting blocked for harassment... whenever he complains about and reverts ongoing harassment against himself. Can I really be the only person who finds this odd? --CBD ✉ 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I don't see how article reversions are at all alike to talk page reversions.. —Locke Cole 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

They aren't. Reversions of personal attacks on talk pages are allowed... only the definition of 'personal attack' is open to interpretation. Following someone around and reverting their article submissions without discussion and regardless of merit on the other hand... that's called stalking and WP:HA. --CBD ✉ 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Except those weren't personal attacks. —Locke Cole 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You are misreading what I wrote. The edits he reverted, he reverted all with the edit summary "rm abuse". As for reverting edits, the edits that led me to give him the block were the edits in the User talk namespace. No user has any business amending other users' comments, and the diff that did it for me was the one at Aaron Brenneman's talk page. By the way, that is exactly what made me block, seeing that another user complained about Pigsonthewing harassing him [8]. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RPA specifically says that you SHOULD 'amend other users' comments' to just remove the portion which is an attack. Again, what this comes down to is that you blocked Pigsonthewing because you did not agree with his assesment that Karmafist calling him 'troll', 'bully', et cetera were 'personal attacks'. If those were personal attacks he is allowed to remove them. If they weren't... well then he's blocked for a week. --CBD ✉ 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the top of WP:RPA? Over-extending the applicability of WP:RPA is one of the big complaints about Pigsonthewing. -- SCZenz 23:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that he uses it alot and takes a wide definition of 'personal attack' in doing so. However, I do not see how it is possible for Pigsonthewing's reversions of Karmafist calling him 'troll', 'bully', et cetera to be so pervasive as to rise to the level of "harassment" worthy of a week long ban... while simultaneously those original comments by Karmafist do not rise to the level of harassment against Pigsonthewing. If the one is harassment then so is the other... especially when you toss in Karmafist going about reverting Pigsonthewing's perfectly valid article edits. This all started between them when Karmafist put a 24 hour block on Pigsonthewing after falsely accusing him of violating 3RR... but not blocking G-man (an admin) who had reverted out the same text four times in a day. In my opinion admins should be held to a higher standard than regular editors. The guidelines don't read that way... so be it. However, the guidelines certainly don't say that admins should be held to a lower standard, but that has seemed to be the practice in this case. I don't disagree that alot of the things Pigsonthewing does are borderline abusive. I'm saying that he probably wouldn't be doing them if blatant ongoing abuse against him weren't ignored (and thereby encouraged) as a matter of course. --CBD ✉ 00:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, especially about admins being held to a high standard. However, the overall problem started because Pigsonthewing is unfailingly curt and impolite to anyone who edits in a way he dislikes or tries to offer him suggestions on how to work with other editors. I think a week-long block is excessive, and I would strongly support removing it if he showed any humility whatsoever or aknowledged the legitimate issues against him. Until he does that, I don't know what can be done about any of these problems. That being said, Karmafist should stay as far away from him as possible. -- SCZenz 00:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In my own experience this ("unfailingly") isn't accurate. I contested his edits and we worked out a compromise. I called him a "pain in the ass" (amongst other, nicer, things) and he said thank you. That's humility enough for me. He gets 'difficult' when people are rude to him. That's not a good thing, but it's understandable. Nobody should have to put up with someone reverting their edits as a "better safe than sorry" "gut reaction"... nor be blocked for getting upset and objecting to that and similar treatment. --CBD ✉ 02:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Having read all of the above, I still find a seven-day block completely unjustifiable and, in the circumstances of an ongoing arbitration case in which Pigsonthewing should be encouraged to participate, counter-productive. I am replacing this with a two-day block, reduced in duration to run from the time of the original seven day block. This is justifiable under the personal attack injunction, since in my opinion the interference with Karmafist's edits constitutes a personal attack.

After the expiry of the two-day block, all administrators are encouraged to monitor Pigsonthewing's conduct and ensure that he does not resume this problematic conduct.

I will address Karmafist's conduct separately (I haven't yet examined it). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to the reduction of the block. I was going to block for 72 hours originally, but after seeing he was a repeat offender, I decided to increase the length of the block. That said, Pigsonthewing has been asked repeatedly to answer his RFC (and then his RFAr), which he continues to refuse to do. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To illustrate my concerns, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) had already been blocked for thirty-six hours recently. Adding another week-long block to that would leave him very little opportunity to change his mind and contribute evidence in the case and participate in the workshop. This isn't to say that we should let him run loose, but I think shorter blocks (*much* shorter blocks, if timed correctly) are likely to be just as effective.

There are also extenuating circumstances, too. This in my opinion violates the personal attack injunction on Karmafist, as does this. I don't think a block is yet merited in Karmafist's case, but I shall be warning him not to engage in this kind of accusation again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And here's another example: [9]. This ought to be posted back as evidence for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Workshop#Karmafist restricted with respect to Pigsonthewing. I have to agree with CBD that the current situation is being exacerbated by Karmafist continuing to post snipes against POTW, then citing POTW's reaction as harassment. The afd on Tim Tolkien doesn't look in terribly good faith either. Tearlach 07:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the state that Tim Tolkien was in when he nominated it for AfD would have lead me to nominate it as well. It was only after it was nominated that he began adding content that indicated the notability of the subject. In so far as Karmafist exacerbating things; I don't believe what he posted constitutes a personal attack. If we can't even define what someones behavior seems to be, how on Earth are we supposed to suggest they be brought up for RFAr or RfC? Next thing you know we'll have people deleting comments such as "So and so is misbehaving, you should do something".. oh right, that's precisely what he did. —Locke Cole 07:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't even define what someones behavior seems to be is not the point. Karmafist has been enjoined to back off and not interact with POTW, but is still picking at it. Posting ad hominem comments encouraging other editors to discount POTW's edits and treat them as troublemaking looks to me well into the territory of personal atack, especially when unjustified. For instance, the Phoenix Park edit history shows POTW and Demiurge supporting a long-standing consensus against an anonymous reverter. There was no trouble until Karmafist waded in and automatically reverted to the nonconsensus version simply because POTW supported it (so I decided to go see what he was up to and went with a "better safe than sorry" approach when I saw reverts by him). Tearlach 08:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist has been enjoined? Since when? I look here and I only see temporary injunctions enacted against Pigsonthewing. One of his "ad hominen" comments (which I also dispute) were directed at a user who left a note on his talk page. There's nothing unjustified about suggesting POTW is a troll, he may very well be. But let me guess: if a police officer pulls you over and says you were speeding, you take that as a personal attack too, right? So now making accusations is a personal attack? I bet the whole RFAr is a personal attack: maybe he can blank that too, because it seems to me that's where you're headed. *sigh* I mean honestly, look at the examples given at WP:NPA. Nothing karmafist has done (with any frequency anyways, if at all) rises to that level. I'm trying to assume good faith here and assume you really believe what you're saying, but these assertions are really pushing it. —Locke Cole 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this has got so convoluted that I'm mistaken on that point. On rereading, I see the injunction is against Karmafist making personal attacks; the no-interaction-whatsoever is at the proposal stage. It's not bad advice, though. Do you really think the Phoenix Park edits help the situation? Or these edits to Sutton Park, which look equally bad faith?

Your analogy is inaccurate anyway. This is equivalent to that same police officer, after having caught you speeding, turning up and saying "this guy was caught speeding, you know" to suggest you're untrustworthy in all sorts of situations where that's irrelevant.

I'm not the only one to view Karmafist's edits as personal attacks (see [10]). Tearlach 09:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, a statement can be a personal attack even if it's true. Describing someone's interactions on Wikipedia as "bullying" and "trolling" is a personal attack, even if the person involved is a bully and a troll. We do things differently on Wikipedia. If we have a difference with someone, we seek ways of resolving it, not ways of marginalizing that person. Karmafist is under an injunction because he had earlier described Pigsonthewing as "the scum of Wikipedia" and made repeated pig-related swipes at him. Now he's stopped calling Pigsonthewing a pig, but he hasn't stopped attacking him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just telling Pigsonthewing the same thing about using terms like 'lies' and 'liar'. Whether something is true or not is irrelevant to whether it is an attack or not. Further, estimations of 'truth' are often subjective. I don't think 'troll' or 'bully' are accurate descriptions of Pigsonthewing because both terms imply intent (to provoke hostility / harass for amusement) which I have seen no evidence of. In any case, they are clearly 'attacks'... that is, statements made to portray the person negatively. Though again, estimations of 'severity' of personal attacks are highly subjective. Which, in my opinion, is a significant problem... subjective definitions of what is and is not a 'personal attack' and 'harassment' inherently leads to unequal application of blocks for such. Which inevitably breeds resentment. --CBD ✉ 13:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Since none of the examples at WP:NPA seemed to apply to what karmafist (or even POTW) have been doing, I've expanded WP:NPA. [11] Obviously if it needs rewording, go for it. —Locke Cole 18:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA is very enlightening as it stands. Whatever the precise definition of "attack", WP:NPA is explicit that ad hominem arguments are against policy: Comment on content, not on the contributor ... Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party ... Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. And that is what is going on. For instance: SaltyWater says he doesn't like some Pigsonthewing edits [12]; Karmafist replies telling him Pigsonthewing has bullied people in the past [13]. Tearlach 19:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, we had better rework the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page, since in its very first sentence it describes editors of pages as being "vandals," and since this might be considered an ad hominem attack, violates WP:NPA.

Look, Wikipedia has bad editors. It is not always a personal attack to say "Jane is a bad editor." It can be a personal attack. But it is not necessarily an attack.

"WillyOnWheels is a troll and a vandal." Did I just violate WP:NPA? If so, then the policy is wrong, and needs to be fixed. Nandesuka 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote that clause as follows, in an attempt to more closely circumscribe it: "Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." Nandesuka 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to point out to all that RPA is not policy, and it is disputed, and there is not consensus for the removal of personal attack comments. Some people seem to feel that it's policy and their duty to remove personal attacks from others, this is not so. Personally, I think editing other user's comments is generally a bad thing...if an attack is made, refute the attack, but keep in mind that anyone who chooses to engage in such behavior risks a loss of reputation and risks incurring consequences (I for one won't hesistate to place a block on a user engaging in repeated personal attacks). As far as this case goes, if there is a personal attack on either Pigsonthewings or Karmafist's part, an immediate block is warranted. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed ... mostly. Personal attacks are unacceptable. But it's also no good to alter other people's signed comments; that's forgery ... and frequently, it's also a form of bullying or personal attack in itself. It's particularly egregious when it's done in response to allegations of wrongdoing. "You accused me of doing something wrong. I take that as a personal attack, and so I shall now strike out your words. Your accusation is now besmirched, without my bothering to respond to its substance." That sort of malicious application of RPA cropped up on WP:RFC/Duncharris in the beginning of the recent administrative malfeasance unpleasantness.

Nonetheless, it should be perfectly acceptable to remove or revert whole posts (not just individual words) that are composed of pure abuse. This is simply a corollary of the vandalism policy. Removing a whole post avoids the alteration or besmirching of another person's words, and is less likely to be done in any case where the words have any value at all. There is no value to retaining a talk comment that is solely composed of the words "fuck you" repeated a hundred times, or racial slurs, or other patent nonsense. --FOo 08:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked Karmafist (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violating his personal attack parole, for this edit. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that, unless I'm missing something, there is no PAP against Karmafist currently enacted. Whoever marked it as "Enacted" miscounted as there's only four arbcom support votes and a majority of five is required for a proposal to pass. Further, no announcement that such a PAP had been enacted appears to have been given to Karmafist, and finally, no temporary injunction appears here. (this was also posted on Karmafist's talk page) —Locke Cole 05:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It only takes four Arbitrators to enact an injunction. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Proposed Decision page, it reads On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.. Is there a Complete Idiots Guide to Wikipedia Arbitration someplace to bring me up to speed, or is the 5 votes are a majority wrong? =) —Locke Cole 05:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Injunctions follow different rules than final decisions. See the Arbitration policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, edit conflict, (because I'm, slow) but the policy says: "An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support." Dmcdevit·t 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up; you guys might want to add a little note about the votes needed on temporary injunctions in your templates for arbitrations (like in the proposed temporary injunction section in the Proposed decision subpage). —Locke Cole 10:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's already there. --CBD ✉ 12:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just coming back to correct myself. :P —Locke Cole 01:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted a response on Karmafist's Talk page, prior to seeing this response from Kelly Martin. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Karmafist is taking the liberty of shortening his own block and unblocking himself [14] --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know any of the history of this situation, but as an outsider, there's nothing in the diff provided that looks to me like an obvious personal attack. IMO, if you're going to call it a blockable offence, the personal attack should be pretty clear. Friday (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this seems harsh. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a poor taste joke. Last night when it first happened, and Karmafist was complaining on IRC about it, I consulted an arbcom member on IRC, and they said it violated the spirit of the injunction. Anyway, Karmafist 1) probably needs to take a break for a few hours, 2) shouldn't unblock himself, no matter how wrong the block is, as mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 15:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be a shame to lose a good editor because of the POTW situation, which is what will happen if this dynamic continues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand why the "don't unblock yourself" convention exists. But, I have a hard time bringing myself to disagree with someone unblocking themselves when no plausible reason for the block has been given. Situations like this frequently escalate unneccessarily, because then someone else can come along and say "unblocking yourself?!? that's not right, I'm going to re-block". To me this situation should have been handled with a note on the talk page, not a block. Also, maybe it's just me, but I don't like to see on-wiki consequences for off-wiki actions. If a solid reason for a block cannot be found on the wiki, the block should not happen. Friday (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The other half of this dispute (Pigsonthewing) was recently blocked for a week for 'offenses' seemingly no more serious than this one. I suspect Evilphoenix imposed this block because of an ongoing pattern of harassment of which the linked edit was only the most recent example. Several others can be found in the paragraphs preceding this one. At that, we are presently a few hours away from an arbitration going into effect (24 hours after motion to close) which will bar Karmafist from interacting with Pigsonthewing in any way. So it's not like this is 'out of the blue' with no justification. I don't want to see Karmafist quit over this either, but frankly I feel that the fact that he HASN'T been blocked before this demonstrates a ludicrous imbalance in the standards imposed on admins vs those on regular editors. --CBD ✉ 15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

POTW was blocked because he was editing other peoples comments, specifically Karmafists. In one case he deleted the comment outright. Karmafist took some Tim Tolkien content from POTW's talk page, and since POTW was blocked, added it to the article for him, and then left him a note about it. Care to explain how the situations are at all similar? Want to explain how that's a blockable offense, helping another editor out? It looked like an olive branch to me.. —Locke Cole 08:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist was blocked for a post [15] on Wikipedia , Friday, not something offsite, but the question remains whether it counts as a personal attack. I would say not, though I'd also say Karmafist would do well to avoid POTW entirely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but it sounded like the explanation above was saying that this is a personal attack when viewed through the lens of a conversation that happened on IRC. If it's a personal attack when viewed through the lens of an ongoing pattern of wiki activity, that's another story. And I'll admit I'm not familiar with the history, I just wanted to point out that the diff provided doesn't look like a blockable personal attack to outsider eyes. Friday (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC is just a convenient means for the cabal^W^W^W me to communicate with. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 13:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking_policy: Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so, except if they were autoblocked as a result of a block on some other user (or bot) that they share an IP with. Otherwise, if an admin feels they were not blocked for a valid reason, the safest course is to contact the blocking admin, another admin, or the mailing list and ask to be unblocked. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist's action was not acceptable and he knows that. I know it's tempting as administrators to all pat one another on the back, but when we do that it in a case like this it looks bad. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As an outsider to this incident, I am a little confused as to how the diff in question was a personal attack. However, I agree that he shouldn't unblock himself. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any sort of personal attack to me; that said, he should have asked someone else to unblock him, rather than unblocking himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I think Tony Sidaway is absolutely right about this. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to step in here and make a comment to try and clarify, as several editors have questioned why I imposed a block for a seemingly trivial offense. I agree that the diff in question was a borderline case, but as I explained to Karmafist on his Talk page (where there has also been some discussion), at this point, he does not need to have even the slightest appearance of goading Pigsonthewing, with whom he has been involved in a running conflict going back several months, and an active case before the Arbitration Committee. Both users have personal attack injunctions opposed against them currently, and the situation between the two of them is extremely tense. In an isolated incident, such a comment from another User would only require a Talk page warning, however given the background of the situation between these two editors, I found Karmafist's action to be provocative and unneccessary. Pigsonthewing is under very heavy scrutiny right now, I had recently blocked him for disruption, and he was (and still is, I believe) serving another block from another Admin for personal attacks. It's important for Andy to understant that poor behavior on his part will not be tolerated, but its also important for him (and the rest of us as well) to understand that poor behaviour should not be tolerated from other editors either, particularly other Administrators. I think Andy feels that he's being punished for offenses he has commited, but that other users who have commited offenses are not. Whether this is true or not, we do need to attempt to be fair, and we do need to work to hold ourselves and our fellow Administrators to a higher standard. Nobody is above civility, not I or anyone else, from our plethora of anonymous contributors all the way up to the Arbitrators and Jimbo himself . This is not to say that I am defending my action as Absolutely Correct, I am simply trying to help other editors understand why I made that decision. I posted about the block here specifically to encourage public review and discussion, to allow other Administrators to review the block and choose to allow it to stand or to adjust the time, if any felt that was needed, and to be available for discussion. In general, my feeling is that any block is subject to review and adjustment by any other Administrator, and that if another Administrator adjusts a block that I place, it would be discourteous of me to further adjust the block myself. I am dissapointed that Karmafist has repeatedly chosen to unblock himself...he had to my previous knowledge followed a polite approach, had attempted to engage me in discussion of the block, which we did discuss, and I was unwilling to adjust the block, and I know he discussed it on IRC, but my feeling is that he should have approached another Administrator to review the block, rather than unblock himself. It it my hope however that he will move forward from this, and choose to remain civil and polite in his future actions. Please let me know if there is any more clarification I can provide, and I thank you all for your input in this discussion. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Andy feels that he's being punished for offenses he has commited, but that other users who have commited offenses are not. should be Andy is being punished for offenses he has not commited, while other users who have commited offenses are not. HTH. Andy Mabbett 19:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As well as running the impostor Jguk. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note dot on the end), CDThieme has been multiply voting in AFDs and RFAs using: No Account, Tree&Leaf, Longboat, Uncarved Block, Quintusdecimus and Via Egnatia - and none of those were created recently, so CD probably has a pile of other accounts in the wings. I've also blocked CDThieme for 48 hours' reflection - David Gerard 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to notice a lot of otherwise good editors sockpuppeting, and sockpuppeting evilly too. But I guess there's nothing we can really do cept catch the ones who are too obvious. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It ain't good. Multiple accounts are allowable (I know a few good editors who run multiple accounts for editing different areas), but pretending they're different people is horribly bad faith - David Gerard 11:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And pretending being someone they're not in order to hurt someone's reputation is even worse. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I also notice him vote-stuffing at rename discussions: see Talk:Níðhöggr. Really not cool at all. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I support blocks for disruption in such cases. Lenience towards these things is really the wrong approach, known as Wikipedia's "wanton enabling of trolls and fools". dab (ᛏ) 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard has him blocked for 48 hours right now. The even worse thing about users like this is that they make the whole atmosphere more poisonous - this means anyone else who voted along with CDThieme will now also be suspect as a sockpuppet in the eyes of some, and who knows - some of them might be. Some of these socks were obvious vote-stuffing accounts only, but some of the others have significant edit history ... —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh man... he's been directly involved in votes on renaming that have been extremely contentious, and if the only reason there was no clear consensus was because he wsa using sockpuppets to prop his side up, that means there are a whole long list of articles right now not where they should be because he felt his opinion was more important than anyone else's. Ugh... and I was specifically complaining about how the one side was gaming the system on the Talk:Níðhöggr article before knowing this... this just sucks completely... Is it possible to have recounts now that we know vote tampering was going on? DreamGuy 12:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to retroactively fix things like that. This behaviour goes back at least to the debate over Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden where CDThieme voted five times for the option that won out. You may not want to stir up that nest of hornets again. He also had his way on Talk:Balder where he modestly only voted two times. But I'm not going to insist that page be moved back - we can just debate/vote again on it later on if we feel like it.

Oh, and he voted twice against me on my RFA so I should be an admin! :) No, not really - it wouldn't have made a difference.

One thing which someone probably should do something about is Talk:Laozi where CDThieme pulled out all the stops - voting something like 7 times in all. Without his votes there is no consensus to switch from the pinyin spelling so that stalemate can hopefully be broken. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

what. a. jerk. (That may have been a PA just now, but I am at a lack for other terms) dab (ᛏ) 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not stir up the hornets nest? because of this user, the move to Franz Josef Strauß got ruined even though it could have won Talk:Franz Josef Strauss. In my opinion his votes need to be crossed out and articles retroactively moved (or moved back) in case a majority was reached for one version. i don't understand why these fraudulent votes should be accepted, no democratic voting system works that way. Gryffindor 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

They shouldn't be accepted. And considering he voted six times against that request of yours I doubt anyone will contest the move you just made. The King Gustav thing is a much more difficult case with multiple options. I don't understand it myself and I have no idea if the socks made the difference there. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people may have voted differently. 87.80.18.15 17:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CDThieme has restarted his account, is that allowed? Gryffindor 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr (talk · contribs) is spamming the Recent Changes page. I have protected his Talk page to keep it from happening, but he'll probably start using anons to continue his spamming. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

My instinct when I saw this was to extend his block. Nandesuka 05:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And now see User talk:71.129.72.3 and the contributions. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected both Talk pages, but I will not hesitate to reblock if he repeats. I would have appreciated some sort of discussion by Mysekurity as to why he unblocked him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Just looking over the contribs of that ip and the discussion page, it didn't seem like there was much reason to be blocked for 24 hours. I changed the block to 3 hours, but please feel free to revert it, now that I've seen the discussion. This is my first time I've done any real blocking, so I'm sorry if I'm not quite familiar with the intricacies of policy, but worry not; I've been reading up. Sorry and thanks again, Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:71.129.72.3 for an explanation of why the block was done. An anon IP was signing its edits as Chooserr (I didn't know it was actually him) and more significantly, it was doing something very similar to what got Polysciwantacracker (talk · contribs) and You got that right mister (talk · contribs) blocked only minutes earlier (the former in particular was using a flurry of welcome messages to conceal a few bad edits/vandalism). 71.129.72.3 also posted some bogus block messages, particularly for User:The Devil Made Me do IT who has now posted to User talk:71.129.72.3 demanding an explanation. See also the talk page for Polysciwantacracker... he kept on posting obsessively (to the point of being accused of using a bot) despite repeatedly being asked to stop. Note that this is reminiscent of Chooserr/71.129.72.3's post-block behavior. I've now unblocked 71.129.72.3, but I believe the block was reasonable under the circustances. -- Curps 06:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And I see that there is another section about Chooserr's editing above, see #Chooserr. -- Curps 07:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Was I ever blocked? I got a message telling me that I would be blocked if I didn't change my name, now it looks like I can edit again? was I ever blocked?--The Devil Made Me do IT 07:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I tried to ask choser why he blocked me, but he just deletes my question--The Devil Made Me do IT 07:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you were never blocked. I noticed the bogus block message on your talk page and removed it, about the same time that I blocked 71.129.72.3. It's certainly not a good sign that Chooserr is removing your comments from his talk page, and persists in posting to your talk page telling you that you have to choose another username. [16]. -- Curps 07:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps, you're wrong. Chooserr was not posting block messages. Chooserr was warning people that their names were inappropriate and liable for blocking. Whether Chooserr had the authority to block or had to ask an admin for help cleaning up inappropriate usernames is not relevant. Chooserr had every right to post those warnings. Your actions regarding Chooserr are documented and by now quite well annotated with the facts:

• User_talk:Mysekurity#71.129.72.3
• User_talk:Curps#User:71.129.72.3
• User_talk:Chooserr#Block (go to second section headed Block)
• User_talk:Zoe#71.129.72.3

Your persistence in failing to properly apologize for your errors is the most telling proof of your craven abuse of your privileges as an admin.

--24.221.8.253 07:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr was indeed posting inappropriate block messages, see [17]. The user in question has complained here, and at Chooserr's talk page. Chooserr responded by deleting the complaint more than once[18] [19] and telling him to stay off his talk page [20]. -- Curps 07:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

They weren't block messages, they were warnings. And if you read that last link you see where Chooserr says that he has no authority to block anyone. His asking Devil not to post on his talk page is not unreasonable either. Stop trying to evade your culpability. You blocked him wrongly. Admit it and apologize to him. --24.221.8.253 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the message again [21]. It clearly states "Please create a new account for your current one will be blocked". That's a bogus block message. Please stop trolling. -- Curps 08:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You read it. It's a warning of future happenings. Stop trying to intimidate me. --24.221.8.253 08:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a notification of an imminent block, not a warning. Even as a mere warning it's entirely inappropriate. In case anyone is unaware, "the devil made me do it" was a catchphrase popularized by comedian Flip Wilson in the 1970s, and substituting IT (information technology) for "it" is just a punning variant. This is not a blockable username. No one is trying to intimidate you, however you are making inflammatory statements without presenting counter-arguments (comparisons to plantation slavery [22] and the horrific historical practice of cutting off the feet of runaway slaves [23] are in particularly poor taste), and this is verging on trolling on your part. -- Curps 08:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And I can't even start to think about what to believe about the it is the way things work here at Wikipedia crap that Mysekurity just left at my talk page... is that self-parody, or are you really that self-serving? --24.221.8.253 07:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked Chooserr, again, for 12 hours, because he has managed to convince me that he thinks that spamming his talk page to get unblocked was a great idea.[24] He needs to be disabused of this notion. Nandesuka 07:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Cut off one of his feet. He'll never run away again. --24.221.8.253 07:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you seriously think a 12 hour block equates to cutting off one of his feet, then maybe you need to get out of the house a bit more. Nandesuka 07:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(The "outrageous personal attack" that Zoe censored from your view is as follows):

<removed personal attack for a second time - User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC) --24.221.8.253 07:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC).

(It is up to the reader to determine whether graphic comparison of irrational logic to historical evil logic is better or worse than using admin powers to assault and intimidating users. --24.221.8.253 08:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

He also created a few articles: Wikipedia Blocked Users' Sandbox and Wikipedia:Blocked Sandbox which he claims are to lodge complaints against blocking. I deleted these articles because users do not need special sandboxes to protest against blocking. They can do so on their usaerpages.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Who's watching their userpages? A central point of contact might get patrolled. --24.221.8.253 07:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

An admin who issues a block should watch that user's talk page to get any messages. A blocked user is, well, blocked, so they can't use a "central point of contact". In any case, it's clearly disruptive to welcome and/or warn tons of users at the top of Special:Log/newusers (that's what I'm assuming he did), especially when you don't have the ability to block users or those being welcomed have made no edits. I think this block is warranted, especially after he abused his ability to edit his talk page while blocked.--Sean|Black 08:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievably heavy handed behaviour. Will I be blocked for "disruption" too for expressing my opinion? --84.69.121.212 09:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought using a sockpuppet to avoid an ip block is a blockable offense—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Yes, but him using the IP's 24.221.8.253 and 84.69.121.212 to fight and insult anyone who supports this block only hurts his case. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I probably would have unblocked or blocked for a shorter time had I noticed the initial block, but his behavior after the block was in place was totally unacceptable.--Sean|Black 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to reply to Jtkiefer's comment with the fact that I wasn't controlling those IPs for they were off doing this and that while I was typing on my talk page, and asking to be unblocked. Chooserr 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note here that I have blocked User:Oh Good Grief for vandalism for repeatedly modifying other user's statements at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Chadbryant, specifically removing content from ChadBryant's statement. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just noting that it was a 24 hour block. Ral315 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oughta be permanent; this guy's a persistant and long-term sockpuppeteer. Read the link he keeps trying to eliminate and his own words; he'll just keep coming back with another account. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I will, but only because you jerks keep on banning my accounts, which makes it rather difficult to discuss both the arbitration process and the ongoing process itself. Ever sit down and think that maybe, just maybe, it would be easier NOT to ban me, quit bugging my accounts, and actually discuss things in a rational manner on my talk page(s)? Curps seems to think so, and I would wager he has the right idea. Whoopity Doo 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the RSPW dude again. If you see him stalking Chadbryant, it's RSPW - David Gerard 02:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is "stalking" anyone, with the possible exception of Chadbryant vs. TruthCrusader. As recently as a few days ago Chad admitted stalking TruthCrusader through his account on ebay. Whoopity Doo 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this entire thing a fight from Usenet or something that has spilled over into Wikipedia? If so, I wish they would both take their bickering elsewhere.--Sean|Black 02:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From Usenet? Naah. Chad's just a jerk. Well...a sociopath, actually. Whoopity Doo 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no "bickering" - it's simply one individual who has way too much time on his hands, and chooses to spend it creating multiple sockpuppets to harass me and others on Wikipedia. - Chadbryant 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You do seem to have way too much time on your hands, Chad, especially when you repeatedly harrass me with multiple AOL Instant Messenger accounts. Whoopity Doo 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly right there, and I apologize if my use of the word "bickering" offended, but could you tell me why he's harrasing you?--Sean|Black 02:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, his abuse of the editing capability by inserting his own definition of "vandalism" into his edits certainly didn't help things much. Then of course there was that bullshit with the sockpuppet template. But really, one thing that really bugs me is that URL he keeps linking to that is a web page which HE created. It's a bullshit FAQ, almost all of the information being false, a bullshit FAQ created out of his warped, sick, twisted sociopathic mind. Through Wikipedia definition, it is more than capable of being called a "hate site" (which it of course is) and thus it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Never mind the fact that this sicko is trying to use it to justify his behavior towards me. Dude, don't believe Chadbryant and try to leave my side of the story out of it. This goes a lot further than you know, and part of it is that Chad Bryant is a manipulative, scheming, sociopath who will do whatever is necessary to further his point -- even if it means lying or manipulating the truth. Ask TruthCrusader about this, he'll tell you what I mean. Whoopity Doo 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't really tell you why, but I can point [(personal attack website removed)] to give you a bit of background info. - Chadbryant 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see, I think. This is all very, very weird.--Sean|Black 02:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see too. Here's the thing, Chad: Whoopity Doo or whoever he is in real life might well be a kook, but the link that you are inserting into articles is just as clearly unencyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia is is not a link repository for you. Nandesuka 17:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this guy using open proxies or is there an identifiable IP/set of IPs he's using? android79 02:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This guy uses BellSouth, on a dynamic dialup as far as we can tell. We could block all of BellSouth, but that would be a little draconian. Part of me wonders if he's also the guy behind the vandalism of Seigenthaler's article, but there's no way to know that. In any case, he's an unrepentant troll and should be treated as such. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Kelly, I am not behind the vandalism of Seigenthaler's article. I've never even HEARD of that article. At any rate, I am also not an "unrepentant troll" -- I have made it more than clear that I am stopping the creation of sockpuppets (well, except for this one, at least) and that a large part of the problem is that arbitration -- or otherwise -- cannot continue so long as I am one of the other parties involved and you guys keep blocking accounts. I have spoken with Curps about this situation, and he has agreed to leave one account open for matters of discussion; however, that account has also been blocked and as far as I am aware, it remains so as of this posting. The other issue is Chadbyrant -- you attack my clones, yet you allow him to run unchecked. Take a peek at his Contributions list and tell me exactly how all of his reverts due to "vandalism" are warranted? He is abusing the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, replacing it with one of his own, to suit his own selfish and petty gains. Chattanooga Choo Choo 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's not abuse as it is an attempt to continue to discuss the problem on an ongoing basis, but the various admins on Wikipedia block the accounts making that impossible -- so another one is created to ensure a continued dialogue. If the blocking woudl simply STOP, so would the additional accounts. But gee, I guess some people never thought of that idea. Whoopity Doo 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoopity Doo -- or whatever he's calling himself today -- just altered Chadbryant's comments again. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I blocked that account but he'll be back, I think people should keep an eye on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and any other page where Chad's link is posted, that's not to say that chad is right in his arguments... most likely far from it but even if he's wrong this guy doesn't have the right to edit his comments. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I also extended Oh Good Grief's block to indefinite for this personal attack. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that, since there's doubt that it was actually Oh Good Grief I have undone that block and will reinstate the remainder of the 1 week block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This user is now operating the sock User:Chattanooga Choo Choo, and is once again defacing my talk page, as well as other pages (such as KSTU; his vandalism has been reverted but can be seen here). - Chadbryant 23:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And just like the schoolyard tattletale that he is, being unable to fight his own battles without help, Chad runs and posts here once again. Your talk page is NOT being "Defaced," Chad. The link that you are using is acting as a depository, is uncyclopedic in nature, and is a personal attack/hate site. I believe that Nandesuka has informed you of this already, though. Chattanooga Choo Choo 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Chattanooga Choo Choo. —Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This user has returned with a different ISP and a new sockpuppet (User:Grey Rainbow) to once again vandalize my user & talk pages, and attack any articles I've edited. - Chadbryant 00:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is attempting to "vandalize" or "attack" anything. This is merely an excuse by Chadbryant to attempt to justify his behavior once again. The only edit being made is the removal of an external link from his talk page that is inaccurate, biased, written BY HIM, and which is a HATE SITE. It's a hate site, pure and simple, which makes it a personal attack -- something not allowed on Wikipedia.--Grey Rainbow 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See here. This appears to be a WP:NLT violation. *Dan T.* 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ready! Set! Ban! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? John Seigenthaler and Alan Dershowitz get kowtowed to for legal threats. The legal threat banning rule seems not be exist any more. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The rule is against legal threats on the Wiki. It is not a claim that you're not allowed to have legal objections to content on Wikipedia. That would be dumb. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But they're not editors. We may respond to legitimate complaints, with legal threats or not, but we still ban the users. Read WP:NLT more carefully. -- SCZenz 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the User:FeloniousMonk was generous enough to give him another warning. Given the past history perhaps this is one case where more warnings are not called for. -Willmcw 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz appears to have edited his own article prior to making threats. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, since it's not directly relevant here. -- SCZenz 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked the account indefinitely. I see he's been cited numerous times and blocked before for making legal threats, and has promised a couple of times to stop making them in order to have the blocks lifted. -Willmcw 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, today I received two insulting e-mails from Jack Sarfatti sent through the 'e-mail this user' function. FeloniousMonk 06:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jguk, who, per the second arbcom case against him is prohibited from changing BCE/CE to BC/AD has done so again at Pakistan [25] (edit is also marked as minor, with no edit summary). This is his third violation.

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2:

Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD

1) Jguk is indefinitely prohibited from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD in any article, for any reason.

Enforcement by ban

1) Jguk may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated offenses, should he attempt to change the era notation in any article.

He has also activated one of his sockepuppets, User:SmokeDog, to make further edits to Pakistan. Sortan 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We've got a blue-light special on 4 day blocks today. jguk just got one. What evidence do you have that User:SmokeDog is a sockpuppet? Nandesuka 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jguk himself [26]. It might be useful to run a full sockpuppet check on him though, as he probably intended to make this change as SmokeDog, and thereby avoid notice. He may also have other sockpuppets used for the same purpose. Sortan 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that SmokeDog edited immediately after jguk, and that he hadn't made an edit for months before that, I'm inclined to agree. Nandesuka 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a note (I fully support the four-day block): I think Pakistan probably should remain BC, not BCE. It's hard to tell, but I've done some digging in the history. Before November 27, there was no ancient history information, but there were a few instances of BC, and none of BCE. During a very busy November 27th, ancient history went in, which at various points used BC, BCE, or both. Probably should have all been BC to begin with, based on the pre-November 27th page. Of course, I could have easily missed some earlier back-and-forthing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think its perfectly fine for article contributors to change optional styles if there is a general consensus to do so. In this case it was done by User:Tombseye, a regular contributor to the Pakistan article as part of a good faith copyedit [27]. None of the other editors objected, so it doesn't strike me as bad. Of course, if there is any objection or there is no consensus for a change, then the current style should be left alone. My opinion of course ;) Sortan 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that BC/BCE should be left strictly alone once an article demonstrates one consistent style or the other. Distiguishing "good-faith" changes from bad is impossible (heck, even Jguk is doing it, AFAICT, in "good faith": he either thinks it makes a better encyclopedia or that it pleases his God) and every change of styles is an open invitation to start edit-warring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed. Smokedog (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Jguk (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

He's now editing by ip to evade his block -> [28], etc. Sortan 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Dan100 has reduced the block to 1 day. Nandesuka 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• This seems familiar, chooserr (talk · contribs)--Aolanonawanabe 12:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked this user under suspicion that they were Willy on Wheels, however they have since made a request on thier talk page to be unblocked, saying that they have had the username elsewhere before. However a google search on the name brings up no google hits. Can someone please advise on the best course of action? -- Francs2000   23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep 'em blocked, the tone on the talk page is just a little too accusatory. It's also rather odd that a new user would have any clue who WoW is. Hermione1980 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblock, but block permanantly the moment we see anything resembling vandalism, trolling, etc. Phil Sandifer 23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Or CVU. [[Sam Korn]] 23:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is a WoW template on his page. But the fact that he knows who User:Jesus On Wheels is (a name not linked from his talk page, or on the vandalism-in-progress page linked from the WoW template) can't be so easily explained. Keep him blocked. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

AGF, I guess. Unblock but watch closely, and advise the user that this username will be essentially the same as walking around with a large bullseye painted on one's chest. Imagine the reaction to User:Trollderella times 100. android79 23:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess AGF won after all; I have unblocked the account. Although I earnestly hope this is not a vandal, my apologies in advance if it turns out I have been tricked. Please let me know if this account is ever blocked! --HappyCamper 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is this one little thing though - how long does a new account have to wait before they can make page moves? If there is no activity from this account during this period, I will probably make the decision to reblock. --HappyCamper 00:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We have a bot that shoots page move vandals within around a dozen page moves. We can afford to wait this one out. Phil Sandifer 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

He's currently blocked; Curps added the block again. Ral315 (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked; I think it's more important to AGF here. Even if he is a pagemove vandal, it's just a single account and he'll get caught pretty quickly with the bot, so I don't see the harm in having him unblocked. JYolkowski // talk 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There's little doubt that this is a vandal sock. There are more reasons that just the name, but I'd rather not give any details. Since this user claims in his talk page that this is a longstanding username, we can start there. If he's lying about that (the first sentence he wrote on his talk page), then there's not much reason to bother with the rest. -- Curps 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This log shows that the username does not predate WoW on Wikipedia. In fairness, though, I don't think he actually said it did — he said the username was old, but he may have meant that he's been using it for years outside Wikipedia for all I can tell. I agree with the people above; keep 'im unblocked 'til he does anything suspicious, like vandalism, edit warring, or joining CVU. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Per SCZenz's request, I am summarizing this here:

Starting on December 9, 24.147.103.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) began blanking many Boston Mafia-related articles, such as Howie Winter and Jimmy Flynn, replacing articles with (typically) "Content stolen from whiteyworld.com/whiteywatch.com", without following copyvio procedures. Most of these articles had been created or updated from User:216.20.1.214 or other IP addresses in that range, typically plagarizing whiteywatch.com and whiteyworld.com directly or very very closely. Several mug shots also appear to have been added from these sites. Myself and a few other users checked each of these articles against the sites, and for each one clearly plagarized, either removed, rewrote, or reverted to previous non-plagarized versions. The user has continued to blank many of these pages as before and with other statements such as "copywrite[sic] violation, this is a federal crime" or with {{copyvio}} tags. Most of the articles being blanked are on the grounds that the images contained therin are copyrighted(see summary of this issue below), although some appear to be for article content. The user was warned repeatedly not to blank articles and advised of the proper channels for copyright problems. He eventually did report one image at Requests for immediate removal, but continued blanking meanwhile. IP was blocked today (48 hrs) by SCZenz, and almost immediately similar edits to the same articles began turning up from 204.169.116.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was also blocked (48 hrs) by SCZenz. At this point, all his blankings are being treated as vandalism, although when he vandalises new pages we are checking to see if the claim is valid there. I think this more or less summarizes, it, please feel free to add to, reformat, or rearrange my comments here if I missed something important or if the format is unwieldly. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the main problems here is that while the copyrighted articles were removed or changed, many of the images are correctly tagged as mug shots, which are in the Public Domain, even though it does appear possible that they were copied from whiteyworld.com and whiteywatch.com (for instance, see Talk:Jimmy_Flynn). As Mwanner has pointed out, Bridgeman vs Corel established that reproductions of a PD images are themselves PD, and are ineligible for copyright, so the user's claims appear to be illegitimate. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A minor point-- one of this anon's edits [29] of the Howie Winter article indicated in the edit summary that there was "No indication this is a mug shot...", which appeared to be true. However a Google image search turned up the same photo at [30], where the source is clearly identified as "POLICE FILE". -- Mwanner | Talk 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The first IP was advised in detail of the options for reporting copyvio, up to and including contacting Jimbo as our Designated Agent in accordance with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. I also told him in no uncertain terms that he could not vandalize pages in the meantime. He continued without discussion, either of the rules, or of the copyvio process, or of Lanoitaurus's explanation of the public domain status of mugshots. I think further IP's engaging in similar behavior should be blocked without hesitation, and that previously blocked IP's that start up again after their blocks should be blocked for a significantly longer period of time. -- SCZenz 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope 24.147.103.146 (talk · contribs) has understood by now what to do about copyvios... far more troubling I find the actions of 216.20.1.212 (talk · contribs), 216.20.1.213 (talk · contribs), 216.20.1.214 (talk · contribs), and 216.20.1.215 (talk · contribs) who keep posting (or requesting on WP:AFC) these copyvios in the first place. Lupo 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Khoikhoi (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) made some repeated strange page moves at Istanbul, I blocked for pagemove vandalism. This is just a bit much to be accidental, but I didn't see a prior history of vandalism. Some other admin might wish to review and unblock if warranted. -- Curps 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

First contribution was December 9. He also redirected a number of user pages to himself: User:Hottentot [31], User:Daniel Nagy [32], User:Dagestan [33], and others. What's going on? Hottentot seems to have a block history: [34] -- Curps 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Belated note: I've unblocked the user upon request. El_C 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm writing this here, because it involves three different problems: Copyright violations, blanking vandalism and pov.

• Copyright violations: Street Scholar (talk · contribs) has many times inserted copyright violations in two articles (Muhammad bin Qasim and Islamic conquest of South Asia. Even after I wrote about these copyvios on the talk page, he keeps inserting the copyvios. The copyvios are from [35], [36] and other places. He started inserting copyvios already in October.
• Blanking and Deletion: He has many times blanked entire sections of articles (in Islamic conquest of South Asia (many similar cases) and Iconoclasm ([37])) and deleted the entire Muhammad bin Qasim article to replace it with copyvios (many similar cases).
• POV: His copyvio material is also pov, inaccurate and without proper sources. He blatantly copies material from biased/revisionist websites, and when asked for sources, he "steals" a bibliography from a geocities webpage.

I have warned Street Scholar already several times and have also written about the copyvios, but he keeps ignoring this and one editor Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) even defends him. The last time he reinserted copyvios in two different articles was yesterday. See also Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Islamic_conquest_of_South_Asia#I_agree_with_Salma, [38], User talk:Street Scholar. --Kefalonia 10:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not defend him at all. I asked you not you use vandal tags against him when he wasn't vandalizing articles. That is abuse of the vandal warnings. And you seem very hostile against editors for some reason. Can you not discuss this with him peacefully. If he is copyviolating articles then warn him for that. And your case was no different; I would have warned anyone abusing the vandal tags and making threats against an editor that he/she would be blocked because they were editing a certain article. Here is the discussion User_talk:Street_Scholar#Vandalism. I hate copyvio but I also hate abusing tags. What you need to do is discuss more with the user and not try to bring me in to your problems. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"I did not defend him at all. I asked you not you use vandal tags against him when he wasn't vandalizing articles. ... do not try to bring me in to your problems."

You wrote about his repeated blanking vandalism on Street Scholars talk page: "None of that is vandalism, ..Please stop abusing the vandalism warnings,.. Also he can't be blocked for this." I didn't say you were defending his copyvios, but it looks like you defended his edits, including his blankings and pov-warring. Repeated blanking of entire article sections and repeated deletions of entire articles without proper explanations are vandalism.

And about one user reverting Street Scholar's copyvios, blanking vandalism and pov you wrote: "Someone (user:Karl Meier) has reverted your edits without explanation in the article Islamic conquest of South Asia." [39]

The tag I used on Street Scholar was I wrote was: Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

The text clearly says that this tag is for blanking vandalism ("removing content"), which Street Scholar repeatedely did. By the way, I learned about the use of the "test" tags by having once seen them in your edits. You gave several times test2 instead of test1 warnings to first-time "vandals" like for example to this user, so you're the wrong person to blame me for copying bad examples of the use of these tags.

You also wrote: "Yes, I have seen these articles before and they are very biased. I am glad that you and others are balancing them. I will help out when I get the time. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)"

This looks like you supported Street Scholar and his edits including his pov-warring and blanking vandalism and I have written about this also here: [40]

"Can you not discuss this with him peacefully. .. What you need to do is discuss more with the user" Have you seen how Street Scholar responded to discussions? It's not only his edit-warring, it's also responses like this:

"Can you stop editing the Bin-Qasim article, you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about...You clearly have lost your finger tip-grip on reality haven't you?" [41]

"Pure bullshit, is your job devoted to spreading ignorance on the net? .. Anyway, hardly anyone takes Wikipedia seriously. And now I know why, because of Idiots like you, who try to rewrite history, you nothing but an Internet warrior. Dude seriously next time type something useful rather then just randomly dancing your finger over the keyboard. The Greeks used to do this back in the day talk shit all day to people who didn't have a clue, trying to make themselves look smart. Your stuff is played out dude. You make me laugh." Street Scholar. [42]

I have also written about the copyvios on the Muhammad bin Qasim talk page, but Street Scholar nevertheless reinserted the copyvios. And the copyvios were inserted in these articles already since October. --Kefalonia 10:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Today Street Scholar again inserted copyrighted text into the articles (and deleted text). There is also a discussion about some of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG#Yet_another_case_of_pov-warring (and at Talk:Islamic conquest of South Asia and Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim). --Kefalonia 14:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you are going all over the place making articles about me? you clearly have a obsessive fixation with me. Infinite foundation is owned by a Hindutva terrorist, and you're getting your information from his website? There was no massacre of Hindus, this is a lie made up by Hindutva members to get support for there racist ideology. Theses are the same people who destroyed a mosque because their mythological god was born there. They base almost everything on myths even the whole religion on Hinduism is based on a myth, why don't you bring clear dates to the letter Mohamed Bin Qasim allegedly sent? how about you post the full letter?

Bin Qasim was no all that bad, it was the oppressive, Hindu kings, hence why the jatt joined forces with him, and if he really was going around killing Hindus, why the hell would Hindus join forces with him? if he really was massacring Hindus?

Its pretty obvious, you're putting legends as facts into the article. Hindus of the time loved Mohamed Bin Qasim, because of he came and saw everyone as equal as opposed to the racist caste system which the Hindu kings used to rule with. And its funny that, even in the SEI article there is no mentioned of the Aryan Invasion of the subcontinent and it only elaborately mentions the Muslim conquests.

--Street Scholar 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you are always ranting about infinity foundation. I never said anything about this site and by the way, why is this site run by a "Hindutva terrorist?!? The date of the letter is given in the Qasim article (A.H. 73), and the full text of this letter as it is in the Chach-Nama is also given in the article. Street Schlolar, if you claim that The Chach-Nama (an imporant primary source for Qasim) doesn't exist, you could as well edit the Jesus article and when asked about sources claim that the Bible (also a primary source about Jesus) doesn't exist. And almost the only thing I did in the Qasim article was reverting your copyvios and blanking vandalism. --Kefalonia 12:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me a brake dude, Infinity foundation is run by a Hindu Extremist, this is like writing an article about the holocaust and then getting your information from Nazi sources. The Chach-Nama has all sorts of information in it, not just about Bin Qasim, I mean if you're going to lie then at least make an effort. Its mainly about how the administrative structure was set-up, there is no record of the letter sent by Bin Qasim, and he did not kill any Hindus. Actually he treated Hindus really well, even better then how there own kings treated them, because at the times the Hindu kings were using a racist caste system to rule, the lower-caste Hindus had enough of this, its the sole reason why many converted to Islam, because Islam gave them equality something Hinduism didn't. I'm not denying Hindus didn't get killed by Muslim conquers if you look at unbiased sources Bin Qasim, never killed Hindus.Even The ones who didn't convert to Islam were equal to Jews and Jews were not getting killed under Muslim rule at the time. Try to get your facts right. You can't base the whole article on one source when there are many sources.--Street Scholar 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, everybody can to their site and verify for themselves: [43]. The Chach-Nama mentions the letter and I have verified it myself. Here is a reference: Sir Henry Miers Elliot and John Dowson: The History of India as told by its own Historians. Vol. I. First Published 1867-77. p. 173.

Qasim, who committed many massacres, didn't kill any Hindus?!? You have elsewhere also supported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his idea of putting the Jews back to Europe because they're stealing land so your comments doesn't surprise me. Even your newest comment about the Jews that you made above is wrong. I'm not basing the article on anything, because almost the only thing I did in the article was reverting your vandalism. The Chach-Nama is the most important primary source on Qasim, and a few days ago you even denied that the book existed. Kefalonia 18:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Verify what? I can to make a website and claim it to be factual information, anyone can make a website. There are no other sources to this letter. "Sir Henry Miers Elliot and John Dowson" there work has since been corrupted and edited mainly by Hindus, they have absolutely no credibility. Wow, you liar I never made any such comment about the Jews. I demand you to bring proof, that I made this comment on Wikipedia. Any my new comment about the Jews is wrong? hay why don't you go an read unbiased history, Jews under Muslim rule have been treated well compared to how they were treated under Christian rule at the time. Iran today has the most Jews about side of Israel living in the middle-east, and guess what under Muslim rule, and they are not getting killed?--Street Scholar 12:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Namespace and revert restriction, Netoholic (talk · contribs) has been banned from the Template namespace and limited to one revert per day since his metorship colllapsed. Netoholic has been editing several templates and repeatedly reverting {{Infobox company}}. Adraeus (talk · contribs)’s 3RR violation may count as reverting vandalism. Susvolans ⇔ 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked Netoholic for 24 hours for violation of his Template namespaces, and for violating his one revert per page per day restriction. Ral315 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic recently asked me to resume his mentorship. I declined, but told him to file a request for clarification on wikipedia:requests for arbitration (so that we can go about the process of finding him a new set of mentors). I see he has not done so, so this block is OK, but -- I'd ask that you bear that in mind and not enforce the ruling strictly without first discussing it with him. Raul654 15:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. Netoholic seems to be (generally) OK with this block, however, from what he's said at his talk page. Ral315 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's block from the Template namespace seems to be necessary as this user will not cease his crusade to mar the Infobox Company template with poor style. He has also, apparently, been having problems with the people working on Template:Infobox_Film. Granted, his conversion of a template's structure to something the developers prefer is useful, but his defiance of consensus and his vandalistic, almost trollish, quest to seal his (poor) stylistic edits in popular templates is revolting! Adraeus 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

He's at it again (see this, this and this; these were shortly preceded by this and this; oh, and a little while before that there was this). I'm quite aware of WP:AUM thank you very much, and much effort has been expended on doing things in such a way as to minimise any deleterious effects. Unfortunately Neto's little crusade seems to have resurrected itself and now I have to go and see what articles he might have broken by his peremptory reversions. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As a result of the arbitration case, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) was subject to the following limitations:

• Probation: "He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts."
• "limited to one revert per article per week, excluding simple vandalism, for a period of one year. Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator."

Enforcement is "blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he edit any page from which he has been banned or excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year."

His response to this was: ":I shall treat that with the utter contempt that it deserves." [44]

True to his word, this morning he has:

• Edit warred on Longbridge over the presence of a photograph: [45], [46],[47]
• Edit warred on Jeremy Clarkson over a "npov-section" tag: [48], [49], [50]

Looking at the history of Jeremy Clarkson, it seems that this is a continuation of a long-running edit war which he instigated.

He had also previously removed the picture from Longbridge in October, and it was recently restored by Leonig Mig, who did not engage in the subsequent edit war.

I propose to ban him from these two articles beginning 0001 UTC tomorrow morning, 13 December, 2005, for a period of one calendar month, to terminate 0001 UTC 13 January, 2005. Comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I support this action. David | Talk 13:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comments? I don't think it matters any more. If Leonig Mig, the latest Scottfisher sockpuppet, Nick Boulevard, Locke Cole, et cetera are allowed to continue reverting every article edit he makes, and Pigsonthewing cannot respond, then the ArbCom's ruling effectively translates to an indefinite ban. Why bother officially banning him from editing articles that he can't edit anyway? --CBD ☎ ^✉ 13:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He can respond: on the talk page, or utilizing other dispute resolution tools (mediation, 3rd opinion, RfC, or even an RFAr if it comes to it). The whole point of his 1/7RR and probation are, I imagine, to coerce him into discussing changes in a more meaningful manner than he has in the past. It's his choice to ignore those other avenues and revert war. —Locke Cole 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, since I do unfortunately expect that Andy will probably go to other articles where he has had arguments in the past, and try to revive those, would it be better to adopt a policy of adding those articles to this ban if he keeps it up, and resetting the timer, rather than end up having several concurrent bans running and nobody able to work out when any of them is to terminate? Sorry to sound so negative, but Andy's current attitude seems to be "screw it, I'll ignore the probation." It may take a while to make him see sense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the ArbCom ruling allows for this or not, but I agree it may make things simpler if he gets himself banned from other articles. You might want to leave a note on some of the ArbCom members' talk pages to see if this would be OK. —Locke Cole 13:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As an editor who has had disputes with Andy on both Jeremy Clarkson and other articles I would oppose a ban on him editing Jeremy Clarkson. His behaviour could have been far worse, and actually he has been very restrained given his opposition to a major edit on the article which he did not revert, but instead expressed his opposition with a POV tag. Especially given the arbcom ruling (thanks for putting it here, I didn't know) I think under the arbcomm conditions he should be allowed to continue editing the Clarkson article, SqueakBox 15:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

expressed his opposition with a POV tag.: That's very disingenious, as is made clear here. Andy Mabbett 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's clear that Andy could be a valuable contributor to any article; he's just been choosing not to. A funny aspect of his probation is that, given the "5 strikes and you're banned for a year" clause, it would actually in his best interests were he to be banned for 7 days per violation, since that would protect him to some extent from violating the 1/7 rule quite so quickly (if one can make the assumption that a 1 year ban is a bad thing).

But in the end he's going to make his own choices. If the consensus is that by banning him from those articles we'll be protecting him from himself, I'll give my tepid support. But, frankly, he's shown no willingness to abide by similar restrictions in the past, and I don't see that starting now. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Maybe we can ask him what he thinks. Nandesuka 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy. Birmingham can go back to being a Pigsonthewing-stoked perpetual revert war! - David Gerard 17:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please justify your rather ridiculous-looking comment. Andy Mabbett 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling allows any administrator to ban Pigsonthewing from an article, for good cause, without time limit. I proposed a rolling one month ban because I do like time limits. The one-year clause refers to the maximum length of a block after five strikes. As a matter of fact I would probably reduce the length of any block applied to this editor that I considered to be excessive. He's not a vandal so I think much shorter blocks make more sense, unless he completely stop doing anything useful. Then a long block would be a reasonable option just to get the problem off wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input. Having also received comments from one of the arbitrators (Mindspillage) I've decided to go ahead with the two bans. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I just protected his User Talk page, and I'm about to post an explanation, so I'll be editing it for the next few moments. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, he had blanked Tony's notice of the ban, and he re-reverted it when I reinstated it. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted this warning to Pigsonthewings Talk page: [51]. Pigsonthewing proceeded to remove the warning: [52]. Tony Sidaway then announced his ban to Pigsonthewing [53]. Pigsonthewing then removed that as well. [54]. Titoxd reverted the removal of Tony's warning [55], and Pigsonthewing removed it again [56], which I reverted [57], and then re-added my original warning, along with a warning not to delete warnings from Administrators [58]. I then protected the Talk page to prevent Pigsonthewing blanking this again. Subsequently, as I was working on explaining this action to the Noticeboard, 81.5.140.5 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) , which is Pigsonthewing's IP, blanked this noticeboard [59], which I reverted [60], and then IP posted " Some idiot has protected my talk page, without my consent. [[User:Pigsonthewing]]."[61].I blocked the IP for one week for blanking the noticeboard.

If anyone wants to unprotect his Talk page or shorten the IP block, be my guest, but that's what just happened. I would also suggest banning him from the Noticeboard, as he just vandalized it, but that's up to y'all. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity - where is the policy saying that users are required to keep admin posts on their talk pages? I can see it for vandalism warnings (whether written by admins or not) where there is a progression of warnings, but what is the reasoning behind requiring other text to be displayed? --CBD ☎ ^✉ 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's required at all. Personally, although I think what Pigsonthewing did was in poor taste and stubborn self-righteousness, he didn't violate any rules (besides, perhaps, meta:Don't be a dick). Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So, while Pigsonthewing's reaction was typically self-destructive, these admins had no real policy grounds to be reverting this text back onto his talk page. No grounds to use admin abilities to enforce their preferred version in this edit war. And no policy grounds to protect the one page he is currently allowed to edit. Have I got that right? Is anyone getting why I say maybe he wouldn't be so pissed off if people would stop messing with him? --CBD ☎ ^✉ 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. Frankly, the entire situation revolving around Pigsonthewing is very ugly for all sides. Perhaps we need to take a look at policy and make shifts as necessary? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was appropriate for people to start an edit war with Andy Mabbett over the contents of his talk page. Let him have it how he wants; he has read the notice I posted and so the notice has served its purpose and doesn't need to remain on the page. It was also inappropriate to protect the talk page as he isn't a vandal and he's currently blocked from editing everywhere else. I have released the protection. Whoever did it, please don't reapply it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cool heads Linuxbeak and Tony. I know Pigsonthewing makes alot of people crazy, but I do think he'd be much easier to work with if people could try harder to understand where he is coming from. Evilphoenix is generally a nice guy (as Titoxd may well be also, I don't really know him), but clearly is getting into 'wikistress' territory with this situation. I don't know if this is an issue for policy shifts or just a re-evaluation of personal interactions... we should try to help people even when they are annoying us. Doing otherwise makes them more annoyed... and then they make you more annoyed... and then... bleh. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what Andy thought he was up to, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and unblocked 81.5.140.5 (talk · contribs). This IP should probably be watched, however. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to ever have this sort of revert war with a registered editor on his or her own talk page, or to protect it. Talk pages are for communication; removal by the editor in question indicates they've received the communication. Protecting the talk page of a blocked user is particularly abusive, as they then have no way of communicating with anyone else. I realize Andy's behavior is aggravating, but this was uncalled for. I find that politeness goes a long way with Andy. He's made an apology of sorts on his talk page; perhaps reciprocation is in order. android79 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm back from work (hence my lack of activity over the past few hours, I had posted the above while walking out the door), and it seems consensus is against what actions I took on Pigsonthewings's user space, so I accept that. Tony Sidaway is right, he's seen the notices, and hopefully has read them as well. I think there does however need to be a page somewhere that is maintained to record what pages Pigsonthewing is banned from, I suggest something like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Enforcement. I have reached a point where I am too involved with this issue to intervene anymore, despite my best efforts to remain neutral, enforce policy, and be fair. Pigsonthewing does contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia, which is I think the only reason his presence here has been allowed as long as it has, but the amount of time that Administrators and other users are spending trying to reign him in far outweighs what benefit he may be to the encyclopedia. I think, for the best interest of the project as a whole, that it is time for Pigsonthewing to go. The only reason I have had any wish for him to stay was in some hope that he would learn to work positively with others, but I think the future from this point forward will be a continuous battle between him and any Administrators who attempt to enforce the Arbitration decision. His response to the notice of the Arbitration decision is reprehensible, and I have no faith whatsoever that this user will reform. The behavior of Pigsonthewing is simply not the behavior of a positive contributor to Wikipedia, and should not be tolerated. I have faith that other Administrators will continue to monitor this situation, and take action as needed, and I encourage any Administrators monitoring this thread to do so as well, but I myself am backing off at this time. Thank you all for your comments and participation in this discussion, and best of luck resolving this issue. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The sort of page you are talking about was set up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation. As to the rest of this... all true, but very incomplete. The REASON Pigsonthewing is so angry is that people, especially admins, have repeatedly broken or stretched policy to 'punish' or harass him, not themselves been 'punished' for doing so even when it is agreed they were in the wrong, and consistently refused to even apologize to him. You say that you must 'reign him in' because he's angry and disruptive. If you would 'reign yourself in' he wouldn't have valid reasons for feeling that way. That's the biggest 'disconnect' in this whole thing... you (meaning admins in general) wouldn't have to 'spend so much time reigning him in' if you treated him fairly in the first place. NOBODY should have to put up with having an admin block them and protect a page solely and explicitly to win a content dispute, that admin then justifying the block by falsely accusing them of having violated 3RR, and the admin community in general going along with it (beyond a few stating that it wasn't 'kosher'). That's just WRONG. You (again, collective) did it... you own the problems it caused. He never got an apology for that - from any of you. Just as it is now agreed that your (singular) recent actions against him weren't 'kosher', but you (apparently from the above) aren't about to apologize and don't face the kind of hair-trigger block/punishment that he does.

Is Pigsonthewing ever going to calm down and return to just making the thousands of positive contributions he used to? Probably not. And that's bad. But don't tell yourself you didn't have a hand in making it so. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 12:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that there's been widespread violations of policy on the part of Administrators. Karmafist was found to have lost his temper towards him in the RfAr, and was placed on a personal attack probation, and I myself placed a block on Karmafist for what I felt was a violation of that personal attack injunction. I protected Andy's Talk page, and posted an explanation of it here, and the consensus from other Administrators was strongly against that action, and that action was reversed, which was the appropriate response on the part of Tony Sidaway or any other administrator who disagreed with my action. Other than those instances, I feel that for the most part other users have been expecting him to simply behave with some level of civility and respect for the rules. While the users who interact with him may not be blameless, he does himself no credit by screaming about their faults while refusing to address the justified issues people have with him. When Karmafist got blocked, he got upset, attempted to talk to me about it on his Talk page, which we did, he was upset about it for a while, but eventually he calmed down, realized the block had been placed to help him, not to hurt him, actually thanked me for intervening, and moved on, and has been contributing positively since. Andy's reaction to any criticism is to accuse any who criticise him of lying, to declare it a personal attack, and to remove warnings from Administrators from his Talk page. This shows a lack of good faith towards working with others and compromising, and if you want to work on this Wiki, you have to be willing to do that, and not simply constantly point fingers at others and cry foul. He has to follow the rules too, and he doesn't seem to accept that whatsoever. I have posted to his page what is expected of him, and the behavior that is expected of him, and told him that if he followed that, he wouldn't get blocked, and that if he did follow that behavior and still got blocked or punished, I would be the first one there to defend him. I have exhorted him to rise above the actions of others, and that though some others might be getting away with things that he is not getting away with, that he needed to clean his own house first, and make his actions correct. He ignored that, and continued right on with the behavior that he got in trouble for in the first place. This is not a situation of Admins ganging up on some poor user, Andy has been consistently rude, stubborn, belligerent, disrespectful, insulting, which as I said before, is not the behavior of a positive contributor to Wikipedia. None of us enjoy blocking him, we would be just as happy to have him be a positive contribution to Wikipedia, but it's his choice. If he respects the rules, he won't get in trouble. If he disrespects the rules, he won't get to edit on this Wiki. There's not much more to it.

I also did not block Andy nor accuse Andy of violation 3RR, I used no such phrase when I described the actions that occured before I protected his Talk page, nor did anyone else in the discussion following, that I have noticed. I simply listed what happened and linked to the diff in question, I made no assertion of any application of 3RR. I also was not the Administrator to place the block that was on him at the time. Nor did the community go along with it, they told me I was wrong, and undid my protection of the Talk page and IP block. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that there's been widespread violations of policy on the part of Administrators. Well, as one of the administrators involved in both doing so, and turning a blind eye while others did so, you wouldn't would you? Fortunately, the evidence is well documented. As to your allegation of my being disrespectful; quite true (unlike much of your comment) - I have no respect whatsoever for some of the individuals who have been involved, nor have they earned it. As to your laughable assertion that if he respects the rules, he won't get in trouble, that's yet another of your lies, as evidenced by the number of times I have been blocked for things which I haven't done. Andy Mabbett 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a lot of Pigsonthewing's motivation is anger at what he views as asymmetrical treatment--which of course doesn't excuse his bad behavior, but does suggest that he may improve if he isn't treated unfairly.

I lifted the block on his IP number for blanking this page, as he did make an apology of some kind and it doesn't serve Wikipedia to antagonize an editor unfairly. While we should take reasonable steps to prevent further disruption, we must also act to regain his trust and enable him to rehabilitate himself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

we must also act to regain his trust: Oh, this should be good! How do you propose to do that? Andy Mabbett 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty flowers?  

Seriously, the only way that things get better is if people try to make them so. In this case people did say, 'Hey... wait a minute, that's not right'. No, that isn't always the case, but it's indicative of an intention to try. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I get hayfever. In this case people did say, 'Hey... wait a minute, that's not right'. Not enough people, not the right people, and not in the right place or at the right time. A friend if mine was beaten up, badly, once. That a bystander said "oh, they shouldn't be doing that" didn't help, and didn't heal their broken bones. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco (talk · contribs)'s bot SEWilcoBot (talk · contribs) has again been changing embedded links to footnotes as part of his campaign to get rid of embedded links as sources. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. The bot's changes go against WP:V, which allows the use of embedded links, and violate WP:CITE, which states that editors shouldn't change from one citation style to another without consensus, and that where there's a dispute, the style used by the first contributor should be respected.

I've blocked the bot for three hours until I can work out what to do, but discussion with SEWilco indicates he's not going to stop, so I'm going to make the block indefinite until I can find out how the use of bots is regulated. Does anyone have any other ideas about how best to deal with this? See User_talk:SEWilco#Changing_links_to_footnotes. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(moved from my talk page) I suspect that SEWilco has been hit by the autoblocker, since he edits from the same computer (and hence IP address) as SEWilcoBot. I've offered to unblock him as long as he agrees not to make further footnote changes until the matter is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

He did make an edit as SEWilco after the bot was blocked, so far as I can see. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The bot was blocked at 14:05 [62] and SEWilco edited George Galloway at 14:08 and 14:23 [63] so I'm confused as to why he's saying he can't edit because the bot was blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There's an autoblock entry in Special:Ipblocklist here. If I did my time conversion right, that's at 14:50 UTC, which seems to be just after his last non-user talk edit. Did he try to edit while logged out? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. But if he was able to edit as SEWilco after the block of the bot, I'm not clear about what difference editing while logged out would make. I haven't extended the block to indefinite by the way (at least, not yet), so the three-hour block should be up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, SlimVirgin claims WP:V and WP:CITE forbids changing URL-only links while I claim both encourage more detailed information about sources. WP:CITE repeatedly does so in boldface. There is an open RFAr in which both of us are involved, and action by the AC has been requested. (SEWilco 05:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

So far three of the SEWilcoBot articles in which SlimVirgin's edit war destroyed citation information have been restored to SEWilcoBot versions by others; several of the others are obscure and the damage may not have been noticed. A fourth article already was in WP:FN format so SlimVirgin's claims are even more silly in that article. (SEWilco 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Right. So leave it all alone until the arbcomm comes in. William M. Connolley 09:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The ArbComm does not have all the evidence so it does not apply here. (SEWilco 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC))