Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] teh n00b.

Kickaha Ota 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What does one do about a problem user who bombards one's user talk page with false warning templates? Ste4k has been doing so, making false accusations of personal attacks (an example of what Ste4k classifies as a personal attack can be seen when she selectively quotes a sentence beginning "What is a problem is you trying to make that decision for everyone else ..." as "What is a problem is you..."[1]) Ste4k has also falsely accused me of vandalism [2] (for removing, as mentioned above, a set of twenty links she inserted into the "See also" section of the article on rationales as vague as "Hell - Related to Religious Figures") She also claims that I "Remov[ed] direct quotes from a cited source supplied by Nscheffey (talk • contribs)" when in fact, the source she refers to is not directly quoted at all, and responds to the fact that I had to restore information she removed on incorrect pretext, twice, by informing me "Please refer to policy listed at WP:3RR." What can be done about an editor who abuses Wikipedia and attacks other editors by misapplying the mechanisms meant to deal with actual wrongdoing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this analysis. Ste4k combines a stubborn nature with an incorrect interpretation of policy, along with an infinite capacity to be "offended". The drama she has caused over her talk page alone is amazing, but she has wreaked havoc in many other areas of Wikipedia. I have witnessed many editors have unfriendly and bizarre interactions with her, and am considering opening an RfC on her behavior. Her current activity is removing comments from her talk page as "personal attacks." --Nscheffey(T/C) 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well of course you with your personal issue agree with him, after all, you invited him to start stalking me like you do. Ste4k 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And now false accusations of stalking, too. This really can't go unchecked. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reggae Sanderz, possible sock of banned user

Reggae Sanderz (talk • contribs) may be a sock evading a block. Some of his contributions have just been strange, like a lame attempt to turn a prodded dicdef into an article [3], categorizing an indefinitely blocked user [4], adding a ridiculous internal link [5], and quasi-trolling [6]. He discovered RfA awfully quickly [7], tried (not very hard) to replace an imposter vote in one [8]. He asked a question [9] that provides the only clue about who he may be (and the most damning evidence of what he's doing). [10] also provides some evidence of who he may be. Hopefully someone who follows ArbCom can handle this appropriately. Thanks.--Kchase T 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as sock by Consumed Crustacean. Thanks!--Kchase T 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed

Consumed Crustacean's posted content. I see he's offended by what i did, but he never left any comments on my talk page. Reggae Sanderz 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Accusation

Hey all, I've recently been accused of being racist,

I am British you racists person, there are many of us in the UK, irrespective of our ancestry. I suggest you move on to another site preferably backed by the National British Party. I would be greatful if you could email me your remarks with your full name and address (you do not have to, of course). Thank you.Politis 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from Talk:Macedonia (terminology))

Normally I wouldn't object, just smile and move along, but I also noted this:

Sorry, your racist remark has been noted (yet again, I think) and hopefully acted upon (unless you apologise) Politis 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from User talk:Politis)

I don't think that this could be construed as a legal threat, but considering he also mentioned "...You could be taken to court, or at the very least reprimanded." and "I am afraid I cannot let this one down and will return to it, this week, next or whenever." I'd like to get other peoples opinion. Needless to say, this is my real name. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't want to say anything more, but would take advice gladly. - FrancisTyers · 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat. he seems to have a bee in his bonnet. I cannot see why he has taken such offense but perhaps he's suffered racist comments IRL so is extra sensitive. Who knows? What I would do, in your position, is nothing. He may calm down and cool off. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's what I was intending to do :) - FrancisTyers · 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it recurs, if he decides to fixate upon you and the "racism" that has not yet been fixed (by your premature removal, etc.), then I'd suggest calling up the mediation cabal folks to take him in hand, figure out whether he misreads everything or just you, and try to help. "Racism" is one of those rhetorical nuclear charges. The most important thing is not to debate it, I think, as that maintains the focus on some demand that you please someone else, but rather to acknowledge the feelings as a practical matter only. Geogre 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism qualify as a personal attack and incivility. Warn him off. If he continues, give it a NPA warning, and ask someone else to remove the attack. If you can avoid him, do so. If you don't wish to escalate the matter, go to WP:MEDCAB or perhaps WP:GMN, if they're anywhere near operational by now. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and issued a warning, but he hasn't edited since, so no response just yet. --InShaneee 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and the advice, I also see User:Jtdirl has removed the other mention. - FrancisTyers · 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, things are being dealt with in private e-mail and are unlikely to escalate further, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dalek Cab (talk • contribs)

Anyone else think there's something just a bit odd going on here?--172.149.233.183 00:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Just reverting vandalism. Probably an RC Patroller. --InShaneee 00:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought at first, but look at these earlier edits and tell me there isn't something odd about this--172.149.233.183 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
he's obviously been having fun with his edit summaries. And so? Which aprticularedit are you ojecting? Circeus 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh nevermind, all I'm saying is it's a bit strange, not vandalism or anything, just strange--172.149.233.183 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverting massive quantities of vandalism can be boring. I would say this is an experiment that Dalek likely will write up in his paper, "Investigating silliness as a remedy for boredom." -- llywrch 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A chain of at most 114 copyvio articles

I recently looked at opentasks and stumbled on this. The text seemed curiously blocky, so I inputted the text into google and found a summary, verbatim, at TV.com. Now, this would be a simple matter if it didn't appear that just about every other episode summary was a direct copyvio of the summary at TV.com. The copyright policy on TV.com here clearly states, "All materials published on our sites, including, but not limited to, written content, photographs, graphics, images, illustrations, marks, logos, sound or video clips, and Flash animation, are protected by our copyrights or trademarks or those of our partners. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the materials or content on our sites in whole or in part"

This may be a long term thing, but each episode is possibly a copyvio. Looking through List_of_Scrubs_episodes, episode 1 does not appear to be copyvio, but 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all are blatant copyvio. This leads me to believe it is likely that each of the... *gulp* 114 episodes could be copyvio. I brought this up in IRC and it was suggested I bring this here, so here you go. What should be done, heh? Cowman109Talk 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuke all the proven copyvios. With fire. —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Good news; it appears that I did not look through the entire list of episodes, and it seems about two or three entire seasons don't have articles about the episodes, which means we may be dealing with only about 60 articles. Cowman109Talk 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You should probably check User:Thricecube's other edits and warn them that failure to respect copryrights is a bannable offence. You don't need to list them all on WP:CP, just revert to the version before they added huge chunks of copyrighted text.--Peta 04:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize that one user created the pages. I have left a note on Thricecube's talkpage and asked him to see the discussion here. The problem, however, is that many of them don't have information before the copyrighted text. Cowman109Talk 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Scanning through his contributions, it appears that his Star Trek Voyager episode pages are similarly lifted mostly from TV.com. - TexasAndroid 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've cleaned out the violating material out of the Star Trek Voyager and Next Generation episode pages. I have also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek asking for people to rewrite some of the removed material into a non-violating form. - TexasAndroid 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am now bringing the copyvio discussion here, as the matter doesn't seem to require administrators. I have removed the copvio from the first season, and I will get to work on the others. Cowman109Talk 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:The Mad Bomber first ever Rfa candidate to be blocked during candidacy?

Hello everybody. I have blocked this user during his RfA after he made innappropriate comments which may invoke thoughts of the T word and also the R word. I previously blocked him for a week in June for the latter. Is this a proper process or a denial of justice for the candidate? Blnguyen | rant-line 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not the first blocked RfA candidate: HolyRomanEmperor was briefly blocked indefinitely after it was reported he had died. (The block was lifted and then the RfA was closed). That said, a bureaucrat or rouge admin should close this immediately. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Some diffs would be helpful BLN, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Read his RFA. I don't think you'll be needing any further diffs. - Nunh-huh 08:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, just read the RfA page ... say no more. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh right, Jesus on Wheels was also blocked indefinitely during his RfA. Anyway, an RfA shouldn't be a window of opportunity for trolling without consequence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A message on the user's talk page saying they have been blocked (with some diffs) perhaps? Just for the sake of convention. - brenneman {L} 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the RFA should be, in my opinion, for trolling, and not the personal attacks. The candidate's usage of "nigga" and overuse of profanity was probably a childish imitation of rapper talk, so NPA isn't really applicable on the RFA. However, it was a completely unserious RFA designed to troll, to give the candidate another opportunity to play. The RFA needed to be removed to not feed the trolls and because, under early removal, the pro/con voting was 0 - 15 after :30. There was no chance. As for the block, it's wholly appropriate for vandalism and trolling. Geogre 11:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been closed; my stated reason was that it was invalid, but it would have been closed early in any event as it had over 75% opposition, and I close any RfA that passes 75% opposition. Essjay (Talk) 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Rule Britannia!

Obvious sock of the torchwood vandal. --Quentin Smith 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AN/I thread

Administrator's noticeboard is not a discussion forum -- Drini 05:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yet when concensus is to do the not-so-right-thing... ;) -- Drini 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New tools for everyone to play with ..

{{subst:User:AOL user/cab|{{PAGENAME}}}}--AOL user 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] General Tojo

I've been thinking of not just reverting, but deleting, his contributions. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo (talk • contribs), for reference. Powers 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks.Tom Harrison Talk 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Drowner

Drowner (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) denies being a Hogeye (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) sockpuppet and wants to be unblocked. I would like to request a review of my block of Drowner. --cesarb 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The disruption block (by Tony Sidaway) is more than appropriate to me, but I am not sue about the Sockpuppetry. Hogeye seems to never have touched Anarchism in the United States, on which Drowner is concentrating. Are there common trends in their editing? Diffs would be useful. Circeus 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Although having said that, could be an RJII sock. - FrancisTyers · 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out User talk:The Ungovernable Force for some ideas he put out about the identify of Drowner. I seem to recall that he suspected either RJII or Hogeye. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally didn't think it was RJII, (that was Francis). But I have to admit that after talking to Francis over email, more in depth analysis and in light of the style of their recent messages on their own and Hogeye's talk pages, I could have been mistaken with regard to it being hogeye. I am starting to agree that it could be RJII. Either way, I am certain this user is a sock of one of these two blocked/banned users. Brand new user's rarely end up on such obscure pages as the ones he did and start pushing that pov. Anyways, their first edit was a revert, which seems highly unlikely for a new user (I didn't learn how to do that for at least a week or two, maybe longer). And although Hogeye never edited that page, as of June 30, four open proxies suspected to be socks of hogeye have edited it. [11] [12] [13] [14] Their edits on American individualist anarchism (which currently redirects to "anarchism in the united states") were reversions to pov forks supported by other suspected hogeye socks. The Ungovernable Force 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Drowner has complained about this on the unblock-en-l list. Could someone please substantiate the allegation of sockpuppetry in more detail, including a checkuer or specific article edit comparisons? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 06:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
User's very first edit was to revert to a revision by an open proxy IP, which is tagged as being used by Hogeye. Other users who are more used to Hogeye's edit patterns also have said it's either Hogeye or RJII. Checkuser probably will not help, since Hogeye is known for abusing open proxies to evade blocks (he also seems to have come back in force last week; Sarge_Baldy (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked a number of the proxies and sockpuppets he used). Also see The Ungovernable Force's comment above. --cesarb 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He has sent another e-mail to the unblock list stating that he is "4.156.27.205 according to the screen that comes up when I try to edit." Drowner has added "Also I did not take part in disruptive behavior. Someone blocked me for

"edit warring" but I did not do any reverts at all in the article in question that I am aware of. Someone else was simply deleting everything I put in the article because they were claiming i was a "sock puppet". Capitalistroadster 02:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Giovanni33 again

Having looked at this issue (see WP:AN/I#Serial_unblocking_of_Giovanni33), I think there's a reasonable solution. On the one hand Giovanni33 has been sockpuppeting and editing in a very combative way. On the other hand, some people believe he is willing to edit in a positive way going forward. The main issue I see is that he has not admitted his sockpuppeting; without this admission of wrongdoing, it is unlikely he will cease from doing these behaviors. My recommendation is that he be blocked until he admits all of his sockpuppets, uncluding User:Professor33, and promises not to use sockpuppets again. Once he does so, he can be unblocked, and given a fresh start. Comments? Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think G33 especially disruptive, besides the puppetry and the arguments which follow. Nor are his puppets generally disruptive, except insofar as they're used to ignore 3RR (always). His puppets should be indef blocked, and he should be allowed to continue editting from his main account without prejudice. Edit-warring should prove less appealing without the capacity for limitless reverts.Timothy Usher 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I support this, it's a reasonable compromise. Taking responsibility for past transgressions is a good first step to earning back the community's trust. FeloniousMonk 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable request. Until he has acknowledged his sockpuppetry and pledged not to engage in further sockpuppetry, I support a block. After that, he should have a chance to earn a place, if his behaviour merits it. Guettarda 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that unless someone is willing to admit that their past behavior has been inappropriate, they are very unlikely to be reformed. The user must be willing to acknowledge that his past actions were in violation of Wikipedia policies, and be willing to give his word that he will abide by policies in the future. Otherwise he should not be allowed back. --Elonka 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I trust that any admin doing either blocking or unblocking is going to commit to staying on top of the situation. Jkelly 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
He should be able to edit Wikipedia, but the socks need to go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that as there have been some clearly wrong allegations together with some possible allegations that it would be wise to get some final desision on what are his socks or not by some that are not involved in editwaring with him, and then take things from there. Agathoclea 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There have not been "some clearly wrong allegations", Agathoclea. There was, I believe, one (not some) wrong allegation — that of User:Deuteronomy2000. I never made that allegation, and when I asked the two users who had tagged that page to stop, they both stopped. It was not a crazy assumption to make, though, as that user account was clearly created specially for the purpose of trying to get blocked someone who had blocked him, as he has a history of creating puppets, and as he drew attention to himself by reverting my removal of Deuteronomy's post. I would strongly oppose any suggestion of blocking Giovanni until he admits that Deuteronomy is his puppet. But I do not think that a brief accusation (against someone who has violated WP:SOCK again and again), which I never supported, should be allowed to weaken the case that he has used numerous puppets.
Regarding the "possible allegations", on the cline between absolutely excluded and absolutely certain, I think the word "possible" comes far too low when referring to Giovanni's puppets. I might include FionaS as a "possible" puppet, but that account is of little interest as it was created just to support Gio, after he was caught redhanded in puppetry, and did not attempt to revert to his version afterwards. But there is no way that Kecik is a "possible" (meaning perhaps, perhaps not) puppet. The same goes for MikaM. Think of it. They both registered around the time that Giovanni was meeting with opposition. They have both edited while logged off, and then acknowledged the edits, from IPs that were geographically close to Giovanni. They both share linguistic idiosyncrasies with Giovanni. They both began to revert to his version soon after arriving. They both follow Giovanni from one article to another, in order to revert to his version or to support him on the talk page. Kecik's seventh edit and MikaM's sixth were votes on the transubstantiation talk page, supporting Giovanni, who wanted to put in stuff about Transubstantiation being based on earlier pagan rituals with cannibalism. Note that the Transubstantiation article was not being discussed at the pages where they started their wiki-life, that no message was left on their talk pages asking them to show up, and that they did not have e-mail enabled. Note also that they would frequently show up when he had run out of reverts, and would just revert back to his version without discussion. Kecik has 40 reverts to Giovanni out of a total of 45 article edits. He was nearly four months at Wikipedia before he made a single edit to a page that wasn't one where Giovanni needed support. And he only did that after I had repeatedly pointed out his record of doing nothing except reverting to Giovanni. MikaM has 32 reverts to Giovanni out of 42 article edits. How could those accounts be anything other than puppet accounts? AnnH ♫ 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree to indef block all sockpuppet accounts. If he continues edit warring with the G33 account, it can be dealt with existing WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good approach, and support Jayjg's decision. Proto::type 12:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I support Jayjg's approach. Guettarda and Elonka have it right: until he acknowledges his inappropriate behavior, there is no sense in turning a blind eye to his disruption. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds downright inquisitorial. "Admit your guilt!" Sheesh. The fact that there is disagreement on which accounts are actually his socks and which are not makes Jayjg's approach difficult. It also suggests that wikipedias policies do not work, and that administrators just make stuff up on the fly. If you are dead set on this action, please make it part of the blocking policy first. Otherwise it will come off as arbitrary. ^^James^^ 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't disagreement. Giovanni has never admitted to deliberately violating our policies in a devious way. Nobody who has seen all the evidence has disagreed about any particular account being a puppet. The accounts are BelindaGong (confirmed), Freethinker99 (confirmed), MikaM, Kecik, RTS, NPOV77, HK30, Mercury2001, and Professor33. Apart from RTS, whose IP is not known, they are all known to be geographically close to Giovanni33. RTS appeared suddenly one day and reverted seven times to Giovanni's version — as a brand new users. Brand new users don't normally know how to revert. Within minutes of his blocking, NPOV77 jumped in and reverted back to his last version. AnnH ♫ 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is some disagreement, but the point is, this idea is a bad one. Surely there is a better way to resolve this. ^^James^^ 02:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not going to admit to wrong doing, and some of them may not be puppets, so should he admit to something he hasn't done just to get unblocked? What has that accomplished. I applaud the attempt to avoid arbitration, but don't see how it can really be avoided. Wikibofh(talk) 23:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is community ban material. His sockpuppetry is blatant, obvious and an insult to the intelligence. He's here to push a POV and will sock frantically to do it; he's not here to write an encyclopedia for anyone else. I strongly suggest shoot on sight. - David Gerard 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Will comment more fully tomorrow, but just before I go to bed:

  • Rebecca said she was going away for a few days, and asked that things be put on hold until she got back.
  • Giovanni is very unlikely to admit to any wrongdoing that can't be proved. Even when it can be, he's not given to admitting things. For example, he has claimed that his only edit warring was at the very beginning when he "didn't know the policy at all", despite the fact that there are numerous diffs to show how he was told about the 3RR over and over again, and was not reported until he had carried out numerous violations after the warnings.
  • I think we should try to discuss things here before any blocks are implemented (other than blocks for new offences), and should also avoid unblocking without full discussion. His block log is, I would say, rather embarrassing to administrators.

I have e-mailed a full account of Giovanni's puppetry, with evidence, to members of the ArbCom. Or, to be more accurate, I e-mailed it to a senior Wikipedian who is able to access the ArbCom mailing list, and asked him to forward it. AnnH ♫ 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] IP evading block

On the List of religions page an IP keeps adding Matrixism with a link to a Geocities site. Matrixism, as an article, has been deleted twice as non-notable, and yet a couple IPs keeps adding the link even after the discussion on the talk pages (See the archive as well). One IP (User:71.139.66.105) was blocked by User:UtherSRG, but he has evaded his block by using another IP User:69.226.105.161. Secondly, I've tried, as a compromise, to leave the bulleted item in place, but remove the link to the geocities site, as it is a linkspam, but the IP keeps reverting that as well. Can the page be semi-protected? I have reached by three-revert limit for the day, so I cannot do anything anymore today. He, on the other hand evaded 3RR by using multiple IPs. -- Jeff3000 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that WP:3RR provides an exception in the case of clear vandalism. I'm not an admin, but I really doubt admins who read this will disagree: go ahead and revert him for now. I'll help out too. 3RR is not meant to straitjacket legitimate editors faced with sockpuppetry. It is only meant to enforce a sort of equality between editors who have varying amounts of time they are able to devote to the project. Kasreyn 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
After User:71.139.66.105 and User:69.226.105.161 were blocked , the user is using another IP (User:69.225.13.17). The consensus on the talk page is that the addition is linkspam and non-notable, yet the user, through multiple IPs has violated 3RR and keeps on adding the link on the page, in addition to other pages. I would suggest a semi-protect. -- Jeff3000 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins, please take note that the "Matrixism" linkspammer is approaching 3RR, refuses to discuss the issue of notability, and has begun to engage in personal attacks against other editors, in this case User:Jeff3000. I am beginning to feel that the user has no intention to work with others constructively at this encyclopedia and seeks to own List of religions. Kasreyn 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: that was fast. The user is now in violation of 3RR. I have continued to revert him beyond my own 3RR limit, in cognizance of the "clear vandalism" clause of WP:3RR. I understand that revert wars are undesirable on Wikipedia, but I also strongly feel that blatant vandalism and attempts at ownership of articles should be firmly repudiated. I will immediately desist reverting the vandal if anyone (other than the linkspammer) asks me to on my talk page. Thanks, Kasreyn 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Similar nonsense bios

I'm currently doing CSD deletions and I came across James Wamble whose article looks very much like the one I deleted about Derny Bullard a few minutes ago. I think it's obvious the creators are sockpuppets or a group of people behind one computer having fun... Can someone else see if they can find more such articles? Should I request a sockpuppet check to avoid any new accounts from these people? Otherwise we may still be deleting next week. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Creators: Jamesisnotbi (talk • contribs) and Yolkherring (talk • contribs) - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And let's add Seatsbk06 (talk • contribs) to the list. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Dernybullard just created Brad Noland. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who found these 3 articles by chance by checking what pages link to Regis Philbin. I also found Trapped in the Pantry and Josh Paisant yesterday. Plus they seemed to be reposted from the deleted George DeWalt article mentioned in the Pantry discussion. It's some odd behavior, indeed. Tinlinkin 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Derny bullard has just come up. Tinlinkin 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing it out. I've requested a checkuser to stop the creation of sock accounts from that IP. It is obviously the same person. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I'm anxious to see how this pans out. Tinlinkin 10:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Legal Threats

Anon IP 82.133.83.209 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) has been making legal threats here and here. It is a static DSL IP so a block or ban will not impact innocent users.--Isotope23 18:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User already was blocked 24 hours and has not edited since. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah so they were... missed that. Thanks.--Isotope23 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Jersykohttp violation of 3RR

User:Jersykohttp has violated 3RR at Sufjan

Those reports go at WP:AN3. Also, please sign your posts. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed Guidelines for Editing Freemasonry Related Articles

In so much as the policies are in place, by "WPs", already, and generally applied to all Wikipedia - why is the Freemasonry articles page(s) seen as a "special case" - and upon what authority? If the WPs need amending, then why not use the channels of communication set out for that purpose? I see no "moral authority to chastise someone who violates it" behond that given to everyone by the general WPs - indeed the special policy - as set out and interpreted already - looks much like a charter for a Police State separated from the rest of Wikipedia. When would the "legal" vendetta murders" start? :( In short Why is the above needed? Why not in good faith point out the generally agreed Wiki Policy documents, and rigorously use the consensus "disciplinary" protocols set out therein? Mousescribe 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Could you give some links to indicate what you are talking about? --Carnildo 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
To Carnildo. I do not know how to link to the specific section, but see Freemasonry current talk page section "Proposed Guidelines for Editing Related Articles". This is quite important, in my view.

My 42 is in (Base 13)

Probably related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Imacomp and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp. Thatcher131 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Try signing your stuff [user?], and no its not, I just do not want a Police State set up as a special area in Wiki. I am allowed to raise a question with Admin. My 42 is in (Base 13) PS Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, [not different disputes or multiple users]. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with My 42 is in (Base 13) 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC). I'm not Imacomp. My 42 is in (Base 13) 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you registered your account 2 days ago and have never edited any article, much less articles on Freemasonry, you obviously don't have anything to complain about, do you? Thatcher131 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see also sock discussion.ALR 21:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
(Yes do, as I'm not a sock either - try getting a factual sign-on protocol for editors here, "Witchfinder" with checkuser is no use.) So you agree officially with a Police State setup? It is not a complaint, it is a question on Wiki policy. Also if you are linking me to "Imacomp" you have done a "covert" checkuser to show I have the same IP address. Why not just ask? I feely tell you that I Have, "He" is my Grandpa, and the IP address a/c is with Blueyonder, under Grandma's name. Also Grandpa "Imacomp" is a Freemason, as is my Father "mousescribe" - and I am not. OK?. If you "like" the proposed special case @ Freemasonry, then I think I'd better look for a more direct route up to Jimbo Whales? My 42 is in (Base 13) 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any particular viewpoint on the discussion there. If you feel the other editors there are creating special policies that differ from normal wikipedia policy, the best place to bring it up is the Village Pump, for starters. Admins can delete articles and block users, but with respect to article content, they're just editors. There's no point in bringing the issue here unless you want someone blocked or something deleted. Thatcher131 23:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Tell it to Jimbo, I'm "Just a sock"(?) right? You could have just directed me to the “Village Pump” in the 1st place (?) I just cannot be bothered wasting any more life here, now :( Lucky I did not use my real ID here. (Are the CIA goimg to track me now?) I would not want to be "murdered" by the so-called "Freemasons" (and not counting My family, I do not think any REAL ones actually Edit here, except the German "Irregular" one) This is a very sad place. Bye, and I'm sorry that "Jimbo's" idea has been so corrupted :( My 42 is in (Base 13) 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] More inappropriate usernames

Someone needs to get around to blocking non-roman alphabet usernames filling up the new user log. Judging by the repeated hangeul characters, I'd venture to guess it's the same IP. For example:

There are a few more, too.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just done those three, and I'm currently looking for any more. Raven4x4x 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Administrator provoking 3RR problem with bad behavior

This incident troubles me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive22#User:Xombie_reported_by_User:Mailer_Diablo_.28Result:_8h.29

Mr/Ms Diablo, who is an administrator, inserted a derogatory personal opinion regarding the subject of the article, more than once. Xombie, who was policing the article for such comments, since it involved a current event drawing much attention (the World Cup final) properly removed the Diablo posts, as well as those from other users. Diablo then complained about Xombie, listed as 3RR violations Xombie's clearly correct removal of inappropriate posts as well as some that were more debateable. William M. Connelly then blocked Xombie without giving him a chance to respond. The comments Xombie removed often bordered on vandalism. More important, the deletion of derogatory unsourced information from the biographies of living persons is an exception to the 3RR rule. The comments Xombie deleted either violated that directly or were derogatory personal opinions, which are even worse. He did not delete any appropriate, purely factual, sourced comments. One or two of the deletions were partially sourced, but the text went beyond the sources. I think this is an example of an administrator acting out of pique and ignoring the fact that his own postings violated Wikipedia policy. He should at least have been warned about the derogatory comments/living persons and edit warring involved. Xombie deserves an apology. VivianDarkbloom 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you Xombie? It would be a lot easier for you to be honest about your interest in this subject, and you relationship with these users.
And as another note, it is forbidden to use a sockpuppet for voting purposes, as you have. Perhaps we could make an exception if you identify your master account, but you have not done so, therefore your account is liable to be blocked.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
On looking at the history, it appears to me that Mailer diablo acted correctly, and the material repeatedly removed by Xombie was not inappropriate. It also seems that many editors to this article grapple with spelling. --Jumbo 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exhausted the Community's patience Ban of User:SirIsaacBrock

The follow text is copied verbatim from User:Tony Sidaway's talk page:

Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.
The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One sockpuppet User:Porky Pig (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. (→Netscott) 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He has returned to inserting crufty descriptions of not notable fights between dogs and what not into various article that were questionable when he first wrote them without sources. Shouldn't users on the return from long blocks be expected to have reformed somewhat? Is this a case for ArbComm? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Given his behavior, I think a nice long block would be in order here. Certainly his harassment of editors (for having been given particular barnstars, no less!) has to stop; whether he'd prefer to do so of his own volition is up to him. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Given his already demonstrated behavior and the associated behavior mentioned in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp with the corresponding block logs of the sockpuppets mentioned there below it is not unreasonable to enforce a community ban on this editor:

(→Netscott) 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Of these, Battlefield seems to be the only one currently contributing. The others are all dormant, and we don't want them any other way. Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blocking?

While looking up information, I found myself "blocked". I'm not affiliated with Wikipedia or an editor, so I guess I don't understand what this means. I have looked up things with Widipedia before... and I wasn't blocked. I have no idea what this means... any help with clarification would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) .

We can't help much, due to the way this page is structured, unless you sign your posts by typing four tildes (this character ~). Then we can see what IP you're using and find out why you got blocked. The most likely scenario is that you are an AOL or Netscape ISP user who was blocked as part of "collateral damage" when a vandal was getting stopped. If that's the case, people here will unblock you, but we have to know where to look. Geogre 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I've signed for the anon user. From the block log, your guess about AOL vandal collateral damage appears to be on the money. Kasreyn 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Charhally

Charhally (talk • contribs)

Spamming Wikipedia with unencyclopedic articles about Wake Forest University (such as Wake Forest Study Abroad Programs, Wake Forest Greek Life, Wake Forest Undergraduate Student Housing, Four Years at Wake Forest) at a rate that reached one new article a minute. Many of these are likely copyright violations from offline print sources (possibly promotional material from the school), and those that aren't are likely OR. He also spammed Wikimedia with 50+ Wake Forest images,[15] all unsourced. He was blocked on Wikimedia for repeatedly uploading unsourced images, and after the block expired he "corrected" the problem by erroneously tagging all the images GPL (which only applies to software), and still did not add any source info.[16] I've alerted the Wikimedia admin that blocked him the last time, but I'm sure they could also use some help tagging the images as unsourced. He may just need some help at this stage, but unless he puts on the brakes long enough to actually notice what this site is about, he's just going to be disruptive. Postdlf 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Complete removal of history of user page

This page history used to be huge. Someone completely emptied any history in it. Can someone explain this? --mboverload@ 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"View or restore 91 deleted edits?" Raul654 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Users may ask to have their pages deleted. See Wikipedia:User page. -Will Beback 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize that included the history. --mboverload@ 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Raul, only Admins can see erased histories....or perhaps you thought mboverload was an admin? A user, as well as an anon, sees a very abridged edit history.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but anyone can see the log. Wikipedia was designed so everything would be logged, and no one is out of the loop. There is an exception to this fundamental rule, with oversight. Honestly, although I understand why, I don't like it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Prodego talk 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:BEANS aside, stop and think for a moment about what is user-specified, could contain personal information, and showed up in the oversight log before it was made private. If you can't figure it out, email me and I'll explain. Really, there isn't sinister intent to *everything* that happens around here. Essjay (Talk) 07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Right...bwa ha ha.....the cabal wins again! No, seriously, I support this idea, anything that protects users from snoops at Hivemind and Wikitruth can't be evil...and with Essjay at the wheel, I'm not really worried about oversight. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Damburger Personal Attacks

The user has been making personal attacks to other users.

I understand how someone as ignorant as yourself is desperate to silence those with contrary opinions, but now you are being fucking pathetic. Every time I post something to that page you remove it and are now threatening me with a block merely for voicing my opinion. Congratulations on being a Fascist. Damburger 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [17]
It isn't "common knowledge" at all, outside of your Rambo fantasies. Damburger 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [18]

The user who is being harassed is an admin but will likely be attacked as "abusing his admin privleges" if he attempts to give a temporary block to this user. So I suggest that a neutral third party enter this.--Jersey Devil 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Naconkantari 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I spoke to him on IRC yesterday and tried to explain that, yes, he was making personal attacks and the admin wasn't being abusive by removing the comments. He didn't get it. Concur with a slap on the wrist, since it seems to have persisted Shimgray | talk | 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Satris

User:Satris is repeatedly removing 'wikify' and 'unreferenced' tags from several articles, and reinserting commercial links and endorsements into Laser hair removal. He is on the verge of violating 3RR (if he hasn't already, by now) on several articles. I have left several messages on his talk page, but he has not responded, and has not changed his behavior. I've reverted him enough for tonight, and I want to go to bed. Could someone keep an eye on him, please? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't issued a warning, yet, but I'm about to. He does seem to have very narrow interests -- something called Ten O'Clock Classics, which he bolsters a great deal, and laser defoliation. The removals of tags seem to be a very naive form of OWN, too. If he continues after the warning (I won't watchlist him), please flag the mediation folks to see if he'll respond. If he doesn't respond and keeps going, then he's probably not here to help the encyclopedia, but rather to advertise. Geogre 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I now see he's in the time-out corner for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Repeat offenses will up the blocks (and he has 4 warnings). Geogre 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, all. It looks like we had a good community response on this. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Xed

Since this user was reblocked by Jimbo for his continued trolling and he has continued on his talk page including attacks on other editors I have protected his talk page. --pgk(talk) 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tor blocks

Since the implementation of anonymous-only blocks, I think it's time to review our policy of blocking Tor exit nodes. I believe that we are better off removing all Tor blocks and replacing them with anonymous only blocks with no account creation. It has also been suggested by User:Gmaxwell that we use a bot to update these blocks based on the list provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Comments are welcome. Werdna (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • yes, well, your "anonymous only" blocks seem to also be preventing account creation/use--172.144.86.145 06:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I support the unblocking of Tor, as it's the only way those in Mainland China can access Wikipedia. - Kookykman|(t)e
I'm ok with unblocking tor under previous access restrictions, the anon blocks and no account creation must me on in my books, though I wouldn't want to be the poor person who goes thru and does all of the blocks, I'll let someone else run a bot to do it -- Tawker 04:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd do it, but I don't have the sysop bit. Werdna (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Holy crappy educational comics, Batman! Fire the Curps-Signal! Will (message me!) 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Ste4k

I'm not sure how to handle this user. Also see the contibutions.
I'm just completely and utterly tired of this user and their "attitude". I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I'm on vacation, I shouldn't even be here. --mboverload@ 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this user for a while without significant problems, I think she has a slight tendency to be paranoid about stuff on WP. I'll have a chat. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Off topic - why the scure link for the contributions? - brenneman {L} 12:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was over an unsecure wireless network =D --mboverload@ 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think JzG's interactions with Ste4k represent the exception to the rule. Look at her talk page (which she has repeatedly removed comments from) and her bizarre arguments on Talk:Endeavor Academy. User:Antaeus Feldspar posted a good summary of her actions on this page, but it was archived. I'm not sure what to do about her either, but something needs to be done. --Nscheffey(T/C) 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:SirIsaacBrock Fan Club Members

Did anyone notice that most of the individuals involved in this discussion are people I have debated at the Category:Anti-Semitic people talk page and might have the Islamic Barnstar image on their User Page ? It seems many of them have sour grapes that they keep losing the votes to close and rename the group and are hitting back at me "By any means necessary" -:) SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this call for a life time ban too ? Would it be be hippo-critical to accuse someone of something they have done themself ? -:) Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I for one have nothing to do with Wikiproject Islam and do not have an Islamic Barnstar. I merely oppose your edits and support blocking you because I have seen few editors more disruptive than you in my time at Wikipedia. (I'd say Thewolfstar is the only one who tops you.) Your belief that anyone who opposes you on cat:Anti-Semitic people and related articles must be an "anti-semite" is an example of your demonstrated routine failure to assume good faith, and your neverending personal attacks, such as (incorrectly) calling netscott a "spammer" when the section heading he wrote was factually accurate at the time he wrote it, are the principle reasons why I support the idea of such a block. Your attempt to escape your past as User:Porky Pig failed, and so now you blame the poor reception your personal attacks has earned you on a past vote. I'd like to point out that none of the other editors who sided with you on the delete vote have been blocked that I know of, and many of them still participate collegially with those of us who voted to delete the category. The odd one out in this equation is you. I suggest ceasing the personal attacks, ceasing to assume bad faith, and working with us. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Amusingly, another editor has come to almost exactly the same conclusion about SIB's editing style. Funny how two separate editors who've never met before could come to the same conclusions independantly, eh SIB? Don't worry, I'm sure it's all just a massive anti-semitic conspiracy against you. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Based upon the above evidence, short of an Exhausted the community's patience ban, this editor should abide by his own previous statement, "CLOSE MY FUCKING ACCOUNT NOW !!! I QUIT THIS SHIT-HOLE !!" and return to the "I QUIT" state. (→Netscott) 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we can safely say "Not here to help build the encyclopedia". "Abusive sock farm" fits well, too. An indefinte block seems just right to me. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Brock has also used the administrator WP:AIV page to have me blocked when I was editing his high school article (I was adding an infobox to the school article). There are a few cases mentionned above of improper use of AIV, but my name was not one of the ones listed. I have in the past gone through a large section of Brock's contributions, and there are easily-detected patterns of:
  1. improper edit summaries, with comments about reverting "spammer" or "vandal" if SIB doesn't like the previous edit
  2. if SIB doesn't like a talk comment, he typically posts on that user's page telling them to "stop spamming" him, or tells users to keep "McOpinions" to themselves
  3. abusive comments are typically signed "Cordially"
  4. small bound of interest; does not edit all over Wikipedia, but typically acts like he WP:OWNS articles about dogs, baiting, some army/warfare, and an obvious fascination with the anti-semitic category
I would support a ban or action taken against this user from my previous experience with this user. In the 4 or 5 months in which our paths crossed several times, all incidents were negative experiences. My talk archive contains the details of my run-ins with this user. FWIW, I'd also look at User:Battlefield -- through this account is currently dormant, I suspect it is also another account for this same user (for example, [19]). --Stephane Charette 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen enough. I support the blocking of this user as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --InShaneee 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. More than enough - I have blocked him. WP:ROUGE applies, as ever. I will also block the sockfarm. Just zis Guy you know? 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be too hasty; I'd like to maintain a balance between the users who call me an anti-Muslim racist and those who say I'm a pro-Muslim anti-semite. ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with his edits here, but content to allow you to modify or remove the block as you see fit since you have more experience of this particular editor. Please feel free to unblock. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
From being familiar with the history of Tom Harrision's own blocking of this individual it is fairly safe to say that his comments are examples of sarcasm. :-) (→Netscott) 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was meant as sarcasm. Sorry, I'm not very good at it. Maybe I need to practice more. Block him, all his socks, and his little dog too. Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
See, even the arch-Brit can fire up the brain with the irony filter disabled sometimes ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User: Panairjdde blocked

I'm not clear just how this burr got under his saddle, but Panairjdde needs some time to cool off & reflect on his behavior.

History: As you may have noticed, he's been involved in an edit war at Montanism over whether the letters "AD" should appear in the article (after the words "second century") because they are redundant. He has also been removing this abbreviation entirely from many other articles apparently for the same reason. Panairjdde argued at Talk:Montanism that the Manual of Style gave him the right to remove this term; however, various editors who disagreed with this interpretation must have presented a good case, because he immediately proposed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) a change in the guidelines that would support his interpretation.

(Warning: here I became involved, & pointing to Panairjdde that redundancy was not the most convincing argument justifying his deletion of "AD" entirely from articles, & pointed to the guidelines at WP:BEANS. I tried to keep my tone friendly & non-confrontational. I also asked him if there was another reason for his dislike of this term, but never saw an answer.)

Last night I saw that Panairjdde had announced that he dropping the matter, & thought that was the end of the matter. This morning, I noticed that he had made these edits to Honorius (emperor), adding "AD" before every appearance of a year. Here I felt he had stepped over the line & caused a disruption to make a point, so I left this warning on his talk page. (Afterwards, I saw that he had engaged in reversion wars over this usage at the article on Pope Stephen II, his third reversion in 24 hours, & at Pope-elect Stephen third reversion here in 24 hours. It had no effect, as shown by his response, & that he immediately moved to another article. I admit that in these examples he was stopping just short of a clear violation, but the intent overshadows his attention to the letter of the rules.

PS -- From this, it appears he might not be willing to listen to me. Anyone else want to attempt to reason with him? -- llywrch 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments (maybe even a scapegoat is allowed to present its own POV):
  1. "various editors who disagreed with this interpretation must have presented a good case" They did not, since we kept discussing. But my point was never (never) disrupting Wikipedia, on which I have been working since 2002. Just because a lot of people did not like the way I was editing (and a few even said I was right) I asked for third opinion and a MoS modification to let the rule be clearer.
  2. "I also asked him if there was another reason for his dislike of this term, but never saw an answer." I answered you, pointing out that my change proposal was against redundancy, not against AD (in the AD/CE diatribe, I am for BC/AD and against BCE/CE), so it included AD and CE.
  3. As regards "dropping the matter", I asked to be allowed to apply the MoS with the same degree of liberty CodexSinaiticus (the user I started to edit war agains in Montanism, after several other "redundant Ad" removals found no opposition). Since this right was not granted, I decided to change position, and do what Codex Sinaiticus have been doing in all his edits, that is adding AD wherever possible (and note that CS adopts this policy because he want to push a religious POV, as you can see from his talk page and edits).
  4. None of my edits disrupted anything. If anyone is able to show me that I disrupted anything, I shall disappear totally from Wikipedia. The problem is that llywrch did not find it good to point to any disruptiveness (I was just adding ADs in front of the years, as well as doing other uncontroversial edits). I also asked him why the same kind of edit was disruptiveness when I did it and not when Codex Sinaiticus did (no answer, of course).
  5. It is also the second time, at least, that an administrator blocks me out of no reason. I was good the first time, waited for the block to expire, discussed with him, and in the end he recognized I was right and the block was wrong (User_talk:Panairjdde/Archive2#Block_for_violation_of_3RR, end of the post).
In the end, I did (not Codex Sinaiticus did, or any of those writing "settle this matter trough consensus" did) all I could do to settle this matter within WP rules. But, when I acted according to the "rules" set by a stubborn user (CS) and by the indifference of everybody to the matter, I got blocked.
If this will end without llywrch excuses, I kindly ask you to block me forever. Thanks alot.--151.47.126.70 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block)
  • Comment In the interests of honesty you should probably add that you have evaded your block by continuing to edit several of the articles as User:151.47.99.146, including Edict of Milan with the illuminating edit summary "I am Panairjdde, and I am not experimenting" in response to my level 1 warning. --Guinnog 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true, because in no case I wanted to hide the fact that it was me who was doing those edits. I feel I was kind and nice the whole time, and got treated bad, by you, llywrch and others. Since being nice on WP does not pay, I feel free to act in the way I see best, taking my responsabilities, by signing my IP-address posts like in your case and in the comment above, because I feel I am right.--151.47.126.70 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block)
See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Guinnog 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you even read my posts? Quote for some lines above "If this will end without llywrch excuses, I kindly ask you to block me forever".--151.47.126.70 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block, and knowing this "the situation worse")
Looks like my proposal got no support. Fine. At least acknowledge I am allowed to remove redundant AD is I feel like.

I read that as dropping the matter.

And your next words, before I had a chance to respond to the above were:

It seems like you are not realistic. All of these started because I removed ADs from an article in which all of the years were AD, and I ensured the sentences were clearly worded. See Montanism and Paul of Tarsus. Since there is no consensus in claiming that redundancy is a reason to remove ADs in itself, I shall play it safe and allow/add ADs wherever it is possible, even beyond 1st millennium.

That doesn't read to me as if you were engaging in a discussion. You threw down an ultimatum & started doing what you promised. And what is it with this black/white thinking? Your point seems to be that either there be no use of "AD" or it should always be used, despite style & convention. People were trying to convince you that there was a third solution -- that there should be some use -- but you were too impatient to listen.

And this is your response to me from your talk page:

(First paragraph snipped)
Now, how do you dare removing my ADs from Honorius (emperor)? In which your edit is different from Codex Sinaiticus' ones in Montanism? Why the same rule is applied liberally to CS, and restrictively to me?
In the end, if you feel like I am "disrupting" (but you should be sure it is a disruption, and I don't see why my version of Honorius article is disrupted), you are free to adopt whatever action you like. Being "nice" does not pay on Wikipedia, this is what I learnt in the last years here.
I have enough of retreating in front of stubborn editors like CS, who have their views only because they do not actually want to collaborate, but to make their POVs prevail: I am going to start being stubborn myself. Whatever it takes.

I removed your edits from the article because you were pushing your point ad absurdum -- which is the core of WP:POINT. Stop being disingenuous. Your edits are silly & you know it.

This matter is not about Codex Sinaiticus or what she did; at worst the dispute at Montanism would have ended up at WP:LAME. If you believe she's misbehaving, there's a wide variety of options to use to grieve the matter. But she dropped out of the picture when you announced you were about to launch an edit war, & editted several articles to prove your point -- & came close to a pair of 3RR violations. And now you are still making changes to Wikipedia as an anon.

I have tried hard to be nice about the matter, & to show some understanding, but it's obviously not working with you. I'll be blunt now: grow up or leave Wikipedia. I'll feel the same way about which of these two options you follow. -- llywrch 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I truly believe you are twisting the events to fit your POV, now you understood you were wrong on the matter. If this is absurd or silly, I would like to know why this is not. I already asked you this twice, but you forgot to answer, funny.
I looked for consensus, there was none, I applied the policy coming out, which says it is upon the editor. This is not black/white, this is either I am allowed to do what I see fit, or none is. Same rules for all editors.
"If you believe she's misbehaving, there's a wide variety of options to use to grieve the matter." I tried them all, and the result was that her behaviour was correct. I simply applied it (again, see this and this). The fact that you blocked me and not her means that the rules are not the same for both of us?
As regards "And your next words, before I had a chance to respond to the above were" bit, I got an answer to my preceeding post, which was sort of "do your edits leaving the article clean, and probably noone complained", a mockery about was happening in Montanism, don't you think? You forgot to put this too, funny. However, the result was that the style/convention is on the editor taste, and I applied mine.
As regards making changes as anonymous, it is because you kindly blocked my account. I could not do it otherwise.
As regards being nice, note this "nicenesses" of yours:
I'm asking you to stop this disruption immediately. Obviously, you have an issue with the style "AD" for reasons other than redundancy; I would suggest you spend your efforts on explaning them in the appropriate place. If you ignore this request, as an Admin I will be forced to take appropriate actions. I sincerely hope that this will not be necessary.
In a single post you are accusing me to do disruption (thing you still have to motivate), accusing me to have issues (thing you still have to prove), mock me after the long effort to settle this matter through WP means, menacing me. I hope you will be more nice when you "grow up" (thanks again).
I do care about this, otherwise I would not be here answering to you. But it takes two persons willing to settle the matter for a discussion, and in none of your posts to me (talk page and here) I see your will to settle the matter. --151.47.126.70 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And my alleged mistreatment of you justifies your use of three sockpuppets in the last few hours to circumvent this block? You were banned for throwing a tantrum worthy of any four-year old, & I gave you a timeout -- just like any four-year old would get. And you threw this tantrum because people did not approve of your deletion of "AD"! There might be sillier things worth risking a 24-hour ban over, but I can't think of one.
To repeat myself Panairjdde, why did you originally want to delete all use of "AD" in an article? And when people thwarted these efforts, why did you start inserting "AD" into articles as much as possible? Does a little redundancy truly offend you this much? I honestly can't imagine why these letters mean so much to you, so so there has to be more to this issue than what you are writing. If you don't want to tell me -- well, there it is. But to risk so much over such a silly matter? There is no way I can understand this as adult or mature behavior.
If you stop creating sockpuppets, & just spend the 24 hours away from Wikipedia & your computer, the block will be over. And if you do that, I'll offer you a deal: prove to me that I misjudged you. Do these things: for the next 3 days do not make any "AD"-related edits -- don't worry, the articles will still be there after that many days; during this time, make substantial improvements to 15 articles in Wikipedia: Cleanup. If you want to shame me & show how you've been wronged, improve twice as many articles -- or three times as many. Do that, & I will genuinely apologize for mistreating you & misunderstanding you.
But in any case, make this block into a wikivacation; the world consists of a lot more than Wikipedia. The way you are behaving, you are going to end up causing yourself even more grief & frustration, & you may be blocked for good from Wikipedia. Other Admins are reading this & forming opinions. -- llywrch 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know a thing. User:Panairjdde no longer exists, the password was changed to a random one, and noone can login anymore.
A side question: is it possible to be sockpuppets of a non-existing user?--151.44.36.230 10:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure somebody at wikitruth.info is laughing for this. =_= ridiculous --necronudist 23:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 207.69.139.6

This user has continued to add in spoilers from the SmackDown tapings(specifically a title change) despite being warned over and over not to. He has several warnings on hig page but continues to add the title change before it airs tonight. TJ Spyke 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Spoilers" are not a concept that we shy away from. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. --InShaneee 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Problem at Lordi

81.153.160.206 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is removing the real names of the band members, and has declared its intent to continue doing so until it succeeds. As far as I can see this has happened a number of times before. Perhaps a block of the IP + semiprotection of the article may be appropriate. Tupsharru 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute. I've warned the IP about WP:3RR, and he will probably merit a block if he reverst again. Please read WP:VAND, Tupsharru, as this is most certainly not vandalism. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
We're up to the 18th or 19th time the same (presumably) POV pusher (two IPs and one username) removes the names of the band members in contrary to the the consensus version. I wonder when some admin is going to realize that this person isn't going to give up (and he will probably come back with new usernames or IPs). I would again suggest semiprotecting the article now and blocking UKLFC (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for a day or two. Tupsharru 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- ChrisO 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Complete removal of history of user page

This page history used to be huge. Someone completely emptied any history in it. Can someone explain this? --mboverload@ 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"View or restore 91 deleted edits?" Raul654 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Users may ask to have their pages deleted. See Wikipedia:User page. -Will Beback 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize that included the history. --mboverload@ 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Raul, only Admins can see erased histories....or perhaps you thought mboverload was an admin? A user, as well as an anon, sees a very abridged edit history.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but anyone can see the log. Wikipedia was designed so everything would be logged, and no one is out of the loop. There is an exception to this fundamental rule, with oversight. Honestly, although I understand why, I don't like it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Prodego talk 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:BEANS aside, stop and think for a moment about what is user-specified, could contain personal information, and showed up in the oversight log before it was made private. If you can't figure it out, email me and I'll explain. Really, there isn't sinister intent to *everything* that happens around here. Essjay (Talk) 07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Right...bwa ha ha.....the cabal wins again! No, seriously, I support this idea, anything that protects users from snoops at Hivemind and Wikitruth can't be evil...and with Essjay at the wheel, I'm not really worried about oversight. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Damburger Personal Attacks

The user has been making personal attacks to other users.

I understand how someone as ignorant as yourself is desperate to silence those with contrary opinions, but now you are being fucking pathetic. Every time I post something to that page you remove it and are now threatening me with a block merely for voicing my opinion. Congratulations on being a Fascist. Damburger 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [20]
It isn't "common knowledge" at all, outside of your Rambo fantasies. Damburger 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [21]

The user who is being harassed is an admin but will likely be attacked as "abusing his admin privleges" if he attempts to give a temporary block to this user. So I suggest that a neutral third party enter this.--Jersey Devil 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Naconkantari 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I spoke to him on IRC yesterday and tried to explain that, yes, he was making personal attacks and the admin wasn't being abusive by removing the comments. He didn't get it. Concur with a slap on the wrist, since it seems to have persisted Shimgray | talk | 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Satris

User:Satris is repeatedly removing 'wikify' and 'unreferenced' tags from several articles, and reinserting commercial links and endorsements into Laser hair removal. He is on the verge of violating 3RR (if he hasn't already, by now) on several articles. I have left several messages on his talk page, but he has not responded, and has not changed his behavior. I've reverted him enough for tonight, and I want to go to bed. Could someone keep an eye on him, please? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't issued a warning, yet, but I'm about to. He does seem to have very narrow interests -- something called Ten O'Clock Classics, which he bolsters a great deal, and laser defoliation. The removals of tags seem to be a very naive form of OWN, too. If he continues after the warning (I won't watchlist him), please flag the mediation folks to see if he'll respond. If he doesn't respond and keeps going, then he's probably not here to help the encyclopedia, but rather to advertise. Geogre 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I now see he's in the time-out corner for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Repeat offenses will up the blocks (and he has 4 warnings). Geogre 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, all. It looks like we had a good community response on this. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:216.143.138.153

216.143.138.153 (talk • contribs)

POV-pushing troll, possible repeated libel [22] [23], general purpose persistent disrupter. Phr (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given him his last warning, if he continues he'll be blocked. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sussexman

Unless you can positively prove that Sussexman has any real input into actually issuing legal proceedings against anyone on Wikipedia this block is out of order. Blocking someone for pointing out that others are possibly breaking laws by what they are saying here is wrong. In fact it should be encouraged. Why not lift the ban and see how matters progress with Sussexman himself. 213.122.87.43 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:NLT. Will (message me!) 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Considering that Sussexman appears to have close links with an entire kookhive of anon-IP users, two of whom I've had to block for making some quite vicious personal attacks, I think I'll pass on this too... -- ChrisO 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bobblewik at it again (delinking of dates)

Afaik, Bobblewik never showed any commitment to stop delinking of dates in places where this is perceived as contentious. Afaik, Bobblewik continues to be clueless when such delinking is perceived contentious and when it isn't.

Further, Bobblewik ignores the consensus reached on the current guideline formulation (WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates):

[...] Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example [[2006 in sports|2006]].

Requesting a block that is more significant than the previous one. --Francis Schonken 10:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That particular piece of text states what different people believe, as for as I know that's not a concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 14:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for a month. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The speed he edits with suggests he's using an unauthorized bot. You can't find and delink the dates in over 4 articles by hand in a single minute even if you use tabbed browsing. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone with tab experience help with reverting his contributions where needed? - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, 90% or more of his edits are good ones. The way dates are indiscrimately linked in some articles is very hard on the eye and adds no functionality. What would be wrong with 'letting nature take its course' and only restoring the (very few) dates which have any value to the articles whatsoever, rather than reverting?
  • Francis, you didn't warn Bobblewik in any way before bringing this here (or at least I couldn't see any sign on his talk page that you had). Is that proper? Is repeatedly calling him 'clueless'? He may be many things but clueless probably isn't one of them. Please, be WP:CIVIL. --Guinnog 11:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This user has a very long history of following his own agenda with regard to standardising articles according to his perception of Wikipedia MoS guidelines with regard to dates, weights and measures, country names and other similar matters. He usually does so without regard to whether the prior text is contextually useful or accurate and has a long history of upsetting users by continually re-changing the text on pages that have been reverted by major contributors to those particular pages. Jooler 11:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to those specific points: he's been repeating the removals on multiple passes through the same articles, even where the edits were reverted previously (as in the Stravinsky case). As for warnings, it's not as if he doesn't know this is a problem for many editors. And given the speed at which he edits, speed of response is probably of the essence. HenryFlower 11:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate what both of you are saying. I chose this [25] edit at random as a sample of what he has been doing.
He has delinked three years, one of which was linked twice (!) for a total of four changes. As (without, admittedly, having checked) I very much doubt that the three year articles contain any information relevant to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, to my mind Wikipedia is four useless links better off for this edit. In fact, if I had been copyediting this article I would have delinked the years too. (There's an argument that an article like this should link to the "xxxx in music" instead.) I do appreciate your concern and I have read into the background on this, and I still fail to see why "speed ... is of the essence" here. It's not like he is vandalising anything useful after all. Is it because he is (presumably) using a bot to edit? Surely there must be a better way to sort this out than a block! And why (other than to make a WP:POINT) would you want to revert these edits en masse?
I notice with relief that Bobblewik seems to have stopped editing for the moment. I think that would be wise while this discussion takes place. --Guinnog 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
He's stopped editing because he's been blocked. ;) HenryFlower 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? Then why is there no sign of this on his user page, nor any sign of a warning? It still seems a terrible shame when he is clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia!--Guinnog 12:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Mgm announced a month long block above. Another warning might have been appropriate, but this is an issue that Bobblewik clearly knows there is no consensus for, and has been warned about (repeatedly), and blocked for several times. He should have learned by now that this is not acceptable editing behaviour. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "you didn't warn Bobblewik in any way before bringing this here":

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobblewik&diff=54359508&oldid=54336621#Date_delinking - this notice was specific about the Stravinsky article.
  2. Also note that there had been a recent warning regarding delinking of dates on Bobblewik's user page (posted 30 June - 2 July): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobblewik&diff=61640276&oldid=61412469#Dates (archived less than a week ago, 9 July 2006). --Francis Schonken 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the one dated 20 May 2006, but missed the one from 1 July 2006. All the same, I think a more productive approach might have been to specifically warn him this time rather than relying on the warning from two weeks ago.

Re: "Can someone with tab experience help with reverting his contributions where needed?":

  1. Usually, with Bobblewik, the whole series of date delinkings is reverted, leaving it to the usual editors of these articles to add or remove date links as they think appropriate, in accordance with the MoS. I quoted the relevant MoS section above. Seems like Guinnog has a problem with what is currently in the MoS too, because this editor gives a reading of style recommendations that has disappeared from the MoS for some time now, after a discussed consensus that took several months to achieve.
You'll have to explain what you mean to me here. If you're referring to my stated preference for not linking date fragments, I am guided by [26], although I think the policy is a mess now as it allows for the sort of ambiguity whose results seem apparent in this dispute. I would hate to think I could be blocked for a month for delinking years which I don't feel add anything to the article I am editing. One often sees many dozen links, many of them repeated, in any one article. I must have removed hundreds, just as I routinely remove any link I judge to be of no value to the project. Many of our articles are ludicrously overlinked with these low-value links. As with any edit any of us makes, other editors are free to put them back as or if they wish. --Guinnog 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. The last roll-back-reverting of Bobblewik's delinkings was, as far as I know, performed by Rebecca, earlier this month: "I've rollbacked the lot this time, but please let it be the last of them." 1 July 2006, notice on Bobblewik's user talk page --Francis Schonken 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, best to put a "you have been blocked" template on Bobblewik's page. Mgm? --Francis Schonken 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I probably should have put a template there. Anyway, even if some of his edits are good, the speed with which he edits suggests unapproved bot activity. - Mgm|(talk) 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Template placed. The text Francis quoted doesn't really appear to be a guideline or consensus. It specifically states that there's different groups of editors believing different things. Anyway, I think suspected bot editing and ignoring talk page messages after multiple blocks validate a 1 month block. - Mgm|(talk) 14:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody really suspects bot editing by Bobblewik. Moreover he has offered to cut his editing speed to any reasonably specified by those who have objected, and had no reasonable response (possibly no response). His warnings (and blocks, as far as I know - excluding yours) have all come from those who are involved the content dispute. Moreover a number of admins have used admin powers to roll-back his edits, indiscriminately, which he has been exceedingly patient about. IMHO Bobblewik is more sinned against than sinning. Rich Farmbrough 15:10 16 July 2006 (GMT).


[edit] User:Mechanismtongs and friends

Could I ask for some advice for what to do about Mechanismtongs (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and friends? Mechanismtongs has been blocked twice for personal attacks, yet is still continuing with this kind of behaviour. I bring this up here rather than elsewhere as there seem to be a number of puppets involved, including JediMasterHunter (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), Major18 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), Major18's revenge (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and Bryn Horsefield (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and a bunch of AOL addresses. (I make no comment on whether these are sock or meat puppets, although note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mechanismtongs). Cheers --Pak21 11:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If you specify which of the suspected sockpuppets made legal threats and did the impersonations, we can have them blocked. As for M-tongs, a few warnings should do the trick. - Mgm|(talk) 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe all the puppets are currently on indefinite blocks for one reason or another. As for M-tongs, a whole bunch of warnings in the past and two blocks don't appear to have done the trick... just for the record for anyone following this discussion, my username is not intended to be racist in any way (as has been asserted by Mechanismtongs, Major18 and possibly others). "PAK" are my initials (Philip Alan Kendall, for anyone who cares). The "21" originates from the fact that "pak21" was the username I was assigned when I first went to University, and it seems to have stuck (being reasonably unique). Cheers --Pak21 16:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Xed

Since this user was reblocked by Jimbo for his continued trolling and he has continued on his talk page including attacks on other editors I have protected his talk page. --pgk(talk) 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Need help on contininuous IP vandal

Hi. I have reported 24.12.158.51 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) about half a dozen times already on WP:AIAV or WP:AN, he has been blocked thrice, but continued vandalism as soon as his blocks expired. I am requesting a permanent block. Here are the details:

  • He was registered as User:Atticus765, but blocked indefinitely in May 2006, for vandalism, block evasion, etc. No CheckUser test was run, but the pages vandalised and the vandalism style are the same, and the timing matches the time Atticus765 got blocked. And even if this isn't the same person, after three temporary blocks that all showed no effect, I think a permanent block would still be justified based on just the IP's vandalism alone (over 150 edits; all vandalism) and not counting Atticus765's edits.
  • He has during his blocks used several sockpuppets, which have all been blocked.
  • He has continued vandalism, despite multiple warnings from me and other editors, under his IP.
  • Most of the times I reported him, however, admins told me he had either stopped or not edited in two days ([27]), both of which definitely not true, as his edit history shows. Other reports led to short-term blocks, shortly after which he continued to vandalise the exact same pages as before.

I consulted User:Mr. Lefty about this, who told me to come here. I feel that every admin I've reported this to only saw the most recent edits he made, not the whole spectrum and history of edits by this guy I revert every week. Regards, HarryCane 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, indefinite blocks are never used for IPs (in time, a particular IP could be used by anybody). In exceptional cases, one might block for a period of months. Secondly, I have a hard time seeing how this ip's edits over the past few days are vandalism. Can you explain? The Land 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, as a matter of fact, said IP is sadly only used by currently this one vandal, at least obviously by nobody else editing Wikipedia (according to the user's edit history, which includes not a single contructive edit). If he was blocked, and somebody else with the same IP wanted to edit Wikipedia, there would be ways to do so. Also, even a half a year block may be enough time for this fellow to cool off. And secondly, it is vandalism, because he continuously spams Wikipedia articles with his opinionated conceptions of musical genres applying (or not applying) to bands — despite being warned multiple times by multiple users that these genres were discussed, decided upon by consensus or professionally determined by music journalists — and refuses any kind of discussion, while at the same time showing no form or remorse, insight or acceptance for his obvious misbehavior. I know it's not strongly blatant vandalism (such as blanking/moving pages or spamming profanities/gibberish on articles), but given its sheer continuity and this user's lack of will to follow Wikipedia's rules and policies, he certainly deserves to be blocked. It's not easy and takes some time to get into this case, but it certainly is vandalism. --HarryCane 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Admin Attention requested

Please note and keep under observation contribs and history of user DON and discussion at Sahaj_Marg and Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission. Do not know if admin action is appropriate yet, but I feel this must be brought to Wikipedia attention and hope this is the appropriate place. (FYI: I have read and tried to follow all Wikipedia policy, and exhanged private emails with admin Jondel regarding 4d-Don situation and have tried to follow all suggestions)

Beyond me now. I give up. Thank you in advance for any help or advice.

-- Sakha 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Tojo impersonation account

Please indef block TomHarrison (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who's impersonating User:Tom harrison and vandalizing pages. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. (→Netscott) 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Tom Harrison Talk 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Repmart

User:Repmart was making personal attacks on User:The JPS in several different locations, which I reverted, and he kept re-adding, so I blocked him last night for 24 hours. Note that the attacks were not merely about The JPS's behavior on Wikipedia, he was making comments about illegalities supposedly being performed by The JPS off-Wikipedia. He kept coming back with anon accounts to replace the attacks, and I blocked those, as well. I have now received an email from him threatening to create a website repeating his attacks on The JPS and on me, as well, although what he plans on saying about me, I cannot imagine. I have warned him that if he does so, I will permanently block him. I strongly suspect that Repmart is Tramper Price, who is more than unhappy that The JPS nominated the nn bio about him for AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comment

The following is an unsigned comment left on the "2006 Israel-Lebanon" Talk Page in section 2.1: "...There was outrage in the congress, but Teller, himself a jew, intervened with Reagan and the incident was glossed over in the west..." I find this to be a snide anti-semitic remark and offensive to many people. The article was unsigned, but you will find that the I.P. address is 195.70.32.136. Thank you for your help. Jack30491 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosher username?

This username seems like an ad, or at least a company account:

Is this a company? It seems like it. Should they get indeffed?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block just on the spam angle, since I would think it to pretty poor spam/advertising since it could be just about anywhere in the world. As for a group account, not sure. If it starts inserting links for carpetcleaning services then of course that is a different matter. --pgk(talk) 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... could be, but as this is their only edit, I'd say let them be for now. Could be a productive contributor. Just watch out for creation of Advantage Carpet Cleaning or any link spam. </BEANS> --LV (Dark Mark) 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pgk—as a company name, it's so generic that there's probably one in every large city, so even if they intended it to be self-promotional, it simply fails at that. Postdlf 22:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ikiroid; generic or not (there are 134 Google hits from here), this can be nothing other than the name of a business and, per WP:USERNAME, "Usernames intended for spamming or advertisement: Accounts with usernames that advertise a particular website, company, etc. (e.g. "visit [name of url]" ) are discouraged and may be blocked." In my view, simply using the name of a company is advertising for a company, and I've blocked it and left {{UsernameBlockedCompany}} on the talk page had I seen it in UC patrol. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
are discouraged and may be blocked Doesn't have to be, and as this seems a productive user, why not ask them to change usernames before you fire with the block button? Seems like it would be the sensible thing to do. -Mask 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's been exactly one contribution, but I dropped a note on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Elitism article, and the creation of a fake AfD

It seems that a few vandals created some new sockpuppets in order to create a fake AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism (3rd nomination), thereby deleting the article Elitism. It seems that in the confusion of a fake AfD, the article was actually removed and replaced with a {{deletedpage}} tag. As of now I have fully protected the article and reverted it to the version prior to the first vandalism. The account that seems to have been behind the orchestration is Jake Berkeley (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), which is likely a sock of either jake remmington, or some other long term vandal. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Likely a combination nickname of Jake Remington and Jeb Berkley, nicknames which are listed to be associated with the WP:NCV. For those who saw the AfD page before it got deleted, humorous things like "# delete article was craeted by NCV." are listed. The AfD, from what I can tell from my left-open window on the now-deleted AfD page, it was replicating many of the post-closure edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism. There's probably more interesting stuff also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism (2nd nomination), but it is deleted. There's also a recent post to WP:AIV which notes many more socks used to try to 'vote-stack' the original AfD post closure. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Barack Obama

Barack Obama (talk • contribs) is using the name of a real person and doing nothing but vanadalizing pages. --waffle iron talk 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been blocked. --waffle iron talk 04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:GvvernoI

This user has created a username that is very similar to User:Gwernol's (this user here uses two vs instead of a w and a capital i instead of a lowercase L). On this user's userpage, it says the user got permission to use the name from Gwernol (which, judging by the user talk page, isn't entirely true). However, even if Gwernol gives the user permission to use the name, I feel that permission ought to be overriden. The fact of the matter is the username will confuse many editors into thinking it's really Gwernol when it's not. The user, despite his intentions (I have yet to fully understand what they are), ought to be asked to create a new username and (on this current account) indefinitely blocked for impersonation. -- joturner 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As the user GvvernoI has a whole ten (surviving) edits to his name, and has been warned for vandalism and personal attacks, I've just plonked the account. If he wants to create a new one, he can. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, Ive nuked the following created by this user: Category:Administrators requiring discipline, and {{Template:Blockabuse}}, both of which are intended to be put on the blocking admin's page. Coupled with List of unruly Admins which User:Gwernol deleted, methinks this wannabe is a sock of someone disruptive and indefblocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Comanche cph again

After having served out his most recent 3RR block, User:Comanche cph has again reverted to his preferred version on Scandinavia four times today. He's also revert-warring on Normans where he's learned the clever new trick of marking a revert down as a "minor edit" and giving it the edit summary "spelling".[28] For those just in the user has diffs like these [29] [30] on his record and has been blocked four times already. He now says he is starting to lose his patience with Wikipedia.[31] I think the feeling may be mutual. Haukur 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he does it again, the penalties escalate. Will (message me!) 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
What was the block length, Sceptre? I should imagine 3 days would be up from the 24 hr for 3RR, then a week, then 2 weeks and ArbCom. Geogre 18:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I blocked him for 48 hours. Will (message me!) 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comanche cph immediately evaded this block through his sockpuppet Supermos (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), which has still not been blocked. Tupsharru 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Or at least it looks exactly like a puppet. Maybe someone could run an IP check to make sure? Haukur 09:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Requesting sprotection for article and own userpage/usertalkpage

South Central Farm was recently hit by vandalism by Cumbuj (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) who was blocked. Then, 152.163.101.7 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) and then Roxeco (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) hit the page with the same reason, trying to sprotect their own vandalism. When I reverted their edits and warned Roxeco, my userpage was vandalised with the anus picture. I'm requesting that South Central Farm, my user page and my talk page be sprotected from these morons. Ryulong 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking through edits, I've found out I got hit by User:WatchtowerJihad. Please help me. Ryulong 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My user page has been sprotected now, but I still think South Central Farm should be sprotected if it keeps getting hit by WatchtowerJihad (not sure if my talk should be sprotected, though). Ryulong 07:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Matter resolved - User page deleted to remove vandalism, recreated and sprotected. --Alf melmac 07:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(Article is now requested protection at relevant page and Ryulong's talk page is on my watchlist for any further vandalism). --Alf melmac 08:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blocking 82.35.24.169

Please consider blocking the user with the IP address 82.35.24.169. He continually vandalizes Wiki pages such as H. Bruce Mitchell and Maria Kanelliswith mentions of "hen fap," and has had numerous warnings, many of which he removed from his user page. He is a simple nuisance and I'm getting annoyed by watching over him. Please consider blocking him/her. Thank you. Chad1m 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 31h abakharev 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Racism on Nostradamus talkpage User:Davkal

While I admit that the conversation between User:Davkal and myself has been barely civil, I will not tolerate racism.

To wit [32] "Excellent argument dude, how's the homies in South Central. (emphasis added) Diff: [33]. •Jim62sch• 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Need article protection now - weeks long edit war escalating (Situation has been fixed - page full protected)

Situation has been fixed - page full protected
A user has been continuously adding insults about American International School and how everyone thinks it sucks, even saying that it's not verifiable in the insult section. It has been explained at least 10 times to this user but they continue. Has used personal attacks, multiple sockpupets and has vandalized by userpage. I really couldn't care less about the personal attacks or vandalism, just please get this page protected without the slander. See article history --mboverload@ 11:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be better off at WP:RFP. Still, if it's only one user, you might want to file a user conduct RfC instead of full-blown protection. Isopropyl 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the WP:RFP page, I totally forgot about that. This user has used like 5 sockpuppets now and refuses to even discuss anything. It has been explained many times. --mboverload@ 11:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Just added another sockpuppet --mboverload@ 11:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Just used ANOTHER sockpuppet. That's 5 DIFFERENT user account not counting IP edits --mboverload@ 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • When this user has decided which account to use I will reduce the block on that account to 1 week. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FA vandalism

By User:64.12.116.10. See this. Several times... speaks for itself. EuroSong talk 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There were no warnings for awhile, gave him t4 abakharev 12:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

I have just been harshly treated (erasing two weeks of research) by the user "AnonMoos". This is my first addition to Wikipedia, and was apparently not in accordance with the style guide. I can understand a correction and brief instruction or hints on how to complete it, but not the casual erasure and harsh "you got it wrong, do it like this".

This is at total discord with the Wikipedian / community approach that I'd come to think Wikipedia stood for. Frankly, I'm now wondering why I should bother to extend it, rather than being excited (as I was) at the thought of participating.

Frankly, this user's attitude to newbies is more than likely turning every person away from Wikipedia that he "corrects" in such a harsh manner - in short: hindering more than he helps.

If he 'corrects' 10 articles each week, but turns 10 people away from contributing - he's simply preventing growth, rather than aiding proper growth by helping newbs.

I'm annoyed, and frankly very angry at such treatment - I appreciate his "help", but NOT his attitude.

I'm happy to be corrected - but not smacked down like a little child. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tiberiusgrant (talk • contribs).

Which article, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


I've spoken to this user on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JzG (talk • contribs)

misfired this time. I made a stupid edit here [34] as I was responding to uncivility, but cooled down and removed the attack myself 10 minutes later [35]. Some three and half hours after I have removed the attack, without being told to do so, JzG placed a warning on my talkpage about a thing I already undid. Warnings, blocks etc on wikipedia should be preventive, not punitive, whereas this is purely punitive, and could also be perceived as bossing. I have kindly (with Please) asked JzG to remove the warning from my talk page. Anyone please back me up on this. Azmoc 12:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't even responded to you on his talk page yet (which was only 14 minutes before you posted this). Please try to get in contact with a user before comming here. I'm not commenting on your case. --mboverload@ 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My two cents, I don't think your modification was enough - the contributions from you on that page seemed generally to breach what I would look for in civil discussions and I think the warning should stay.--A Y Arktos\talk 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Zoe's original comment that Azmoc responded to with his original personal attack: Yet again the case of a supposedly brand-new user, who has yet to make any edits to article space, trying to tell us how to run Wikipedia. Yawn. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (→Netscott) 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't think Zoe's contribution was edifying either, but the discussion point is, should the warning be removed from Azmoc's talk page. I don't think so. Should a reminder be placed on Zoe's page? Possibly, but separate issue.--A Y Arktos\talk 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
        • What I said, what I did was a personal attack, but I cooled off and removed it myself, long before someone placed a warning on my talkpage. This directly contradicts the preventive not-punitive common sense in which admins should use the blocks and warnings. Moreover, the sentence I left there is (quote): I find your stated belief that you are running wikipedia more than the other (yet inexperienced) users unbelievable. It doesn't say anything about Zoe him/herself, it just says that I strongly disagree with his/her beliefs, unless we live in some environment in which disagreeing with an admin is a personal attack. This admin-cabal argumenting like well, well, you are right here, but this other thing you did is wrong anyway so we will do nothing against our co-admins is really driving me nuts. Azmoc 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


  • It's a pro-forma warning. The mature response is to accept the criticism, as you partially do (even with the modification it is still unacceptable to accuse an admin of abusing privileges in a content dispute unless you can cite solid evidence) and not do it again. Wikilawyering about exactly how incivil you were is not the way to go. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Look that is enough. I am not wikilawyering here, I am citing no policies etc. You are the one who placed a warning for a comment that has been removed. You provided the removed edit as a reason. Placing a warning for one reason and searching for another reason (it is still unacceptable..) you are actually lawyering your own misconduct here. Remove the warning now, this time without please. Azmoc 13:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, instead of responding to my original proposal, JzG made yet another "I would like to see your full history" comment, then said "The cabal rejects this proposal. That is all. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)". What I did, what was the original IP I used to edit before I registered etc. is no bussiness of JzGs' and if he didn't want to respond to the proposal, and came there only to make comments on me and my edit history, he shouldn't have said anything at all. Azmoc 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed we do. How else are we supposed to establish the context for your proposed policy? Just zis Guy you know? 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the edits I see a distinct similarity between Ackoz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Azmoc (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), quite apart from the similarity usernames. Does anyone else notice this? Just zis Guy you know? 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the warning in question. Had I been JzG I wouldn't have added in the first place, equally had I been Azmoc I wouldn't have brought the matter hear. forgive and forget is what I say. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed words to live by. --mboverload@ 13:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, happy enough with that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Amorrow trying to edit by proxy

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AMorrow tries to edit by proxy -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs)

I'm concerned about this users actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buggin Malone and Talk:Leonard Peltier, and am looking for some kind of comment/help. Soaring Eagle has posted personal attacks on other users[36][37][38][39][40][41]. Thank you. Yanksox 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Samanello

Bot or user adding same text to multiple pages. IrfanAli 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Soukar

This rather strange article is the sole contribution from 0anonymous0 (talk • contribs). Googling for "+Soukar +Bsharie" finds nothing. My guess is that this user really dislikes one or more people named Soukar. Would some more experienced Wikipedians please take a look? Thanks, CWC(talk) 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

db-attack. Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socafan

A bit of an issue with Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Lance Armstrong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I have a lid on it at the moment, I think, but the usual "OMG! CENSORSHIP!" reaction to removal of POV statement of allegations against a living individual is in evidence. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin threatened to block me for providing factual information to an article, refused to use talk, and now added racism to this. Socafan 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think everybody here will understand the precise form that "factual information" usually takes in edit wars on biographies of living people. And this is no exception. Refused to talk? complete bollocks. Actually the very opposite is true: I toled you to take it to Talk, and there is ongoing discussion on your Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked 15 minutes for continued addition of factual content to an already overloaded and POV tagged Criticism section. Messages left on Talk and User talk indicating how this should proceed. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
JzG blocked me while in a conflict of interest, after 5 reverts deleting factual information we even have in our own articles with many sources. Did not apologize for racist comment. Socafan 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Saying someone is demonstrating "racism" is a very serious charge. JzG's language was entirely and quite clearly (imho) satirical and in jest. (→Netscott) 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
He claimed the French would treat Armstrong differently because he is American and then called them "cheese eating surrender monkeys". Socafan 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not from the U.S. or England... but that is a well known comedic and satirical phrase in these countries. Besides look at this section of "French people". There is hardly an ethnicity (nevermind race) that is truly "French" these days. (→Netscott) 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Racism allegations cannot be countered by "there are no races". There never were. But there is racism. The comment clearly was derogatory towards the French, and the user repeatedly uses condescending language. Socafan 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What I pointed out was the absurdity of suggesting that the French-dominated Union Cycliste Internationale would allow the conservative American Lance Armstrong, a friend of Shrub, to evade a drugs ban. At the time there was much bad blood between the USA and France; the term cheese eating surrender monkeys is associated with this bad blood in the public mind.
What we have here is a simple case of Wikilawyering. Rather than coming up with the usual tripe about "suppressing information" (and believe me, we all groan out loud when we hear those words) you could instead have accepted my suggestion that you explore, on the article's Talk page, a properly neutral way of covering the issue - and indeed a way of fixing the rest of the section, which is POV tagged for reasons which are bliningly obvious. You might not care if the Foundation gets a call from Armstrong's lawyers, we do. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy does come to mind at this point. ;-) (→Netscott) 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin ignored wikipedia rules by posting at third opinion again with derogatory language, discussed and signed although this is expressly forbidden at the page: [42]. The information I provided is well sourced, and removing it is POV. Socafan 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Alternative interpretation: user ignored Wikipedia rules by posting excessively biased and factually inaccurate request for third opinion and then edit-warred over attemps to contextualise it. The information you provided was stated in biased terms, and gave undue weight to an opinion which does not reflect the current legal status of Armstrong, rto wit: legally not a doper, whatever his detractors say. Until the courts say otherwise, neither can we. A case closed only this month where the implication he was a doper was found to be wrong. Will you foot the Foundation's legal bill? Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, might I suggest taking a bit of time out... Get away from the computer for a spell and come back with a fresh head. You seem to be in quite a tizz about nothing much, and if you think that's racism then you've had a sheltered life. /wangi 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well said. This person has now posted a heavily editorialised version of events at WP:3O, and is edit warring (who could have predicted that?) over any comment made to offset his editorialising. At the begining I thought this was just someone carrid away by zeal to include some fact they'd newly discovered. By now I am convinced this is a simple POV push. I think I will go over and rewrite the POV section myself. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Making condescending remarks about nationals of other countries is unacceptable. And the main point is that this user removes factual information, violating several wikipedia policies (3RR, do not block when in a conflict of interest, NPOV, assume good faith, do not discuss or sign at Third Opinion). Socafan 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, instead of arm-waving and Wikilawyering, I went and fixed the article. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, chaps. Socafan is now removing comments from his Talk page with an edit summary of "trolling". This includes replies, comments re editing of articles, warnigs etc. [43]. I think it might be time for someone to wield a clue-by-four. Just zis Guy you know? 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly thinking that this person needs to "cool off" a bit, say for like 24 hours. (→Netscott) 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
His edit war with you at Lance Armstrong makes that a no-brainer. Just zis Guy you know? 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Because of blocking while in a conflict of interest, breaking the three revert rule and boycotting dispute resolution I filed an arbitration case. Crony Netscott is already informed. Socafan 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling a fellow editor a "crony" is a double personal attack. In that statement the first party is a "thug" and the "crony" is his accomplice. I suspect that User:Socafan will be blocked again before too long. (→Netscott) 00:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Of note: From my understanding of these events, User:Theresa knott, User:Tom harrison, User:JesseW and myself were in general agreement surrounding User:JzG actions relative to User:Socafan and the Lance Armstrong article. (→Netscott) 01:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Netscott and JzG exchange derogatory comments about the French and me, [44] [45] [46] JzG uses Netscott's revert war on my talk page [47] to block me as suggested here by Netscott, and then Netscott complains if I call him JzG's crony? Socafan 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy and you are entirely blameless. Or not. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop making derogatory comments and stop to boycott the conflict resolution. Socafan 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Boycotting it? Where? Last I saw I was actively participating in attempts to resolve the conflict in at least five separate places. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Socafan again

Socafan (talk • contribs) is intent on ensuring that a section of the article on Lance Armstrong paints him in the most unfavourable light possible. Bear in mind that Armstrong may well be the most tested athlete in history and repeated drug tests and an official inquiry have all exonerated him. Here's Socafan's latest update, which is indistinguishable in tone from the ones for which I blocked him briefly before. [48]. Note thast the last para, which was neutralised from some heavy innuendo, has been deneutralised, and the guilt-by-association has been reintroduced. I need a second pair of eyes here.

He has filed an ArbCom case at WP:RFAr#JzG.

I have protected the article to prevent his repeated reversion to his preferred version (and to keep a spate of drive-by anons off); it is arguably better to block the problem editor and leave the article unprotected but that would prevent him taking part in the arbitration. I wouldn't like to call that one myself, please feel free to swap the article protection for a block and unprotection or possible semi-protection if you think it right. I feel very strongly that until Socafan at least acknowledges that there might be some merit in the idea that, for example, emphasising WADA's view over that of the official inquiry by the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency which was strongly critical of WADA, might violate WP:NPOV, it would be unwise to allow him to edit the article. Socafan appears determined to assert his point of view, and to WP:OWN his Talk page; look in the history since many pertinent comments have been deleted as "trolling". Just zis Guy you know? 11:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not own my talk page either. Many editors remove talk from their pages, and you used double standards by punishing only one side - Netscott had removed talk from his page, too. You assume bad faith and claim I push a POV while I can easily say that what you do is abuse of admin powers to push yours. I have not broken the three revert rule - you have - and I explained my edits, provided source and used talk, you just made wholesale reverts. The WADA case needs to be discussed at the article talk page, not here, but only reporting that UCI rejected WADA's and leaving out that WADA continues to see Armstrong as a drug abuser and considers legal actions against UCI is clearly tendentious. Socafan 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Haham hanuka (talk • contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter

User is the creator of the article and has been edit warring around it in the past. He is not an admin (failed the nomination 6 times) and is often barred from using Wikipedia, mostly for 3RRing. He just single handed closed the AfD of this article as "keep", putting a label on the talk page referring to another AfD. A vote to delete the article was removed by him, referring to his "AfD closure". He has also "closed" other AfDs about which he was edit warring and has been warned about this behavior. I would like an administrator to look into these issues, also since I do not know precisely how to deal with them myself. gidonb 13:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: he "closed" it once more. gidonb 14:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to gidonb for catching this. IMO, the article is a clear delete, but even clearer is the rule that non-admins don't close AfD's they've "voted" on. Eluchil404 14:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment, Eluchil404. Haham haunka had done exactly the same to an article I listed for AfD. He was warned at the time, but then recreated the article right after it was deleted through the AfD. gidonb 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This AfD has been listed since July 7. On July 11 it was closed by Haham hunka as keep despite his voting in it. It was reopened on July 13, then closed again that day by Haham hanuka. It was reopened today. Since this is buried way back in July 7's AfDs, would an admin be willing to take a look and relist this on today's AfDs because of all the issues that have been had with it being closed and opened several times over? Metros232 14:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly my concern, Metros323. Sounds like a great solution to the problem, at least of this AfD. gidonb 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Restarted the AFD. Will (message me!) 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out as I did at the AfD, Haham hanuka was trying to push the AfD to his side by advertising it at user talk pages: Jackys cy's and Seidenstud's, specifically. Only two, but AfD advertising is just asking for trouble. Ryulong 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More pleasantries from User:Repmart

Quoting from an email I have received from this delightful person today:

"You have shown your ineptitude and incompetence with blinding brilliance. You are a true moron.

You have now emailed me with a threat where you abuse your position.

I live in the UK. In the UK we have freedom. I intend to tall my story with nothing but the TRUTH on my side. You are a part of THE problem on Wikipedia. Administrative bullies.

Here's my latest quote from YOU that WILL make it onto all the different discussion groups and forums where I intned to paste the story aobut YOU and The JPS.

"If you DO make such a page, don't expect your block to be undone. Zoe" The quote speaks volumes Zoe, you moron. You are going to suspend me if I tell people how you and The JPS are administrative bullies and how you BOTH use Wikipedia for your own political agendas and how THE JPS uses it to sell stuff on Ebay.

With regards to your threat about suspending this 1 User ID, you can lick my hairy balls.

I am not only going to make 'such a page' but it I am going to put a lot of hours into pasting the story and I intend to email 'THE BOARD' every day until they respond. I will uise as many different email addresses as it takes to see your bullying corrected.

You are a thig and you can F.O.


GOING DOWN DUM DUM!

Good luck.

J Smith / Repmart"

I will be blocking his Repmart account indefinitely as soon as I finish posting this. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow that sucks/what a douche. If you need any help feel free to let me know. --mboverload@ 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not particularly worried, I would be more concerned if I were The JPS, but I don't think he's particularly concerned, either. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] IP group writing vulgar edit summaries

The 87.79.3.2XX IPs have been writing vulgar edit summaries in the sandbox. I know it's just the sandbox, but there the policy still applies there, right? Something needs to be done. I warned them on one IP and they switched to a different one.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(nastiness removed, user blocked for 24 hours for being uncivil and WP:POINT) (And yes I'd block anyone who wrote that, even if they were an admin) pschemp | talk 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, trolling and "disruption to make a point" come to mind. (→Netscott) 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So is anyone gonna make the block?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

read up please. pschemp | talk 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Isequals

I noticed a while back that User:Sasquatch almost indef blocked Isequals (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for being a troll, but decided to give her another chance. Since then, her conduct hasn't inproved any since she was last asked to stop. She made racist remarks in her edit summaries calling someone a "nigger" [49] and then going on to make personal attacks against Francs2000 today. [50] Can someone take care of this? — The King of Kings 23:12 July 16 '06

Done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. — The King of Kings 23:47 July 16 '06


[edit] User Evading Block and Violating NPOV

  • Further proof is evident here as we see one of them removing the "suspected sockpuppet" tag from the other one's page. - pm_shef 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Skull 'n' Femurs evading block with an army of sockpuppets

Can an admin please check out [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Imacomp_{2nd)] for the evidence of user:Skull 'n' Femurs (a banned user by arbcom) and user:imacomp's army of sock which have been tormenting freemasonry. Also please see the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Imacomp against Imacomp to see the huge amount of problems we have had with him, not including his army of socks. Chtirrell 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

it's user:Skull 'n' Femurs, check your spelling. and please sign your posts with ~~~~ so that we may see who is posting them without looking in the page history. ~Chris (squirrels!!) 11:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the errors. I've fixed them. An oversight on my part :) Chtirrell 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:True tibet

Transferred from WP:AIV:

True tibet (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) See talk page - that should be self-explaniatory. Politically motivated username with derogatory spam about Wikipedia on it. Killfest2 09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we are allowed to be POV on our own talk pages, not sure about the username. abakharev 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Not if it's inflammatory (which the Nepal incident is) Killfest2 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I have immense empathy for Tibetans in their current situation, the problem this user has is the same we all have with history in that to a large extent it's written by the winning/dominant side, put this alongside the need to be able cite verifable sources for data and I'm not surprised by the views expressed on their talk page. --Alf melmac 09:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this username clearly refers to a political dispute which will produce problems no matter what. I've blocked him indefinitely for having an inappropriate username and offered him to get a new one and contribute constructively. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Marionette Accounts

The *Marionette accounts seem to be proliferating. As soon as one is blocked, another pops up. They have gone from User:AnkletMarionette to User:WhiteAnkletMarionette toUser:ZaffreAnkletMarionette and everything in between. Obviously blocking the accounts is not working to address the issue. Perhaps something else can be done. ThoughtControl 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a checkuser to get the IP or IPs then contact the ISP, most have an acceptable use policy. --pgk(talk) 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We begun blocking them since we thought they were PoolGuy, and later on, the socks kept coming and the "prevent account creation" thingie is not working (I think), and all keep on wanting some admin action reversed. I agree, contact the ISP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Those flags have no meaning for named accounts, though autoblocks should still have the same effect... --pgk(talk) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
When I asked, I was told that the block settings on a username block would not affect the settings of the autoblock; autoblocks continue to be full blocks in all cases. I've not tested this, I'm just going with what I was told. In a related note, it appears to be SBC (formerly Southwestern Bell, now AT&T in what looks like an attempt to resurrect Ma Bell) pool IPs, rather than AOL, so block away. Essjay (Talk) 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

These two unblock requests appear to be coming from various AOL IPs - here's one: [51] and another [52]. These might be a troll jumping on the bandwagon though. I personally have blocked:

User:ZaffreAnkletMarionette User:XanthicAnkletMarionette User:MaroonAnkletMarionette User:LapisLazuli User:LapisLazuliAnkletMarionette User:KhakiAnkletMarionette User:JadeGreenAnkletMarionette User:HunterGreenAnkletMarionette User:GreenAnkletMarionette User:EcruAnkletMarionette User:AnkletMarionette User:BlueAnkletMarionette

And I'm sure that's not all of them. If you see these though, please block ASAP, they start making edits right away. pschemp | talk 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User:MasterOfColor, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked that too. --pgk(talk) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My point was, perhaps it is best to try something else entirely. Blocking the accounts just creates more and more IPs that are autoblocked. At some point this has got to be affecting other Wikipedians, because it does not seem to impact this user. Maybe someone could find out what he wants and get the issue resolved - something seems unresolved. That way Admin time wouldn't be spent looking for the accounts, researching the accounts, and blocking them. This can't be the only way to address users. ThoughtControl 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We already know what Poolguy/Marionette wants. He wants to use multiple accounts abusively. He can't. The issue will be resolved by making him go away. That's it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't seem right. The PoolGuy account was around for years without any problems. What makes you think he wants to be abusive? Sure lots of Admins have blocked those accounts, but he seems very consistent in bringing up one issue of improper administrative action. Perhaps someone could figure out that resolving that would resolve the issue. Seems to me the inappropriate block, inconsistent with a written Wikipedia policy is the issue. Why is that ignored? GarageDoorOpener 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
because you are a sock. Duh. *zap* pschemp | talk 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The disappointing thing is trying to explain Wikipedia policy to Admins. However, here goes:

"There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."

"I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny.[1] (2003)"

This is a quote from Mr. Wales on the WP:SOCK page. To translate, users can have multiple accounts, so long as they don't use it to violate policy. GoldToeMarionette was a multiple account, however it did not violate policy. This is what is actually written down as Wikipedia policy. Please explain how this can possibly be unclear to those with Admin authority. I am not an Admin, and it makes complete sense to me. ContributerGreen 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are so obviously a sock, why do you even bother? pschemp | talk 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. I would think that would mean something to Admins too. Why do you want to make a user who was a good but small contributor go away? How is that good for the project? QualityCounts 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting, these users were very anxious to comment and contribute when it is all about blocking. When thought is challenged and forced to think about the policy and its application these Admins avoid it. They think it is best to just block, because blocking makes problems go away. Blocking does not solve the fundamental problem. I need someone to deal with the fundamental problem. Does anyone here have the capacity to address it? A few of you have proven you can block an account, congratulations. Now, try to actually address the issue.

Unfortunately, someone will block this account too, thinking that will make a difference. How disappointing, that will be the limit of their Administrator capacity. Instead, hopefully someone will rise to address the issue. Anyone? It just takes communicating, not blocking. ReadingRabbit 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The probem has been repeatedly described to you, it went through an arbcom case, and since neither was to your liking you ignored it. Communication takes two sides, one to listen something you've repeatedly refused to do. At this point there is little more to be said. --pgk(talk) 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] To whom it may concern

To whom it may concern,

I would like to bring to your attention what I consider heavy handedness on the part of an administrator. Please reference the discussion in relationship to myself and SCEhardT The dispute relates to my uploading an image, a mistake I admit but as I explained to the administrator a light-hearted yet admittedly misguided attempt to add some levity to a topic others were becoming too serious and combative about. In response I received an aggressive message on my talk page threatening me with blocking and the direction not to remove said message. I went ahead and did so as I believed a more civil response was approriate and made this clear to said admin. But again I received an even more aggressive uncivil message. It is unacceptable for Administrators to act in this way. Their intentions may be good but their arrogant attitude is ridiculous. I do not want to be blocked merely on the whim of an administrator who decided to take an overly aggressive response to my actions. Thank-you for your time.

AntonioBu 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

From user's userpage: Come join me in my mission to de-Americanise wikipedia or should I say wikipaedia. Help end the American cultural hegemony that now affects every aspect of life. AntonioBu 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC). Although it is wrong to assume bad faith, you don't exactly help your case with your stated purpose and actions, which are obviously aggressive. Oh, and I'm assuming this is about you uploading Image:DogDefecating.jpg? --mboverload@ 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding you were blocked specifically for removing a warning from your talk page from an administrator. I personally take a very dim view of that and I see no reason to lift the block at this time (you asked, indirectly, on the unblock mailing list) as I see no change in behaviour to warrant it. The repeated incivility was not addressed by this block, perhaps it should have been as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to de-Americanise Wikipedia, do it the correct way and go join the Countering Systematic Bias WikiProject. P.S. Calling it Wikipaedia would Britify it. Not really a neutral alternative. Besides, the name Wikipedia isn't POV at all. Dutchmen, German people and multiple other nationalities write it this way. You can't get any more neutral. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block request - Ad vitam aeternam

User:Ad vitam aeternam has been vandalizing 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis with POV. When I called him on it, he vandalized my userpage. --Pifactorial 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Make that, vandalized my userpage repeatedly. --Pifactorial 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. If he does that again, it will be a lot longer.--MONGO 09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Satris and possible sockpuppets

User:Satris was blocked for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Now new users Julliardgal (talk • contribs), Lotsofmusic (talk • contribs), Pianochic (talk • contribs) and Lotsalove (talk • contribs) have been making the same edits to Ronen Segev, Ten O'Clock Classics, Veda Kaplinsky and Laser hair removal that Satris made. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socafan's edits

Would someone who hasn't already been involved with User:Socafan kindly take a look at Lance Armstrong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). This user has replaced all of the information that User:JzG was insisting be discussed prior to its inclusion in the article. In particular he's been adding information that amounts to "guilt by association" to the article and I have made efforts to remove such information in accord with WP:BLP but I have been repeatedly reverted. This version of the article is the pre-attempts at discussion version. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please note Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s double personal attack here wherein he's referred to me as User:JzG's "crony". Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The alleged attack has already been discussed above. [53] [54] There is an article talk page to discuss article content disputes. Refusal to do so shows there is no intention to find a consensus. Instead there seems to be a desire to silence another user. Socafan 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
From looking at this editor's contributions one get's the impression that he's on a bit of a "doping" smear campaign when he makes uncited and unsourced edits like this one on Santiago Botero and this one on Floyd Landis. (→Netscott) 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing without sources, the allegations are well known, suppressing them here is POV, and claiming others do "smear campaigns" is a personal attack. Socafan 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I, at least, am no targuing for suppression of allegations. On the other hand, to be perfectly blunt, your phrasing of a lot of things is pretty biased. The goal is not merely a presentation of all relevant facts, but a neutral one. Your additions have fallen pretty far afield of that one. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are very welcome to improve wordings and discuss it at talk, and JzG was welcome to do so all the time, too. Thank you for unprotecting the article and telling JzG that protecting in his preferred version is abuse of admin powers. Socafan 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again I find your characterisation of the dispute al but unrecognisable. When I said that the content had a place in the article but needed to be stated in carefully neutral terms per WP:BLP that is exactly what I meant. If you think that this [55] is an approppriately neutral edit then you have a lot to learn. Just zis Guy you know? 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Your above comment in no way replies to what was written before. You have been warned for abuse of admin power, please stop it now, as well as your condescending tone. Socafan 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bad protection on Lance Armstrong

Could another administrator look at the protection of Lance Armstrong and consider reversing it? It appears that JzG reverted the article to the version he thinks best meets WP:BLP, and then protected it. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I already posted this above. Just zis Guy you know? 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Sourced information was removed without discussion, even the POV-tag, which should never been done before there is consensus. Please block this user for his abuse of powers. Socafan 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
False. There was discussion (or at least I attempted discussion, your refusal to take part or even acknowledge the validity of the underlying premise notwithstanding). The "sourced information", the sources of which are not uniformly reliable, was presented in a heavily slanted way, a point you have yet to accept despite it having been made by every single person who has so far looked at the case, including those Arbitrators who have commented. Even the people who think I acted wrongly in some respects appear to be unanimous in agreeing that there was a problem with what you were trying to add to the article. When people do not accept your arguments the solution is to find better arguments, not to repeat the same arguments only louder. Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You did remove the POV-tag. Twice. You refused to discuss the issues specifically at the article talk page, instead made wholesale reverts and spammed, reverted and blocked my talk page. In case you have doubts about sources discuss it at the article talk page, not here. An admin has undone your block and warned you for misconduct. Please follow your own advise and find arguments instead of abusing your powers. Socafan 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As with your edits to the Armstrong article and most of your descriptions of this dispute so far, I find your characterisation of Phil's comments unrecognisable. I was not "warned for misconduct", Phil agreed that your edits were problematic but pointed out, as one experienced admin to another less experienced, that I had made a mistake. As the discussions show without any ambiguity at all, I accepted his judgment and fully endorsed his subsequent actions; had any such comments been made here (where I posted each action at the time for peer-review; Phil's comment here was some hours after my own inviting review) I would have accepted them in similar vein. I also asked where I went wrong, and have discussed with him whether there is a more effective forum for peer-review of admin decisions. If you want to paint that as vindicating your actions then you are, I'm afraid, deluding yourself. Just zis Guy you know? 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You did remove a POV-tag twice, Phil warned you for abusing your admin power: I think most, though not all of the problems with Socafan's additions are in the quality of his writing, not the content. He's not really adding any material that shouldn't be cited... ... it's very, very bad to protect a page to a preferred version. (Note "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." and "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." "Note also that the protection policy does not support page protection to enforce BLP, and that protecting a page to deal with a user who has recently brought an arbcom case against you is TERRIBLE practice.. Now please leave it. Socafan 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Leyasu is back

Just popped up as NightmareChase27 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Circeus 02:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the user Leyasu is in England and the NightmareChase account is in America, it seems somewhat ridiculous. Circues has also banned people from Brazil, Argentina and France claiming they are Leyasu as well. This is getting beyond a joke with this admin. As unless Leyasu is mystically hoping all around the globe, then Circues is abusing his admin powers. After checking his contributions as well, it isnt just articles relating to Leyasu that he is banning people from editing when they make an edit that doesnt agree with his own POV on a subject. Someone needs to do something about this admin. Metal Maiden 676 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the above user's second edit. Isopropyl 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hum... My Leyasu sense is tingling. Metal Maiden 676 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is displaying an incredible knowledge of the history of Heavy Metal pages (Even I have no idea where exactly is the poll she is refering to here). Also, MetalsMainLady (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), a similar username, has been blocked as a sockpuppet back in June. Observe also that this new user can already tell who blocked another user she apparently has no connection with. I rest my case. Circeus 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
And you know the locations of these editors ... how? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
They're not IPs. Try a checkuser with some of the registered accounts that are suspected sockpuppets of Leyasu and some of the IPs Leyasu has been blocked for using on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#Log of blocks and bans. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Update: Because of the increased activity from (81|86).*.*.* anons today, I have put in a new request for a checkuser involving Leyasu, MetalsMainLady, NightmareChase27, Metal Maiden 676, and several of the IPs that I think Leyasu has used recently. I have posted the request at WP:RFCU and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Newyorkattention and sockpuppet

Minor problem: New user Newyorkattention (talk • contribs) put an plug for something called "The Attention Store" (4 hits in Google) into Attention economy. That was their first edit, and seemed to be an attempt at advertising. So I reverted it. The same material was then reinserted by 66.108.106.207 (talk • contribs), so that's probably a sockpuppet. --John Nagle 17:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: anon user has begun a dialogue with this user. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stormie (talk • contribs)

I recently made a few edits to external links of articles, and an administrator kept reverting the edits, even though they were relevent per [Wikipedia:External_Links]. Could you please talk to them about making the right judgement whether my links should be on there? Thanks. Zealotgi 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna have to agree with Stormie on this. You appear to be linking to a single website on multiple articles. Reviews don't make good external links. Especially when they don't come from reliable newspapers or known film/music critics. This is just a site where random people can write reviews (be it collaboratively). - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, but there were a few, such as a biography on Hulk Hogan, that would have made good external links. Is it okay if I post it on the talk page and see what the community thinks about it first before posting it? Zealotgi 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:YaR GnitS's sockpuppetry, vandalism, and disruption

This situation is getting out of hand and I think more eyeballs are needed. An indefinitely blocked user, YaR GnitS, is apparently intent on pushing the following POV, non-notable, original research material: Gay ICP. When he added it to Insane Clown Posse (the subject matter of his material), the consensus of the other editors was to not include this material, so he created it as a separate article[56]. When I discovered it, I tagged it for deletion[57], and so far the votes have been nearly unanimous for the vote has been decided in favor of deletion.[58] note: check history when looking at the votes, he frequently vandalizes and rewrites editors' votes to reverse them, and you might be looking at a vandalized version.

Then he began to make personal attacks [59] against myself and other users who voted to delete, and to vandalize the afd page to alter people's votes [60]., see afd edit history This earned him an indefinite block[61].

He has now created at least two sockpuppets: YaR GnitS 64 and YaR GnitS 82, and possibly a third: Riddlebox Wraitz. He appears to edit from IP 64.12.116.204 [62], which is AOL so it can't be indefinitely blocked (at least, not until BPP gets implemented!). With one of them he has created a duplicate of his original article which has been speedy deleted [63]; according to RHaworth, who was kind enough to redirect and protect the article, it has been created and speedied no less than three times tonight.

As far as I can tell, there is no question about whether this user is disruptive or deservant of a block. He has displayed nothing but vandalism and disdain for consensus and NPOV since he arrived. He was asked and warned to edit more constructively[64]. The problem now is maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia until he gets bored and goes away. I would like to request assistance in finding his sockpuppets and stopping his vandalism, POV pushing, and personal attacks.

Note: see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of YaR GnitS, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YaR GnitS.

Thanks, Kasreyn 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Er...not that I'm an admin, but Riddlebox Wraitz (talk • contribs) was probably just some name this guy made up. There are no contributions page for the user, and only the User Page and User Talk Page exist. The edit was even made by YaR GnitS. Ryulong 07:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. I wasn't the one who tagged that as a sockpuppet; I'll remove it. Kasreyn 07:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There isn't even a User Creation Log. I would, however, suggest making this a doppleganger account. Ryulong 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's because it isn't a user; [[User:insert name here]] pages can be created without having to have a user to correspond to them. It's probably best to delete, move, or merge these pages somewhere. --ais523 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Suspected Jonny the Vandal

I believe User: JohnJogger and User: Jane Feathers may be aliases of Johnny the Vandal. The two have severely vandalized Chelsy Davy with edits claiming she is a transexual pornstar. Vickser 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Norman Invasion reverted to the (clearly false) vandalized page and put up a semi-protected noticed when no such protection existed. Vickser 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked all of them. --pgk(talk) 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Andrew Homer

I blocked Andrew Homer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for a week for blatant attacks; this is not his first block and he seems completely unrepentant. Above all, he seems intent on personalising a content dispute, and that is never going to be fixed unless he changes his approach radically. Hopefully a longer block will convince him we're serious. If anyone feels this is excessively harsh they are welcome to reduce it; I would hope not below 48 hours, but whatever. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Boquank (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Would someone kindly block this (user page specific) vandalism only account? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, appears to have been taken care of already. (→Netscott) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 146.145.53.123 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Blanking one's warnings among other things. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 83.70.199.1

IP 83.70.199.1 : Has been reverted several times. See 1) [65] 2) [66] Hello32020 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journalist (talk • contribs)

I removed a spam link at University of Toronto and this user bit off my head, and sniped at me for doing so. Ardenn 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then he made a personal attack. Ardenn 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just read the "personal attack", but nothing preceding it. One part: I really dont want to fight (as amusing as I find your childish demeanor), so the most I can say is "have a good night". I wonder why a "childish demeanor" would tend to make one want to fight; here, as in his/her lack of apostrophes, I sense confusion or perhaps simple sleepiness. You're being wished a good night, so "AGF" and have a good night. -- Hoary 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You did the right thing in reverting the link as it is spam. I'd just de-escalate with Orane, who is a long time editor and an administrator here; I'm certain he wishes you no ill will -- Samir धर्म 07:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What does being an admin have to do with it? Do they have different standards when communicating with editors? 208.42.140.43 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They should be held to a higher standard of civility, but they also get slightly more credibility, as they have been vetted rather publically, and humiliatingly in some cases. The key was "long time," in the above: i.e. over a prolonged period of time, this editor has not been a source of trouble nor administrative controversy. That said, everyone gets cranky and grumpy at some point or another, and calling for others to review behavior is not wrong. Geogre 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lior blocked

I've indefinitely blocked Lior (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for making this edit, which reads in part "It is a matter of fact that your father raped your elder sister and then buried her alive in a dumpster". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That link appears to be broken (perhaps from the page move). It is right here. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society

The AfD discussion for Mega Society has been muddied by numerous anonymous IP edits and no less than 8 single purpose accounts listed here. I don't know what anyone can do about it, but some sort of confirmation that someone's paying attention to it would give my weary soul some rest. -- NORTH talk 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I explained on the page. The closing admin will likely ignore all dodgy votes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, can I get an opinion on what should be done with this on the talk page. The comment by Howlinwolf was originally posted in the main discussion, struckthrough by an admin, and was then deleted by his supposed sockpuppet-master and copy and pasted as his own.

I put the original version on the talk page, and am now in a rousing debate with User:MichaelCPrice over whether this is appropriate or not. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- NORTH talk 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Scared by edit summaries at an article

I've been watching 4chan, trying to keep it free of "/b/tardism" (vandalism by users of the Random board of the site) and these edit summaries are scaring me a little:

These were added by JimKandol (talk • contribs) and I'm a little scared, especially because I reverted an edit that had already been reverted. My user page is sprotected (anonymous IP editors can't get me), but this user may be able to edit it, since his account is older. Ryulong 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Gave the user a final warning abakharev 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you Abakharev. If he ignores the warning or if my talk page gets vandalized by IP editors, I'll be posting here, again. Ryulong 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Range blocking of 65.138.68.0/22

There has been repeated abuse of various sorts from the IP range 65.138.68.0 - 65.138.71.255. This culminated with what might be interpreted as death threats towards another user. (see [67] and [68]) This address range maps to a pair of dialup concentrators in Louisville, Kentucky, which I have now range-blocked for 24 hours. -- The Anome 22:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Known Copyvio

Sean Fury (talk • contribs) recently created 4chan List of Memes. This article is a direct copy-paste from WikiWorld's 4chan article. I do not know if he will remove the {{db-copyvio}} tag, or if he will recreate the article, but if he does, then there will be a link to it here. Ryulong 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of IP 82.110.149.183

Hello All,

Firstly I'll introduce myself as Tony Sargeant, Network Manager of St Bernard's Convent School, Slough (see article).

I see that the school IP (82.110.149.183) has been blocked from editing until 12th September 2006. Good, please leave blocked. I agree with your policies being applied to protect the articles.

Is there a way I can stop the St Bernard's School article from being changed? Or be under my control? There are some minor errors in it.

Regards

 --TonySargeant 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You can edit the article, like anyone else; as for "control", please see WP:OWN. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are blocked at your work access from changing the article, you can pass along the changes necessary to another user. However, we don't really lock down any articles, and therefore it is always possible for them to be changed, appropriately or inappropriately. We're pretty vigilant, however. We miss some vandals, and we miss some mistakes, but generally we spot it when a school article gets "booger" edits and the like. Geogre 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:FelsenVonEngland is banned user User:BrittonLaRoche?

Editing same subjects (e.g. Celtic toe, and contributing artwork credited to Britton LaRoche, eg. This will be the third User:BrittonLaRoche sock, reported to WP:SSP Pete.Hurd 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [69], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
So, you say I did this: [70]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I share your concern. I do think Guy Montag should have discussed the move on the talk page before making it. Controversial articles are on many watchlists. Fred Bauder 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blocking of IP 82.110.149.183

Hello All,

Firstly I'll introduce myself as Tony Sargeant, Network Manager of St Bernard's Convent School, Slough (see article).

I see that the school IP (82.110.149.183) has been blocked from editing until 12th September 2006. Good, please leave blocked. I agree with your policies being applied to protect the articles.

Is there a way I can stop the St Bernard's School article from being changed? Or be under my control? There are some minor errors in it.

Regards

 --TonySargeant 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You can edit the article, like anyone else; as for "control", please see WP:OWN. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are blocked at your work access from changing the article, you can pass along the changes necessary to another user. However, we don't really lock down any articles, and therefore it is always possible for them to be changed, appropriately or inappropriately. We're pretty vigilant, however. We miss some vandals, and we miss some mistakes, but generally we spot it when a school article gets "booger" edits and the like. Geogre 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Condoleezza Rice

Condoleezza Rice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is bursting at the seams with insanity once again. Although it's been fprotected, the talk page is getting really nasty, with an overabundance of racist allegations, impersonations, and invasions of privacy. Several users are acting way out of line. Could an administrator please look into the article? Thank you. Isopropyl 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, can someone else close the discussion about proposed changes and request unprotection? Thanks. Isopropyl 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:FelsenVonEngland is banned user User:BrittonLaRoche?

Editing same subjects (e.g. Celtic toe, and contributing artwork credited to Britton LaRoche, eg. This will be the third User:BrittonLaRoche sock, reported to WP:SSP Pete.Hurd 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Andrewwinkler (talk • contribs)...

...appears to be a trolling-only account. I would like to see him indefblocked, but would rather not take the action myself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Brian Peppers

This page is protected, but Peppers, Brian has just been created. I've set a redirect, but a protection is required Clappingsimon talk 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected, and all revisions prior to redirection deleted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it was deleted, it is no longer protected. Kotepho 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's an annoying 'feature'. Thanks to FloNight for restoring protection. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know it's always been that way. Would this be a possible feature request? --Cyde↔Weys 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I know that we can usually speedy-delete articles that redirect to a delete-protected article. Would "Peppers, Brian" be better served with a delete-protection as well? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Peppers, Brian is delete protected and move protected per FloNight according to the history. Is the protection not in place? Syrthiss 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't redirect to the expanded reasoning - the bit that says "This page has been deleted by Jimbo Wales, and should not be re-created until 21 February 2007 at the earliest". --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Is that not what is in place? A redirect to Brian Peppers (which itself has the expanded reasoning), that is fully locked down. Because thats what it looks like. ;) Syrthiss 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no real problem with either result, a delete-protected page or a redirect to a delete-protected page. I suppose the optics of redirecting to a Jimbo-deleted page would serve better. Doesn't matter either way. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AFriendlyKitten (talk • contribs)

User removed a talk page vandalism warning. Although user stopped editing after that, I was told to report it here. Gimmetrow 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Dyslexic agnostic is blocked for 48 hours

User:Dyslexic agnostic is blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks as seen in this edit. User referring to other party in this settled arb-com case as boor and ignorant. Per user's probation the maximum block available to admins is now one year. Steve block Talk 11:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] abusive admin terrorising TPIR editors

I have speedy deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TPIRFanSteve. The page was created by Buckner 1986 (talk • contribs), a user with a history of needlessly escalating conflicts. The sock puppet accusations were conclusively disproven. The page was embarrassing to one party in the The Price is Right dispute (I can't believe I just typed that), and damn well ought to be embarrassing to the other.

Because the assertions made by Buckner 1986 are definitely incorrect; the page has seen no activity in quite some time; both parties, if they're smart, will want it gone; and I'm in a deletin' kinda mood, I've speedied it and reverted the various abusive sockpuppet templates placed on the userpages of TPIRFanSteve (talk • contribs) and several unrelated users. Feel free to pelt me with brickbats ... now. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :) - FrancisTyers · 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no article called Brickbat. Can we use maces instead? Syrthiss 12:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to discuss

I have been the subject of an accusation of violation of WP:ENC by User:Hipocrite on his talk page. There is much background on this, but what I'm coming here for is his refusal to discuss the matter. I tried to respond to the accusation here, but he removed my response without removing this accusation. Isn't making an accusation like that without hearing out the editor in question slanderous and not in accordance with WP:AGF? I thought so, so I said so here, asking to discuss it as equals. He removed it again and again, each time leaving his accusation there. He even "banned" me from posting in his talk page, leaving me an uncivil comment in the process. I read the guidelines for talk pages, didn't see anyhting about banning people from them. And now he's made an "archive for arses" and dumped my comments in there. I think I've put up with this slander, personal attacks and general hostility long enough. Comments would be greatly appreciated; please tell me if I'm in the wrong here. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a posting from an editor that hadn't edited in six months, linking me to encyclopedia dramatica's new mainpage article that is supposed to be about me. I removed it and changed the comments as I do not need , yes trolling like that on my talk page. You later come in and restore an edited version of the comments that I had altered [71]. In this, you reminded me of the obvious and added the editor summary of "rv deliberate mischaracterization of talk page comment by MONGO by changing the heading". Hipocrite removed it for me[72], you reverted [73] he reverted [74] and then you restored it again [75] and again he reverted [76], yet agin, you restored it....[77], so hipocrite then tried to minimize damage with [78]...but that wasn't good enough and you once again, reverted the section heading [79]. Tony Sidaway finally reverted the entire passage to the version I wanted [80]. Basically, I removed the links or mention to that website since at this time, they are enaging in personal attacks against me on their mainpage. Your attempts to point out this fact, even after I had removed them constitutes a personal attack. I have never met you before and this isn't some kind of playground. Guess what happens next to trolls? PsychoMaster indeed.--MONGO 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Once YOU got rid of it, I didn't revert. how was I supposed to know what you wanted? All you had done before was to turn the heading into a personal attack.. The discussion itself was left untouched by you when I reverted the personal attack. Your complaints are baseless and unrelated to my problem with Hipocrite's general superiority attitude. THat issue was (poorly) dealt with and is now dead. ANy other comments? Psycho Master (Karwynn) 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You restored a version that I had altered and mischaracterized it with the edit summary I stated baove...yes it was trolling. Don't play games here.--MONGO 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe anyone here will take your case. "petty bureaucrats always support one another" - quote from: The Book of Balance and Harmony (13th Century Taoist writing) --Acatsfinetoo 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Troll warning...three edits...one being to welcome himself to Wikipedia...[81]--MONGO 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're in the wrong. Also quite wrong when you claim, on my talkpage, that I've "alleged" you committed policy violations. No, I haven't. If you post on MONGO's page again it won't be for violating paragraph 10 B of policy 6 R, Amendment 173 that I'll block you, it'll be for inconsiderate obnoxiousness and not using common sense. I get to do that. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC). P. S. And leave Hipocrite alone, too. Don't post on his page. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
      • I'm not even talking about you here. Please try to be more observant. Is there any chance we can be civil here?Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wrongful accusations

DyslexicEditor (talk • contribs) is making up lies about me and posting them to other users talk pages. Posting on Ed Poor's talk page "MONGO on wikipedia has impersonated you on Encyclopædia Dramatica as one of the sock puppets he used to vandalize their article about him, the other is MONGO1. I would link to proof to ED's "MONGO" article but MONGO has ordered me not to link to it (he has also removed the link to it from the article so you will have to see the article's history for the link). I am asking for a statement that it was not you." I have not used another wikipedians username anywhere else, and this is a lie deliberately designed to further discredit me. I stated unambiguously that I have never edited encyclopedia dramatica nor anywhere else that posts in a wiki-style format. I stated that I know that someone has deliberately used my username on ED and at unencyclopedia. DyslexicEditor has also posted links to ED to blocked editors encouraging them to make comments about us there [82] and other places in a deliberate attempt to harass me and/or promote that website via wikipedia.[83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. The main problem I have is the personal defamation campaign DyslexicEditor is engaging in.--MONGO 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, one more example of him accusing me of signing up as Ed Poor at that other website...[88]--MONGO 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block commensurate with the scale of the attacks. One week? --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you think is best as I can see no reason that we should support the defamation of any Wikipedian here by linking others to off wiki sites and pages that serve solely to harass.--MONGO 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DyslexicEditor also created an attack redirect page, making Unfunny (now speedy deleted for being an attack) which redirected to encyclopedia dramatica. --mboverload@ 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure its an attack as such, it was created a week ago and the creating edit summary suggests it is one of the ways they describe themseleves (which I can well believe). --pgk(talk) 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please block 24.252.28.188 (talk • contribs), it seems that they are impersonating MONGO on ED causing the source of all this trouble, it would be a good bet that this IP belongs to DyslexicEditor and should be blocked as the source of off wiki personal attacks and disruption--messanger 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's actually quite funny, because yesterday that IP edit history included an edit to North Saskatchewan River which seems to have ceased to exist in the last few hours--Max Bialystock 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit war at Google

There is an edit war at Google regarding whether mention of Chinese censorship belongs in the introductory paragraph. While an attempt to arrive at consensus is being made at Talk:Google, certain editors continue to insert the text despite continued warning that it should remain out until consensus is reached. Countless edits/reverts have ensued (with likely 3RR violations). I'm especially concerned with User:Spet1363 admitting that s/he also edits under User:129.67.89.102 (perhaps to avoid 3RR?) [89]. Again today, rather than working towards consensus, that editor re-inserted the disputed content under the anon IP [90], while placing this comment in talk [91]. It is apparent that Spet/129 is not willing to allow consensus to decide whether the content should be included. Options? Partial protect the page? Temporary block to let tempers cool? Intervention is appreciated. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Have you tried a straw poll on the talk page? --Improv 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Its there now. Thanks for the (obvious) suggestion. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Threats and legal stuff at Mitch Modeleski

Mitch Modeleski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Presumably Mitch Modeleski himself is posting cease-and-desists over the text of this article, as User:Supremelaw, User talk:166.214.106.208, and User talk:166.214.16.223.

Diffs:

I don't want to be the target of legal action by this guy, so I no longer want to be involved in this. --Chris (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit ([106]) quotes an old threat that was posted against me on my talk page weeks ago. I think this person may be unbalanced. Fan-1967 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: [107]. The user has started an email correspondance with me, threatening me with legal action, apparantly under the misguided belief that I am incharge of wikipedia (!) I have since replied to him asking that he direct his comments to the article talk page, not me, and I explained that I do not own wikipedia. Could we have page protection on the page in question so that the edit wars calm down? It should also be noted that the company for which the user works (ie his company) charges an extorionate rate for sorting out their own copyright issues, which the usere claims this is (but I dont see how it can be). Martinp23 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. I have protected the article. I have reduced it to a stub because the content was not cited; this is what we are supposed to do in cases of biographies of living individuals - specifically: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.". If editors can provide valid citations from reliable sources for the removed content then I am sure it can be reinserted. I have left a comment on the article's Talk page to this effect. I just know I'm going to get in trouble for this, but since the ANI seems to be only sporadically monitored and this does look like a highly volatile and litigious individual I have adopted the precautionary principle. I am off now and will probably not be logging again until tomorrow, so to be unambiguous any admin is welcome to undo any or all the above, to reduce to semi-protection or whatever. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] sockpuppet with a vanity article and a history of link-spamming

64.1.198.83, 70.89.181.10, Fiber-optics and Timbercon appear to be accounts owned by the same user to spam links for a small fiber-optics business, Timbercon. They also have a vanity article, Timbercon, which I have nominated for deletion. On June 2, they got one spam warning, then they used another account to add the same links again a few days later. Then June 12, another account was warned and links reverted. Then more spam-links were added by still another account.

There's an ongoing back and forth between me and these users at Talk:Timbercon. Repeatedly cleaning up link-spam, warning (politely at first), dealing with the vanity article, then with the sock-puppets objections spread across multiple talk pages, my talk page and the article talk page -- all of this is consuming hours of my time. The objections are disingenuously masked in a friendly, "how can I improve" manner that is belied by a review of all 4 accounts' talk pages and edit histories.

Any advice or help from admins before I just walk away; I've got my day job to consider and can waste no more time on this (in other words, the sockpuppet is about to win). --A. B. 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article to conform with WP content policies, as for the sockpuppetry, you mat want to add a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised to learn they're notable with so few employees and such a low profile, but then I'm fairly new (<1500 edits). I probably should have just minded my own business instead of fooling with the spam links, sock puppets, notability, AfD and such. It's not as if any of this really damages the encyclopedia.
I've not used RFCU before but it looks like there are some high hurdles imposed for an RFCU:
  • Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.
  • Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.
  • Please do not list cases involving "throwaway" accounts that are only used for a few edits.
  • Data is kept for a limited time so we cannot compare against accounts that have not edited recently.
As an admin and based on your experience, do you think this sockpuppet group meets these hurdles? If not, what steps, if any, should I take next?
Also, should I try to get that URL blocked using the blacklist?

Thanks,--A. B. 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire Terrier Article

HELP! Why am I being blocked? I have nothing to do with the vandlism that is being alleged. IS Wiki just blocking everyone who uses AOL?

What's more, I edited the Yorkshire Terrier article with important links that were missing (check shooterdog.com, workingyorkie, and earthdog yorkie for examples. NON COMMERICIAL sites and they were deleted. MEanwhile, Smokey the War Hero dog - a commerical -for profit site is being hosted. WHY? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately innocent users do sometimes get caught up in blocks, I'm sorry about that but sometimes, when a vandal is persistent we have no choice but to block the IP for a short time.As dor the yorkshire terrier article I suggest you ask at the talk page of that article, where people will be able to ecplain thier deletions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning two accounts by the same person...

I don't know if this is the right page for this, but I'm just suspicious that Panda52 and Butterfly52 are the same user. Note their user pages. Both of them are similar in their bad grammar. It's just a hunch, but whoever each of those two are both put the wrong date in the Aalog-Alog article. - 上村七美 | talk 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as they aren't violating policy or doing any other malicious things there's nothing wrong with a person having two or more accounts although it is discourged, see WP:SOCK for more information on that. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] General Tojo's true identity

General Tojo is actually one of the many sockpuppets of User:JoanneB. And I can confirm this fact; SPUI has told me of it via email, and can confirm it.

Ask SPUI for more info - he's got the full story. --Holcon 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a very serious charge. I suggest you contact a member of Arbcom and offer to e-mail them your proof. They can run appropriate checks if needed. Thatcher131 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This allegation is patently false. I've blocked Holcon for 15 hours for making it. Trolling on WP:AN/I is not to be tolerated. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd already blocked indefinitely, contributions are very similar to a bunch of users recently such as [108], placing blockedsock templates on their own page for a variety of admins etc. Complaining that the blockedsock template was broken (which this latest incarnation's first edit was to fix) etc. --pgk(talk) 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So we can block people for disagreeing with us now? Evil saltine 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Who blocked whom for disagreeing with whom? Holcon was blocked for trolling. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] How to report abusive admin editing? / updated with details

What is the proper procedure for this? I suspect an admin is trolling/being abusive and biased on a certain article. thanks! rootology 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just put it here, or on AN/I (preferable.) Have you posted on their talk page and tried to work it out first? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Extensively. The following users are aggressively attacking the Encyclopædia Dramatica article since it was unprotected, frivously editing, deleting, and removing content in a very hostile fashion, despite repeated requests that such changes be done properly and discussed first on the talk page. MONGO's behavior especially has been wildly boorish and insulting--I don't even have anything to do with this, and just came into to try to push a NPOV/non biased POV as a middle ground. In response I've been accused of trolling, and the edit war persists. I want to ask that MONGO be at least temporarily stripped of sysop permissions based on his:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MONGO
outrageous antics and comments</a>. I don't know or am interested in whether the 3rd party ED article that flamed him is relevant or not. His boorish behavior and commentary are not representative of the type of person that should be in a position of power. It reflects negatively on wikipedia in general. The following are making the massive edits/deletions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.112.141.236 (recommend blocking IP temporarily)
Additionally, it was requested in the talk page of the article that time be given to cite sources. In response, these three went on a prolonged systemtic deletion spree in response and are fighting still--the admins themselves have turned it into an edit war. I will put it in AN/I too. rootology 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
One place or the other, not both. A "massive deletion spree" is not only not a problem, it is laudable, if (as from what you're saying is the case) there is unsourced content on the article. "Wait, I'll find a source" is not a free pass to ignore WP:V. Find a source that meets RS criteria, then the content can be added to the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There are three talk page archives about every sentence in that article regarding references. What MONGO is doing is just plain disruption. SchmuckyTheCat 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And I went to check the article, and Karwynn is using a link to an Afd debate as a source. Um, right. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is hard to see any credibility to this when I am labelled as "boorish". The article failed to meet WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:NPOV...geez, you name it.--MONGO 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437662
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&curid=1975039&diff=64414695&oldid=64413700
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414908
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=64526606
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64527993
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=64419547
Thanks.Note your last edit there is you actually deleting a request that you be investigated. Isn't that a conflict of interest? 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You unilaterally protected the article and began to edit it, and then protected the talk page so no one couold have any input, also refusing to hear about it on your own talk page. YOu cut much of the article's talk page out and archived it, even when it was still active headings. You threatened and intimidated users who mentioned the matter. You deleting huge chunks of the article, without even a note in the talk page, and continued to delete rather than insert "fact" tags or other notices of disputes. You reverted several attempts to include sources. YOu have been intentionally deletionist and uncooperative. That's how you've been "boorish". Karwynn (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You cite a blocked troll's edits? How amusing. Everyone of you people are misusing wikipedia to POV push encyclopedia dramatica and should be permabanned.--MONGO 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
All my edits before getting pulled into this mess had nothing to do with ED. I pushed and pushed in the talk pages for a balanced, fair, by the books review/changes, nothing more, until I was met with increasingly hostile replies and apparent abuse. I have nothing to do with ED. I should be permabanned for publically airing what I perceived to be a possibe admin abuse issue? rootology 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed original research here since it wasn't verifiable:here, same here, and here, then added this, removed again an unreliable source here, the added a references tag, then removed this attempt at link farming and removed the link farm again. Nothing I have done violates any policy...the IP listed above is the one doing most of the deletions. As far as the talk page, it was doing nothing to make the article better...hence I added the boilerplates at the top now, since it has become a troll magnet...I now see several editors working the page that are all SYSOPS at encycliopedia dramatica...or at least have the same usernames...who are you people trying to fool here with this nonsense. This isn't some playground where you get to promote the filth on that website.--MONGO 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you have my sympathies. Good luck. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It also seems as though User:24.252.28.188, a sockpuppet of User:DyslexicEditor is being used to impersonate MONGO on both en.wikipedia and ED, MONGO made the correct first steps in deleting all the edits from wikipedia in which 24.252.28.188 was pretending to be him, even signing his name, but given the severity of cross wiki personal attacks, MONGO would be well within his rights to block this IP for at least a month, and give DyslexicEditor a chance to cool down--messanger 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Nine edits. Admitted run-in contributor. Karwynn (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That IP is not used by DyslexicEditor...it appears he uses AOL.--MONGO 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoever they are, leaving an impersonator running around unblocked is bound to cause problems--messanger 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? We don't block anyone because they vandalized another website...since when. Do a range block on AOL if you want to catch DyslexicEditor--MONGO 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
yes, but the edits that you deleted from this IPs history showed it doing the same thing here, on wikipedia, even signing your name in articles that you frequent, it seems like a border line wiki-stalker, I don't think deleting its wikipedia edit history is enough, a block may be the only thing that can stop future impersonation attempts--messanger 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see deleted-page-histories as well as the next person, it seems that someone who goes around wikipedia editing articles that you edit, and signing your name to talk pages has no intention of playing nice, the fact that they would export vandalism from ED to Wikipedia shows their intent to continue their attacks on you--messanger 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So why the complete disregard for discussion, MONGO? Why all the secrecy? Why the attempt to exclude sourced information from the article? Karwynn (talk)
What sourced info? You mean from unreliable sources?--MONGO 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't you mange to discuss their reliability? Even Hipocrite managed that! It's obvious that ED articles can be used to verify the existence of ED article themes, even if the actual info isn't necessarily accurate. Karwynn (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, the E.D. article is now up for deletion (again). (→Netscott) 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I know little about this debate and have only had positive experiences with MONGO in the few times I've had anything to do with him here. I can see that ED hosts an extremely derogatory page which I'm sure he finds very insulting (having read it, I can definitely say that I'd be infuriated if it was written about me). It would strain the best of editors' patience and temper to deal with such inflammatory and personal attacks. Therefore, and I don't mean any disrespect, it seems a tad inappropriate for him to be personally involved in dealing with the issue. I suggest that MONGO ought to recuse himself from dealing with the article on ED to avoid the appearance of partiality. There are plenty of other administrators who can defend that particular article from vandalism, trolls, etc. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As the following user continues to quickly complete edit out changes to the article while editors are making "good faith" attempts to work on the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hipocrite

I am requesting that he officially be banned for at least 24 hours from editing the ED article. rootology 23:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I stand behind my edit history. I have no non-vandalism reverts on that article to my knowledge, and am certainly not engaging in the fruitless editwar. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So you see no bias or conflict of interest for either yourself or MONGO to directly participate in this article given the recent problems? I request again that both yourself and MONGO do not participate in this. There are literally HUNDREDS of other editors more suited at the time being. I don't mind others making valid edits, but given the hostile tone from MONGO and the sheer determination of yourself to work at removing the article from wikipedia outright, I believe this is a conflict of interest in your role and position. rootology 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that you're just as determined to see it survive so claiming others as being incapable of not being biased is really a double standard. Going around claiming others are abusing their position etc., demanding those that disagrree with you recluse themselves...how obtuse can one get?--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Concerns over pending deletion vote of Encyclopedia Dramatica

The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself.

If the vote and discussion from the article is a "keep" or no concensus, I am concerned that some action may be unilaterally taken vs. this article after the vote possibly, going against concensus. Questions in regards to this have been ignored on the vote page, while every other question/comment from parties opposed to the article's existence have been met with swiftness. rootology 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "vote"...--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That is fine for syntax clarification, thank you. I expect if a decision of keep or no concensus of the discussion is clearly reached, it will be honored as is standard...? rootology 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel bad for whoever is going to close that mess. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have evidence that the attempt at deletion was a premeditated act to destroy the article: [109]( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are strong accusations from you. I think that it would be good if you offered an apology.--MONGO 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually no, almost any AFD nom is a "premediated attempt to destroy an article". That is, after all, the point of nominating something for AFD - to remove something that the nominator believes is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would hope that AFD noms are premeditated - I would hate to think that people would nominate articles for deletion on the spur of the moment. Calling an AFD nom "a premeditated attempt to destroy an article" is like calling article creation a "premeditated attempt to create an article". It is rather impolite to phrase it that way, trying to spin a perfectly normal action into something sinister. Guettarda 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
(But very amusing now that you've pointed it out! Tyrenius 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
If the community decides they don't want the article, then fine, it can go. I don't see a problem with this. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The actions and comments from certain members of the keep side of the debate are really quite shameful. If anyone wonders why admins burn out or get upset occasionally, one need only look at the onslaught of willful ignorance and the completely undeserved sense of entitlement being utilized by certain members of that debate, threatening current editors who have had the courage to speak their mind, and even against anyone who would potentially enforce policy in regards to this debate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples, please? I've seen no threats or intimidation from anyone but MONGO and Hipocrite, mostly MONGO. Karwynn (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
m:Don't be a dick should have a corollary, m:People are dicks.

[edit] Emails

Am I the only who received a ridiculously long-winded ranty email regarding this? Twice actually. The same both time. 207.96.237.60 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I had no activated the cookies when connecting. Circeus 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I got one, too [110]. I made a note of it in the AfD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that every admin (except those complained about, which includes me and MONGO) received a copy. Oh well, at least one recipient has forwarded the silly thing to the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No copy was sent to my inbox. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Zscout, be careful what you wish for. The only thing I learned from the copy I received was that MONGO was an Admin (for some reason I had presumed he wasn't) -- the letter does not make it clear who is doing what to whom, except that one or more individuals are alleged to be acting very badly. -- llywrch 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Was the IP address of the emailer used by any other usernames? Can that be looked into to see who sent it? rootology 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I got this email too. -- JamesTeterenko 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the sending IP address in use by any usernames on wikipedia? rootology 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I got one too, even though I'm listed in it for deleting an attack image. I guess I'll have to investigate myself ;). NoSeptember 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I got two, from different senders. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I got FIVE, from one sender (User:Rptng03509345) -- Samuel Wantman 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And I see hw has now been blocked. Blocking still allows the use of Special:Emailuser, the possibility of blocking that should be requested to prevent abuse? Circeus 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I also received such an email from User:Rptng03509345. I guess email needs to be allowed from blocked users as it is one way they can request unblocking.--A Y Arktos\talk 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • the emailer may be using this page as a place to copy and paste from. It has all the same info.--MONGO 10:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shove deep and thrust

User:Shove deep and thrust has been vandalizing some, but the name itself may be a problem. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The user name is benign. For all we know, he could be referring to the act of digging a deep whole with a shovel. Maybe that's what he's doing right now. Who knows? But let's not read so much into usernames. --AaronS 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The account has already been idefinately blocked. Nothing to see hear. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] legal threat or lame trolling attempt?

Someone on Wikinews posted a possible legal threat towards me. She claimed that I applied for access to a chat room, which I did not. In fact, I don't even use chat rooms much at all. I have a feeling that this is just a lame trolling attempt. How should I deal with this situation? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks to Avador (talk • contribs) for bringing this to my attention. --Ixfd64 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of phishing attempt to me, or someone is trying to stalk you. Ignore it. It's garbage. Fan-1967 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Note "internet securities act of 1983"????? Good one. Fan-1967 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that does seem like a silly attempt to get my personal information. I'm not too worried about it. Thanks for the input! --Ixfd64 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to report that post to the Wikinews administrators. --Ixfd64 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. There is no conceivable legitimate purpose, and the legal stuff is absolute crap. Fan-1967 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wing Nut & copyright

I thought I'd bring this up since it seems to be a recurring issue. Wing Nut (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is lifting entire passages from copyright protected sources (newspapers, magazines) and insterting them into articles as statements of fact without any attribution other than an external link to the source. Recent examples are Mike Hammer: [111] and Roy Spencer: [112] I've added attributing language to these edits to avoid the NPOV and copyvio issues but I'm not the one to have a word with him since we've had content-related disputes, but someone should. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AfD spam only sockpuppet

Would someone kindly indef block Funcionar (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Shanes took care of it. Thanks Shanes! (→Netscott) 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Scandinavia yet again

Same old revert war at Scandinavia. [113] On one side we have a number of experienced Wikipedia editors and on the other we have User:Comanche_cph and User:Supermos who do essentially nothing except fight about this. Both of them have five or more reverts on that page in the last 24 hours. A typical argument from them is: "TELL ME WHAT IS MORE RELIABLE THAN THE SWEDISH NATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOTHING!" and "As I have said and will continue to say nothing is more official than the school books of ones country and the national encyclopedias of ones country." As far as I can see neither of them is making any attempt to familiarize himself with basic Wikipedia policies and principles. Can someone buy us some peace over there? Haukur 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Comanche_cph for 24 hours for violating the 3RR (a repeat incident, as his talk page shows - he's been blocked and warned before). User:Supermos doesn't seem to have been warned before so I've given him the usual last-chance-before-blocking warning and urged him to resolve the matter without edit warring. I've also rolled back the last edit by Supermos (choosing a more-or-less random version from someone else). If you wish, I'm happy to act as an informal mediator - I'm emphatically not involved in the dispute, though I am fairly familiar with the region and something of a Scandinavophile (is that a word??). Let me know on my talk page if you feel this would be helpful. -- ChrisO 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stephanie Adams

Poorly sourced negative material about this individual (a source of wikipedia controversy) is being multiply reverted into the article. I require immediate adminstrative assistance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if some admin could look at it, that would be helpful. Garion96 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Samanello

This is a brief notice that I blocked User:Samanello for 24 hours for vandalism (actually, for WP:POINT and generally for being deliberately disruptive). User was subsequently blocked indefinitely by another admin and then proceeded to make legal threats against me. Sometime thereafter, user requested to be unblocked and a third admin looked in to the matter. In order to centralise discussion, I set up User:Yamla/Samanello containing the discussion thus far. I do not believe anyone else needs to get involved but I am noting this information here in case anyone else wants to double-check what is going on and in the interests of being open. --Yamla 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Karnagio (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I'm concerned by this user's edits and actions. Appears to only have the intent of attacking admins.[114]. Yanksox 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider this a priority. He commented on my talk page in regards to my reverting this edit and we've had some discussion. However, while we were conversing, he created an anti-administrator template and began posting it on administrator's userpages. One can see that he's decidely determined to be antagonistic from the comments left on my talk page. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Johnny the Vandal. Same as the now-blocked User:Novart. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
King of Hearts has blocked the user for a week. While I do see some irony in the matter, whether or not the user is Johnyy the Vandal, they have no productive edits. If no one objects, I am going to make the block indefinite. JoshuaZ 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just going to suggest the same thing. It's what we do with abuse-only accounts, surely? Not give them a week off. Bishonen | talk 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC).
Per Bishonen, I have blocked the user indefinitely. If anyone disagrees feel free to unblock. JoshuaZ 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hundreds of edits, many bad articles

I know this page says it doesn't deal with abusive behaviour, but I can't find another place to post about this issue.User:L.G. seems to have some sock puppets, like User:68.8.29.40 and User:68.101.241.195. If this isn't the correct page to use asking for assistance, please do take a moment to point me to the proper spot.

These users have created nonsense articles that we've been filing for deletion:

If you dig into the edit history of the deleted articles, you'll find another username or two. You will also find that the user reverts, blanks, and modifies AfD and PROD tags.

The user-set will occassionally add articles about valid stations, but they're poorly written with badly-checked facts and other problems. Contact attempts at the L.G. talk page haven't helped.

They have made literally hundreds of edits to List of urban-format radio stations in the United States. -- Mikeblas 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user. The next time he creates a hoax article like this he should be blocked and the article(s) speedily deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-19 05:34Z


[edit] Disruption and possible original research by IP editor

67.22.6.175 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) was brought to my attention by the disruptive edits he made at Power Rangers: Mystic Force, which can be said to be orignal research, however the content of his edits are well received by the Power Rangers fandom. In fact, the information he stated is listed in the trivia section prior to his edits, as well as on other pages related to the series. It's just that the diction of his edits are a little condescending: "Five bucks says Nick is Bowen" and "Anyone who has done any research...". While the gist of these statements are regarded as true, I don't think they are necessary for inclusion in the article. I had left messages on the user's talk page, a test3 with some personalization and then he had done the second contribution while I was leaving him the message. I then gave him a test4 with other personalization and then listed him on WP:AIV, and then I was directed to list him here through a message left on my talk page. I'm not sure as to what should be done. Ryūlóng 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Saskatchewan Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

64.110.251.69 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is POV pushing over at Saskatchewan Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --Ardenn 02:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blocked user Todd Bridges / Biff Ioman9 / Impostor Georgewiliamherbert back at 70.53.111.253

See Special:Contributions/70.53.111.253; this user was blocked by Shimgray as an impostor of my account some weeks ago, and is now back via this IP continuing to vandalize people's home pages and continuing the argument on User talk:Georgewiliamherbert.

I leave it up to reviewing admins, but an IP block seems like a good idea to me... Georgewilliamherbert 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Todd Bridges for some of the history. Georgewilliamherbert 06:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deglr6328 attacks at Eric Lerner

User:Deglr6328 appears to "have it in" for fellow editor, User:Elerner and an article about him, Eric Lerner, examples include:

While I appreciate that User:Deglr6328 personally does not appear to approve of Lerner, nor his work, promoting those views in a Wiki article is not the place to do so. I would like to see User:Deglr6328 banned from editing the article Eric Lerner. --Iantresman 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. We don't ban people from articles for having editing disputes: and in this case, I think, it would be a double standard to do so: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL doesn't mean that the subjects of articles should be immune from reasoned criticism.. and the fact that the subject is actually editing the article, frankly, swings the balance the OTHER way. If Lerner is going to edit the article on himself (which I really don't think he should), he's going to have to accept that editors critical of him are going to edit the article, too. I'm going to get involved in the dispute and see what I can accomplish. Mangojuicetalk 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If the subject of the article was being equally uncivil, or presenting unveriable information, I'd completely agree with you about balance. But I accept your willingness to step in, and appreciate your time. --Iantresman 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Eric Lerner engages in personal attacks and incivility all the time. That's why there is an RfC for him that has been open for months. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dora Venter AfD

After discussion on here several days ago, User:Sceptre reopened a second AfD on Dora Venter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Venter (2nd nomination) after the first one was messed with by User:Haham hanuka, the article's creator. Now Haham hanuka closed the 2nd nomination as keep despite no decision in that way (I know we don't vote, but nose count says 8-5 for delete, 2 of the keeps being weak keeps), at best this is no consensus. In addition, he voted in the AfD. I reverted his closing of it as he is too involved to be closing it. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? This is the second time he's impeded on AfDs for this article (an article that had been deleted four previous times as speedys [121]). Metros232 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Persistently acting in bad faith. Restart the AfD and block HH for the duration. (Alteratively, warn him and then block for a week if he edits the AfD in any way except to cast a single "vote." Thatcher131 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sceptre blocked the user for a week and a new article was found on her between the reopening of the AfD and now [122]. So I don't know what exactly to do now. Maybe the AfD should be withdrawn to allow User:AnonEMouse the ability to expand the article? Metros232 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The AfD has 2 more days to go. Whomever closes it should take into account not just the raw count of opinions but their substance. It is not unusual for an article to develop during AfD so that it ends up getting kept even if the early opinions are to delete. And there is always WP:Deletion Review if the outcome still seems wrong. Thatcher131 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
In actual fact, it's a restoration of deleted material. I'm letting the AFD run, and HH's single vote should stand. Will (message me!) 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] User:AlexWilkes

Several other users and I have been having problems with User:AlexWilkes for some time now regarding his edits to football-related articles. He's not a vandal and I honestly believe his edits are in good faith, but many of them just aren't helping. He adds dozens of tabloid-style headings to articles (ie here), which is discouraged in the MofS, or duplicate (and unwikified) information already recorded elsewhere on the page. Furthermore, he never responds to his talk page and doesn't appear to even read it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. SteveO 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted them about WP:MOSHEAD and told him that he should try and understand that all articles have to fall under this style guide. Has anyone else tried to tell him about this, SteveO? Iolakana|T 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Numerous other users have tried to tell him about this and other issues but with no success. Just read through the messages on his talk page and you'll see what I mean. SteveO 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Username block/vandalism acccount

Would someone kindly take a look at Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? This account appears bannable on both the username and the user's subsequent edits. Also please consider speedy deleting the image they're using to vandalize. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Username blocked. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks RadioKirk. (→Netscott) 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Where should inappropriate usernames be reported?

Up until recently, I posted them here, but nowadays I'm putting them on AIV. Is there any policy? IMHO, blatantly inappropriate ones should go to AIV.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, at least for ones that obviously merit an immediate block. Controversial ones can go to WP:RFC/NAME. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed AIV is the place, for less immediate asking the user first if they'd consider changing is also a good option. --pgk(talk) 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll bear that in mind. :-) (→Netscott) 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] help me

hi a vandal is intent on having me banned because he claims it is aginst the rules to have a aol connection he is intent on having me banned and has resorted to personal attacks please could some one help. for evidence please go to my talk page. --Hunter91 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklist for linkspammer?

Could someone with privileges on Meta consider blacklisting the site http://www.ringtones-dir.com? I just saw one instance of inserting hidden links into an article here, and I suspect that there are – or will be – more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There were (and probably are) more, based on the Google site search I just ran, on several non-English Wikipedias (or sort of non-English, too: there's a SCOTTISH Wikipedia?: Gin ye dinna want yer writin tae be editit athoot mercy an redistribute at will, than dinna submit it here). Someone with access to the proper tools ought to run a search on the current state of Wikipedia, not Google's probably outdated cache. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Use Special:Linksearch. I found 2. nuking now. Thatcher131 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Also added to m:Talk:Spam_blacklist. Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You can remove it; I just added it to the blacklist itself. Essjay (Talk) 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV pushing at AFD for ED

I was recent changes patrolling, and the following new users caught my attention because they already had User Pages: Fethawildthunder (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and Magisgonorpanther (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). They claim to be using Wikipedia to send a message, the second of which has a link and a copy-paste from Waropl (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)'s User page. And then I found the same message at Trazombigblade (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). It seems that these users are contacting people who voted in the last AfD for Encyclopædia Dramatica to vote, again. All contribute the same message to different users. I contacted Trazombigblade and told him what he was doing was wrong, and he merely replied "I disagree" and he appears to have stopped. I listed them all at WP:AIV, and the first two were blocked, but it was suggested that I bring the other two here for input. Trazombigblade was the most prominent of these editors, and I haven't seen any other editors do the same, as of yet. Ryūlóng 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All are blocked. Wanted you to put this here because it's more permanent than AIV. That way we can track this a bit easier. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Amazing.--MONGO 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

At what point does this AfD need to be restarted from scratch? --InShaneee 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think spamming and improper behavior on this AfD are avoidable (and that goes for both sides of the debate). Let the AfD continue and perhaps make a link or two to this kind of a post so that any particular closing admin might be able to factor in such examples of spamming/solicitous behavior, etc. (→Netscott) 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


The wording on the AfD itself was also edited repeatedly *after* it was posted, making it sound, if I may, more severe and/or 'worse' than the original as posted. Is this an issue? Looking for comments from others beside original AfD poster. rootology 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Waropl doesn't appear to be blocked, but he wasn't one of the users who posted the same extremely long message. I would be suspicious of any new users who have user pages with the message "I am here to deliver a message, I am not a troll, etc." within a minute or so of creation. Ryūlóng 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been spammed on my email address that links to my User page by a user who is unknown to me in regards to this AfD. I don't know if this person is spamming everyone, or only admins, or only certain admins, but the behavior is highly inappropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This diff by Hardvice (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) makes me wonder if that user is not our culprit? (→Netscott) 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
My email was spammed also by User:Rptng03509345, who seems to have been indef blocked. Vsmith 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that user is undoubtedly a sockpuppet of another user. I'm thinking that user hardvice (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) might be our spammer. (→Netscott) 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2007-07-19 SPUI

I'm at a loss to figure out which of the many SPUI probations have expired, or whether one is still active. But please block for at least a week, so that the rest of us can sort this out.

For the past several weeks, s/he has been edit warring over Ontario provincial highways. S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again. Ensuing signs of extreme embitterment.

This page was fully annotated (by me) with legal references. Apparently, SPUI is some kind of wiki-lawyer, without formal legal experience.

Today, s/he is at 3 reverts, all with the edit summary including "crap".

  1. revert crap - READ THE LAW MORE CAREFULLY
  2. revert crap
  3. revert incorrect crap again

I'm at my 3RR limit, and ask that the page be reverted to the most recent William Allen Simpson and protected. (Please do not protect at one of the incorrect SPUI states.)

Likewise, at limited-access roads, every requested fact has been annotated, so that the annotated page is full of them, and yet SPUI persists in edit warring, covering the page with "original research" and "disputed" tags.

  1. revert inclusion of crap
  2. revert inclusion of incorrect crap
  3. fine... I'll leave it in and mark it as the steaming turd that it is
  4. more tags

This is an abuse of process. Please protect the most recent William Allen Simpson.

--William Allen Simpson 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an abuse of AN/I space, sir. — Jul. 19, '06 [14:42] <freak|talk>

Have you read the talk page of List of Ontario provincial highways? Myself and another editor have both told you that you're dead wrong, and notified you on your user talk page, but you continue to revert. As for limited-access road, everything I marked as uncited or original research is such.

You're also wrong about "S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again." I "lost" the one about Ontario, and have done nothing else with it. The one for Category:limited-access roads is still being discussed due to William's improper close; he was heavily involved in the debate, and closed it at his view when it could have gone either way. --SPUI (T - C) 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, Mr. Simpson closed it to retain the status quo, when no other participant in the discussion supported keeping the status quo. — Jul. 19, '06 [14:49] <freak|talk>

There aren't any magic admin buttons to solve a content dispute. The "block SPUI" button isn't it. The "protect the page in William's version" isn't it either. Haukur 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference, ArbCom remedies imposed Jul 5, 2006 related to highways - [123] Syrthiss 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways: 2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.

-- Drini 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This was perhaps misfiled at WP:ANI instead of WP:AE. Having said that, both parties are acting unreasonably in edit warring. I've asked them both to stop at once. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the very first sentence, I was unsure whether SPUI still had a current probation. Some clerk fell down on the job, as SPUI is not listed as a participant on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests/Involved parties since February 2006.

As to your other comment, you expect unilateral capitulation? Or that every page edit by SPUI should result in an individual Arbitration, rather than just reverting it?

--William Allen Simpson 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The page you cite has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee or the Clerks' Office. It seems to have been a private project of NoSeptember (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), and was updated between April and June of this year.
I have not requested unilateral capitulation. I have asked both of you to stop edit warring. I expect you to engage in civil discussion. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss your concerns with my edits on the talk pages of the articles, and realize that you can be (and often are) wrong. --SPUI (T - C) 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that you were warned about civility, as well. The point of all this is that the ArbCom reiterated that there is no consensus, and to continue acting as if you have it is disruptive. --InShaneee 16:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is consensus that (a) adding obviously incorrect information is bad and (b) removing {{fact}} tags is bad. --SPUI (T - C) 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact SPUI hasn't been blocked for violation both the civility and disruption conditions set by the most recent Arbcom is disturbing. If other editors involved in that Arbcom have to be civil and refrain from disruptive edit warring on highway articles, why is SPUI being held to a different standard? He is being disruptive, no one questions this above as it is without question. My question then is why isn't one of the Admins here doing their job. A block is proscribed and anything less then institution of said block does nothing but negate the entire validity of the Arbcom. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Administrators have discretion and are expected to use their common sense. Nothing would be served by a block or a ban at this point. Both sides are opinionated and a little unreasonable, but they're talking and no longer edit warring. I've warned SPUI about incivility as reported above by William Allen Simpson. --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it serve as a warning to him that Arbcom is serious and that his behavior is unacceptable? Wouldn't it prevent the ongoing war on that page? If Arbcom decisions aren't going to be enforced that what is the point of having an arbcom? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a request to WP:AE. I will note that s/he is now tag teaming with administrator FreakofNurture to avoid 3RR.

--William Allen Simpson 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't ask for a page to be protected on your version, though. Protecting on a specific version isn't generally done except in cases of simple vandalism and the like; protection is supposed to be a preventive measure to help edit wars cool down, deter extreme cases of vandalism, and prevent vandalism to essential pages like templates and the main page. It isn't supposed to be used to defend one particular version in a content dispute, no matter how wrongheaded or rude the other party is. --Aquillion 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I pre-emptively advocate the immediate desysopping of any administrator who complies with outlandish "please revert to MY VERSION and protect it kthx" requests similar to the one made by Mr. Simpson. Seriously, get a grip. — Jul. 20, '06 [13:47] <freak|talk>

As someone who has to abide by the same arbcom rules SPUI does and the same rules SPUI has now flaunted I'm requesting he be blocked under the terms of his probation for disrupting and warring on highway articles. This giving him chances stuff is b.s. If it were anyone but him they would have been blocked, rightly so, under the terms of the probation (which explicitly forbids highway article disruption which warring is universally recognized as. If he's not then the Arbcom and it's rulings are a farse and should be treated as such. I would expect no less then a block if I violated the terms of that probation too. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Users 71.143.19.196 and 71.142.208.166

Yesterday, User 71.143.19.196 was temporarily banned from Wikipedia. They have been engaged, along with myself and several others, in a dispute over the Benjamin Hendrickson page. The article is regarding an actor who recently committed suicide, and the dispute is over a line that states how (gunshot wound to the head).

User 71.143.19.196 had reverted to their version at least 13 times (since July 8) before being blocked yesterday. Along with some "minor sins" (ie, not signing comments with four tildes) they committed larger infractions, including foul language in other user's pages, and repeatedly removing text, including warnings, from their own text page.

It appears we now need to add sockpuppetry to their list of sins, as User 71.142.208.166 has made the same edit today (and has also made comments under edit summary that suggests they are the same user). This user is simply going to dispute anyone (myself or others) who edit this page, and agressively challenge them by comments on their page. They seem to have little to no awareness of proper protocol. I will admit myself that I don't understand all the intricacies of how to mediate a dispute, so I really, really need some help here. Thank you. NickBurns 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a consensus growing that the information about the gunshot wound should remain and one user is repeatedly removing the notes of that. This appears to be a simple case of a WP:3RR violation, so perhaps this should be reported at WP:AN3. Cowman109Talk 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, scratch that. The IP in question was blocked for 48 hours yesterday (see block log). Is this still an incident, then? Cowman109Talk 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, scratch the scratching! I did not see the subtle IP difference, and it appears user:71.142.208.166 is circumventing a block to continue his revert war that is against general consensus, so the user should probably be blocked. Cowman109Talk 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, thanks for noticing - I read your comment on my user page - thought you may have missed IP address #2 and was just about to come to tell you....NickBurns 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • A range block on 71.142.0.0/15 would get both and maybe prevent more, although that's 131,000 addresses. Maybe blocking anon only wouldn't be so bad, for a short time. Thatcher131 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You can't do range blocks lower than /16 on wikipedia and you really shouldn't do range blocks for any length of time at all. We are too big now, collateral damage from range blocks in now an almost certainty. Are they edit warring over just one article? If so, semiprotection will sort them out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The edit warring in question appears to be with this article in question, though the user has been blocked in the past for general "abuse" and "disruption". Semi-protection should be best, though, as it will at least encourage the user to get an account so we can discuss the matter (though it seems he is just persisting in an edit war and has been reverted by numerous other editors). I will bring this to WP:RFP. Cowman109Talk 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'd like to see him try. Reverted and semi protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - and wow, my comment in question above was redundant.. in question in question.. Cowman109Talk 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I see bad mojo with this'un

To whom it may concern: User:EETETE has been setting up a lot of sockpuppet or metapuppet accounts. For what reason I do not know, but I wanted to bring it to yout attention. Pat Payne 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] banned user Iasson editing as anon

213.16.157.19 (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser) has two edits, both relabeling other Iasson socks as socks of Faethon, which is another Iasson sock. For some reason, he thinks it important. (One of them is a self-admitted public account, which he claims is being confused with Iasson; although RCU confirms. I haven't bothered RCU with this; if anyone wants to ask for confirmation, Iasson's page is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iasson. Septentrionalis 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Beyruling

I have blocked User:Beyruling indefinitely. All of his/her edits are vandalism or nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking

I ask for unblock on User:Panarjedde. The indefinite blocking was decided by User:Llywrch, who told me to come here.--151.47.76.121 01:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let your original 24 hour block expire, don't create sockpuppets, and those sockpuppets won't get banned. There is no reason to unblock Panarjedde, you were only using it to get around your original block. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I told him to go to Wikipedia:Changing username to change his username, because I placed an indefinite block on the user name he wanted to use. He wants to use a new user name because I put a 24-hour block on his original one, Panairjdde; an Admin there is welcome to perform the necessary acts to change matters if they felt I behaved unreasonably. (Although I advise anyone so inclined to research his history of behavior both before & after the block. I also told him not to petition Tony Sideway or David Gerard for help, because they aren't as nice as I am. My apologies if he has ignored my advice & contacted them.)
BTW, I had to block this IP address because it was used for edits to Wikipedia unrelated to the business of his original block. Why don't you stop digging your hole deeper? -- llywrch 01:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
PS - Since he says he closed his "Panairjdde" account, I put an indef block on that one. He has also stated he is going to leave Wikipedia countless times -- yet keeps coming back. Any Admin who believes he will stay on Wikipedia -- & trusts him to make useful contributions -- is welcome to undo those blocks. But if you do this, I expect you to mentor this user (or find one for him) & assume responsibility for his actions. -- llywrch 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said countless times, User:Panairjdde account is closed. Nobody can logon & it is no longer "mine" or of anybody else (now also User:Panairjdde is blocked indefinitely). My account is User:Panarjedde, and is blocked indefinitely, not for 24 hours. Why are you blocking my account indefinitely? What is the reason?
Furhtemore, User:Llywrch blocked two accounts indefinitely. On what basis?--151.47.99.159 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you have also said several times that you are leaving Wikipedia, you obviously don't need two accounts. If you simply meant that you are closing one account, then it is clear that you did this only to avoid the block for disruption. Although I originally blocked the second account because it appeared you were misusing a sockpuppet, your language convinces me that the second possiblity -- that you are avoiding my block -- is more likely. The block follows the person, not the account. I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption -- convince another Admin to lift it.
Panairjdde, there's far more to life & the Internet than Wikipedia. Use this time & find out. -- llywrch 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaving this account blocked indefinitely until you can stay away from Wikipedia for 24 hours -- in other words, respect this block for disruption — If the penalty for "disruption" (and you have yet to show me where this disruption was, right?) is 24 hours long, why the block is indefinitely long?
convince another Admin to lift it. Yes, like I do not know that everywhere is written that and admin should be careful when unblocking other admins' blocks! This matter has been here for some days, yet it is still a matter between you and me.
And, please, please, stop this patronizing tone with me! altought I originally tought you were simply an over-zealous admin, your language convinces me that you actually enjoy your "power", exercising it here, maybe because...--151.47.83.98 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
(delayed response) It's very simple: as Zoe wrote above, sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked. -- llywrch 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: A new User:LimWRtacCHsua appeared yesterday, making edits to many of the same articles Panairjdde had, & the same edits. When I asked him directly whether he was Panairjdde, I failed to get a straight answer -- but LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case. I can put 2 & 2 together; account also blocked. The name id also suspicious, BTW. -- llywrch 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have problems: "LimWRtacCHsua was oddly aware of the earlier case"?! You put on my talk page a link to all this matter, and I am oddly aware?! Next time you don't want people to learn something, don't show them!--151.47.115.171 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what kind of disruption happened here, but the blocking behaviour and explanation disturb me. Even though an indefinitely blocked user asks why the explicitly named account he wants to use is blocked and why indefinitely and he complains about the blocking admin and the fact that no other admin looks into the case he gets told by the same admin as before: "sit out for 24 hours, explicitly tell us which user name you are going to use, & as long as you behave you will not be blocked." And then you wonder why he comes back and has bad feelings? Socafan 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conrad Devonshire

Carrying this over from User talk:Theresa knott, during a routine checkuser of vandal-account creations (in order to discover and block the IP, halting the creations) I discovered that User:Conrad Devonshire has been creating malicious vandal usernames for some time now. A small listing of said usernames is listed on Theresa's talk page; a relevant, and particularly indicative, snippet is:

04:57 User talk:Gwernol (2 changes; Page history) [Conrad Devonshire (2×)]
m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Some usernames you might consider blocking...)
m 04:57 (cur; last) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (Some usernames you might consider blocking...)
04:42 (User creation log) [Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!!; A erection lasting longer than four hours; FickenKont; Foot-long penis; Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong?; Vandalbot Alpha]
04:42 (cur; last) . . Oh my sweet sister... is loving you wrong? (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)
04:40 (cur; last) . . Willy's BACK... on WHEELS!!! (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)
04:39 (cur; last) . . FickenKont (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)
04:38 (cur; last) . . Foot-long penis (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)
04:37 (cur; last) . . A erection lasting longer than four hours (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)
04:36 (cur; last) . . Vandalbot Alpha (Talk | contribs | block) (New user: Talk | contribs | block)
04:34 User talk:Conrad Devonshire (diff; hist) . . Conrad Devonshire (Talk | contribs | block) (→Brfx)

I reported the matter to the Arbitration Committee via thier private mailing list, in order to get a sanity check (though it's very obvious as checkuser results go) and for advice on how to proceed. I also requested that Conrad email me urgently; instead of doing so, he responded with a curt response that he did not pass out his email. Theresa made a similar request (as an Arbitrator) and was met repeatedly with a similar result, before being reluctantly provided with an address. His response, on her talk page, was less than satisfactory.

At this point, he's made it public, and the appropriate avenue to decide what to do is here. I count 18 usernames on three IPs (there are dozens more, those 18 were just handy); they are not, as he suggests, dopplegangers. Indeed, he warned one of them shortly after using it to vandalize: [124]. Sadly, this sort of thing is all to common; this is at least twice in the last week that I've come across otherwise legitimate contriubutors engaging in vandalism via sockpuppets.

Ideas on what to do with Conrad are greatly appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is he creating vandal accounts so he can revert it himself and look like a great vandal fighter? Is it all obvious or is some of it insidious? Thatcher131 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect he won't do it again, now that he knows everyone else knows.....is it worth punishing him with a block for something did in the past and probably won't do again? I don't know what prentitive measures arbcom could do anyway.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, were these accounts created on his IP or while he was logged in? I thought you couldn't create an account while logged in.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what to say about this... but a post on ANI is got to be rather punishing in and of itself given the content we're seeing. Conrad Devonshire'll likely never hear the end of this. (→Netscott) 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Essjay, one gets the impression that you might be obligated to do quite a bit of work corresponding to all of these sockpuppets. If that is indeed the case then if for no other reason that alone should merit a good long block. (→Netscott) 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
My thought was along the same lines. While posting to ANI might be punishment enough (depending on how badly he wants to be seen as a good wikipedian) I would rather see probation at the very least. However, only a checkuser would have the ability to monitor his probation (Essjay, Mackensen, and the members of Arbcom). So I say it should be up to them. Is there a checkuser willing to vouch for him? Thatcher131 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Responding to a few things (I went to dinner and the thread exploded!):
  • As much as you'd think it wouldn't happen, it's not uncommon to see someone vandalizing and then cleaning up thier own mess. I don't know if it's some kind of guilt, or if it is because they want to elevate thier public image, but it happens too frequently.
  • He may or may not do it again; I guarantee if he does it again he'll do it in a way that is much harder to detect. Rarely does ignoring the problem cause it to go away; it just cases it to hide deeper beneath the surface.
  • You can create accounts while logged in, but it causes them to be logged under your name, as in "User:A created User:B" rather than just "created User:B". If you log out before doing it, or do it in a separate browser, then it doesn't do that. This is not a case of "someone else was on the IP at the time"; dynamic IPs do sometimes change, but they don't switch to a vandal for twenty minutes and then back to you, as shown above.
  • There is a reasonable amount of work that goes into this, but it's what I'm here to do. My concern is that further problems be prevented, as each one of these accounts takes admin time to block, often multiple admin's time as they all simultaneously block, and the time of others to tag the accounts. Additionally, it takes checkuser time, as at least one checkuser (me) is actively checking accounts from these types of sprees in order to block the IPs and prevent further damage.
  • I've yet to see any response from him on the subject, and certainly no remorse. Indeed, he has been very uncooperative so far, and I don't forsee a change in that. As I indicated above, I think if he's learned anything, it's to be smarter about his sockpuppetry. I'm not willing to spend the next year checking up on him constantly, and I doubt any of the other checkers have the time.
Beyond seeing that no further damage is done to Wikipedia, I'd like to know the community's take on this, and what they feel should be done; as I've said, I find it all too often, and if the community is unconcerned, then I will just keep it to myself from now on and not waste my or other's time with public reports. Essjay (Talk) 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what should happen to Conrad, but I'd like to voice that things like this definitely need to be reported. These actions are damaging to Wikipedia, take up Wikipedia resources, and consume administrator time. An ANI thread is the very least we can do, and whatever response is decided to be taken, hopefully actions like this will be greatly discouraged in the future. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is definitely disruptive behavior, and a fairly long block is warranted. Enough time, for instance, that Conrad is forced to take a break from WP and, if he chooses to become active again later, will perhaps reevaluate the point of doing so. His behavior is very at-odds with our goal of creating an encyclopedia here. Mangojuicetalk 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. how long is fairly long? pschemp | talk 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say not less than 2 weeks or otherwise some amount per sock (like 4 hours) added up. (→Netscott) 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I've alerted the user in question. We shouldn't assume that he'll find the thread, it's better to be frank with him and let him know.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ulp. I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about a remark of mine here: I start to think that WoW (and the like) and certain WP editors need each other as virus writers and virus "protection" merchants need each other. Which was written largely for CD's, er, benefit. He replied (I hope to the comment as a whole, and not merely this part): "I am beginning to see things your way." -- Hoary (mightily bored by vandals and trolls), 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Has he made any statement that this behavior will stop? He should in my opinion be blocked at least until he does so; certainly there is precedent for that -- for example the User:Wonderfool case from months and months ago. (Yes; such a promise is made under duress and may have little real value; but it's all we can do.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - I admit that it is true that I have been creating accounts. I am not going to play dumb or lie to you about it. I will explain, but not rationalise my reasons for doing so. One of my reasons is that which was mentioned, that it would give me an oppourtunity to show my willingness to fight vandalism by reporting them myself. Another is that I suffer from certain mental problems including schizophrenia. One symtom of my mental problems is that at times, certain thoughts which I find particularily inappropriate or unpleasant inter my mind and my mind cannot let go of them. By creating accounts with names that reflect these thoughts, it in a way has helped to isolate them from my mind. It is difficult for me to explain how this works, but doing so helped to relieve my mind of unpleasant thoughts. I also created accounts and/or made vandal edits in a few cases simply to see how efficiently Wikipedia would respond. But, as I said, I am not trying to rationalise what I have done. Though I mentioned having mental problems, I do have control over my own actions and could have found other ways to deal with my problems. And as for wanting to show my willingness to fight vandals, I should have done so by actually fighting vandals rather than inventing vandals to fight. I apologise for what I have done and promise to discontinue it immediately. Please note however that my contributions testify to my desire to be a respectable editor. I regret that I have perhaps permenantly damaged my reputation as a Wikipedia editor, but accept that I am to blame for it. I believe that I do deserve a block for this and shall take a break from editing whether I receive one or not.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was very big of Conrad to come clean with the above, and I commend him for that. It must be quite difficult to have all of this aired under the public eye of ANI. However, it's pretty clear that his actions were egregious, and a punitive block in the range of one week is very much in order. -- Samir धर्म 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Conrad for your explanation and apology. It shows maturity. Personally I feel that you do need a block but I will not apply it myself as I am an arbitrator and I have been acting as an arbitrator in this incident. I feel that if I block you, the rest of the community will be reluctant to disagree with me and i don't want that to happen. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him for a week per the above, pending further consensus here. -- Samir धर्म 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the block.--MONGO 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Echoed. Conrad is taking a Wikibreak; this is a good idea. Something tells me that the embarrassment will be enough to ensure no repeat. Just zis Guy you know? 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Except we don't do punative blocks, right? - brenneman 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aaron here. I have followed this case carefully and see no reason for a block in the circumstances pertaining now. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing how our wikisociety functions. Would a block be preventative if in enforcing one other users will not engage in such behavior (or alternatively if they are currently engaged in similar behavior now, stop)? I understand the logic for no block... but this individual has made quite a bit of work that others are forced to deal with. This should be a citable example for what to do in the future. (→Netscott) 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's another excellent reason to not block--some people might be tempted to block in similar circumstances in future. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps you and Brenneman are correct. To a certain extent at this point whether this user is blocked or not may be immaterial as he's decided to not edit on his own for some time... and if he indeed abides by that then a block'd be redundant (if we're talking strictly about preventative in the sense of this one user). I think in a similar situation in the future Essjay or an ArbCom member should be inclined to just immediately block and note the reasoning in the block log and then proceed to inform the community of the back story and if given an explanation and promise not to continue that is on an equivalent level as Conrad Devonshire's, then subsequently lift the block. Essentially in my view some sort of an easily verifiable history (ie: block log note) should accompany such behavior, no? (→Netscott) 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I find creating multiple inappropriate usernames a blockable offense whether it's preventive or not. It's something explicitly forbidden policy and caused multiple people a lot of work. Oh yeah, don't forget to block the all the accounts except for the main one. If he can control himself now he's shown he can own up, I have no problem if he edits in a week's time. - Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    My approach to this is that I'd support a block if he presented an ongoing risk to the encyclopedia. While there might be an argument for blocking as a deterrent, this isn't compatible with our blocking policy. Moreover if we were seen to block someone who came clean and promised to stop, it would almost certainly deter other editors from coming clean about antisocial activities. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with the principles of Tony's reasoning (but I have no comments on the specific case at hand). Haukur 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think you can call this "coming clean". From Theresa's talk page I see first he claims it was a joke and dopplegangers, then insisting on not being treated as a villain until uncontrovertable evidence is provided. Only once shown he has been caught red-handed does he admit it and promise not to do it again. NoSeptember 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think Conrad has resolved this quite well by taking a voluntary wikibreak. In the circumstances, I wouldn't object to an unblock with the annotation that the user is taking a short voluntary wikibreak in view of his bad faith actions. A block is also okay, but I think it's a little worrying in the circumstances where he has finally come completely clean. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm. I reckon Tony's right. Is there any preventive action required? Sounds like there isn't. Is Conrad generally a problem editor? I'd say not, from an admittedly quick review of his contribs and Talk. Conrad has taken his punishment like a man and taken a voluntary Wikibreak; if he wants that to be enforced to avoid temptation then fine, otherwise it seems a bit - well, vindictive. Just zis Guy you know? 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am unblocking, based mostly on the range of opinions expressed in this thread (my gut feelings steer me to believe that punative blocks do have some utility). But when Tony and Aaron agree on something, it's probably a good rule of thumb that that something should be done. NoSeptember -- I agree the "coming clean" is unevaluatable at the least. Still, he'll pose just as much threat a week from now as now, so I don't believe the community agreeing to lift this one-week block is harmful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that I've wasted my time a) checking up on the problem, b) sorting it out, c) notifying the Arbitration Committee, d) trying to resolve it with the user, e) reporting it here, and f) thinking anybody would care. There *is* a side to this besides "Oh poor Conrad, he's been naughty but we shouldn't hold it against him": There's the dozens of administrators and other RC patrolers that have been affected, there are the users who have been impersonated and/or attacked in these usernames, and there is the time of the Arbitration Committee any myself that has been wasted dealing with this. I think NoSeptember hit it on the head: He *didn't* come clean until he was *forced* to, and displayed defiance right up until he posted here with a miraculous change of heart, deep understanding of his conduct, and profound sorrow for the trouble he's caused. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced in the least; I think I understand now why so many of the longer-term checkusers have stopped doing this sort of thing: The end result is that nobody wants to do anything about it, and you've wasted several hours (about six, in this case) dealing with it. Essjay (Talk) 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion Conrad Devonshire is on final warning. I think that's enough of a result. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Essjay, why did you not just immediately block? (→Netscott) 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect for the same reason I generally don't immediately block when I find anomalies doing CheckUser: it's best to have another party verify your suspicions before going public with serious accusations. If I, as a CheckUser, block sua sponte based solely on CheckUser evidence, and someone complains, I am in the situation of having to justify my block with the reason "I have evidence that supports this block, but I cannot show it to you". This doesn't go over well. Having the evidence reviewed by other trustworthy individuals at least results in a united front before a block goes in, with multiple seemingly reasonable people who will stand behind it. If the other people won't stand behind it, then it would have been a bad idea to block in the first place, eh?
I view my role, when using CheckUser, as that of a security officer. It's my job to examine the evidence and report on what I find to others to decide what to do as a result of my findings. It's a way to increase accountability for a position which carries a great deal of trust and responsibility. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Your fine detailed response makes good sense Kelly Martin thanks for sharing the logic there. What is your opinion on how Conrad Devonshire's case should be handled? (→Netscott) 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Personally I believe prevention extends beyond the individual user concerned, the message we seem to be sending out here is that provided you apologise when caught then no problem. --pgk(talk) 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that is the message. Wikipedia is extremely generous with second chances. Unfortunately, consideration of the effects on other users is often neglected (as Essjay pointed out, or as in the case of the unblocking of Blu Aardvark and MSK). By unblocking him are we sending the signal that we are more interested in rehabilitating one part-time vandal than in respecting the efforts of dozens of vandal fighters? A long block or outright ban would send the message that his disruptive activities and their negative effects on others so outweigh his positive contributions that we would rather not have him around anymore. (On the other hand such a ban would be largely symbolic as there is no practical way of keeping Conrad from continuing to create more abusive accounts--he just couldn't get "credit" for reverting them anymore.) Thatcher131 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that is really the message, nor do I think Essjay has wasted his time, although I see where he is coming from. Bear in mind that blocking isn't the only consequence in play in this case; for example, Conrad Devonshire clearly had ambitions to become an admin and realistically that will not happen now. Alerting the community to this kind of fraud is very much a concrete result in of itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that if you apologise and stop then all should be forgiven. Call me a cynic but we only have his word that he is taking a wikibreak. For all we know he is happily editing (and trolling for that matter) with yet another sock. I don't think unblocking him was the best thing to do, it gives a rather wishy washy effect. A week was a very short block in the first place IMO and it should have stood unless there was overwhelming support here to undo it - which there wasn't. Having said that, what's done is done. I think he needs to be carefully watched and if he shows any sign of his past bad behaviour he needs to be community banned. If OTOH he stops fucking about he should be completely forgiven. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Can't say I'm pleased with the way this has evolved. We have a user who has made multiple vandal-only accounts, and has attempted to improve his cred by "reporting them". He also did not come clean when first approached about it. Heartfelt apologies or not, there must be something said on a community front that such behaviour is unacceptable. I think that entails a block. Call it punitive if you want. There was no consensus to undo the action -- Samir धर्म 22:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I still support the block. Not to discredit the otherwise good work of Conrad, the rules need to be applied evenly to all. Essjay did the right thing. Conrad isn't necessarily eliminated from becoming an admin someday. Enduring a week long block and then returning to solid editing for a period of time will suffice.--MONGO 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
All right. I'm restoring the week-long block, based on the evolving input here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my original comment that we don't do punative blocks. We clearly do however do preventative blocks. We can support a block here while at the same time remembering that we're not "empowered" and don't hand out spankings. - brenneman {L} 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to register my view ... I don't believe it when someone "reveals" that they have various mental illnesses as an excuse for their actions. It's too convenient. If they've been open about it from the get-go, and then later on they do something that might be a result of their illness I understand, but magically becoming schizophrenic when it's revealed you've made over a dozen abusive sockpuppets is too much. We're being played. --Cyde↔Weys 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well to be fair he does state on his user page that he has suffered from mental problems [125]. 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Supporting the one-week block. I find it short, and would have suggested a month, but I'm not now recommending we jerk the user around any more by changing the block length. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC).
I agree. Essjay saved us all some work by spotting this. Tom Harrison Talk 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from his talk page and modified slightly) Uhh, sorry, looks like I am the only one who feels that Conrad's apology is next to meaningless, and that he deserves a very long term block. Actions speak louder than words. If we are going to endorse his apology which resulted from his vandalism fiasco, then we are basically saying that creating accounts and reporting them was constructive in the first place. In other words: creating damage can be nullified by certain actions. Sorry, I don't think so. And incidentally, on a personal note, the accounts that he kept creating are marginally funny after the "list of shock sites" debacle. I'm sure, however, they aren't funny to the people who had to remove them and delete them etc. If you want forgiveness, see a priest, as a Jew I believe in guilt :-) - Abscissa 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Editor19841

User:Editor19841 has been spamming users with this message:

Hey, how's it goin'? I'm gathering support from Wikipedian Democrats to help bring the 2008 DNC to my hometown of Denver. If your interested, just post {{User Denver2008}} on your page. Anyhow, have a good one. Editor19841 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate? —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-19 05:36Z

Gah! Nonono... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've rolled back all the spam. I won't block because all this was a couple hours ago and he seems to be an established user, but I'll leave him a note. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Concur with the reversion and the warning. Wikipedia keeps taking baby steps toward being Friendster, and this is not a good thing. Geogre 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Username block requested: Haywood Jablowme

Haywood Jablowme (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is innuendo for "Hey, would you blow me?" in violation of WP:U#Inappropriate usernames ("Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre"). —Caesura(t) 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Will (message me!) 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
NICE catch! I had to do a few double takes before I noticed it. Keen eye. --mboverload@ 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's one of those newly current "all over the place" joke names. Apparently, it began with a fellow in San Fransisco being asked to comment on a fire -- a man on the street. He said he would appear on camera and gave his name as Heywood Jablowme. The video editor didn't catch it, and his man on the street opinion piece aired with his name appearing in a graphic. That got the funny-of-the-week e-mails flying. Geogre 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hardvice (talk • contribs)

Hardvice (talk • contribs) is calling several editors sockpuppets with no proof, [126], [127], [128] and claims the image on his userpage is a self portrait, stating "I took the picture of myself. That's about all it is." [129]. The image was uploaded on December 14,2005 [130], right after the story broke, probably in the news and on this website, which has the same image, and is likely a mugshot of someone else. There is zero proof he took the image himself, and the image is up for deletion and should be a speedy due to copywrite issues, as at least the website above clearly states "Copyright 2006 by Internet Broadcasting Systems and Local6.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." Hardvice has suddenly reappeared after a long hiatus since January 3rd to participate in the drama over at the encyclopediadramatica Afd, with only three other edits in between, interestingly to the last time the article was up for deletion, even voting "delete" then. Hardvice has claimed that he doesn't want his identity reveiled, but I can see no proof that he is the same person in the picture.--MONGO 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this diff relative to the spam that was sent out by User:Rptng03509345. Does it not seem rather simliar? (→Netscott) 06:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I direct also to Jimbo Wales's commentary here, in which he states "I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios. We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project." [131] I would say that this situation is an overt attempt to use a copywrited work, knowingly.--MONGO 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to comment that it would take long hours of dedicated internet stalking and bad faith and assuming bad faith to find every image I've uploaded and everything on my user page and try to hunt down some reason for a personal attack against me. By the way, MONGO it was user Hipocrite who did that, and they never told you to do this, so are you them?

Also I love how you two (or one?) never assume good faith and always assume bad faith. It makes it hard to assume good faith about you two (or one?) Hardvice 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain again how many wrongs it takes to make a right? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So now, again, he accuses me and Hipocrite of being socks that I am some kind of stalker...well look at this stuff...go to WP:RFCU and get proof. I think the fact that you added the comment "I took the picture of myself" after it was pointed out to you and put up for deletion simply proves the point that you are flagrantly violating our policies.--MONGO 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is not a copyvio. The story behind the image is embarrasing to Hardvice, who wishes it to remain private. Zscout unearthed the reasoning and posted it to the possible unfree images page. Per Hardvice's request, and with Zscout's consent, I wiped out that edit using oversite. Suffice it to say, the image is most definitely in the public domain. However, this is all academic, since Fcytravis deleted the image itself. Raul654 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification appreciated. There really wasn't anyway of easily finding that without someone telling us, which Hardvice didn't do. I'd appreciate it if someone would explain to him that I don't use sock accounts and he needs to verify this through checkuser before he makes this accusation again.--MONGO 07:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Raul, I saw Hipocrite's edits to the image and to the unfree image place. I did not see any Zscout. Hardvice 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
My actions occured at the WP:PUI, but as Raul said, the edit was erased from the servers with my consent. All it stated was a source for the image and it's copyright status (public domain). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Per the original post by MONGO, I want to say that I've been doing too much conflict editing and I am going to try to cut back and stuff. I think unfriendly edits came out and that's not good, nor is parroting stuff learned on ED. Hardvice 07:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you can continue editing, but try and not focus not ED, on MONGO, on Hipocrite or even myself. There are plenty of areas where you can help, and neither any one of us will even be close. But if you want a break, take one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcyu

I have blocked Marcyu (talk • contribs) for one month for personal attacks (and refusing to attribute comments by means of refusing to sign -- or to let people use {{unsigned}} to show what comments that he's making). Comments about whether the block is appropriate and whether it's for the right length are welcome. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of constructive edits from that user, but I can't see any personal attacks on a random sampling, either. Can you provide some diffs? The so-called "unlinked signature" is pretty clearly in violation of WP:SIG (obscures real username, inappropriate pseudo-username "Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins"). --ajn (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically, the "signature" is the personal attack, in my opinion. Certainly, if it had been a real user name, it would have qualified for an username block. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's grossly inappropriate, but I don't think I'd call it a personal attack. I think it would be a good idea to make it absolutely clear about what exactly you have blocked this person for, on their talk page, given the history and argument about what is/isn't disruption, vandalism and attacking. --ajn (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Marcyu has emailed unblock-en-L asking to be unblocked on the grounds that there was no policy justified reason for the block in the first place.
On first impression, this reads like a minor user dispute between Nlu and Marcyu in which Nlu has used admin powers without sufficient justification. Nothing that Marcyu did was significantly disruptive to any page or discussion, nor did it reach the threshold of personal attack, though it was rude and inappropriate.
This additionally appears to be a violation of the general rule that admins should not block people they are engaged in disputes with other than for egregious abuse or clear vandalism.
I would like to request further review of this block and Nlu's actions. At the very least a more detailed justification for why the block was made is required.
Georgewilliamherbert 07:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He's also emailed me, with essentially the same message that went to the mailing list. He's claiming that he was initially blocked by Nlu for six months and that this will show up in the deleted history of his main page. Nlu's only actions on User:Marcyu were to delete it on Marcyu's own request - {{db-owner}} - on the 18th of March. He then deleted it again a couple of hours later as a vandalism/attack page, G3/A6 on WP:CSD, because Marcyu's response to Nlu's doing what he asked for was to call him and R. Koot "extremely biased, immature, and unprofessional". There is no six month block in the block log, there is nothing in Marcyu's talk page history mentioning six months as far as I can see. He's also claiming that Nlu reverts anything he adds to articles - since March, he has made one edit to an article, to insert an unconfirmed rumour [132] and Nlu did indeed (properly) revert that. I don't see any other evidence of Nlu reverting article edits (Marcyu has made 26 of these in the eight months he's been here - he claims to generally edit anonymously because of this alleged, and apparently nonexistent, constant reverting by Nlu). The only disputes with Nlu I see here are Marcyu's persistent and long-term refusal to sign talk page edits with anything other than an attack on admins (if a "signature" doesn't contain either your username or a link to your user page, it's not a signature), and persistent attempts to remove vandalism and personal attack warnings from his talk page (one placed there by Nlu, most placed there by other people). I'm not a big fan of people slapping warning templates on people's pages without any further comment and then getting aerated when they remove them, and Nlu could have been more communicative, but it's pretty clear that Marcyu just isn't getting the point. He's an adult, he ought to know how to behave in communal situations, and as he also claims to be a journalist he ought to know about the importance of verifiability and reputable sources (which have been the cause of many of his problems with other editors in the past, apparently). I'd be in favour of reducing the block to maybe a week, on condition that he uses a proper signature in future and stops mucking about with his talk page to remove warnings, but I think the block is justifiable. --ajn (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the block. In the interests of disclosure, I'm somewhat involved in this, but this guy's clearly abrasive and not getting the message. He also seems to enjoy playing the innocent, and making up ridiculous accusations (see WP:AN#Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators. When I confronted him with overwhelming evidence completely quashing his accusations against Nlu, he went off onto another tangent. This is not the type of person who should be editing Wikipedia. Werdna talk criticism 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having exchanged a few emails with him, I'm now of the opinion that Marcyu is trolling. He has made several claims which turn out to have no basis whatsoever when investigated. --ajn (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:SandyGeorgia

I see and have a big problem with this editor and I don't quite know how to deal with it.

This editor is very domineering and controlling and not entirely scrupulous about it, frequently needling and baiting other editors. I'd rather you form your own opinions by visiting Talk:Asperger syndrome‎ and archives.

With this editor the deal seems to be that unless you submit to his/her control he/she will find ways to make trouble for you.

Today I REALLY believed that we had finally got a concensus going in spite of User:SandyGeorgia that still included User:SandyGeorgia, but I was wrong, the minute I expressed this here [133] , she/he had a knife in my back here [134] about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned).

I feel this user needs a gentle "word from the wise", and I can't find a way to do it right.

HELP! --Zeraeph 01:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When did this all start, and who (if any) are suspected sock-puppets? (I see references to sockpuppet suspicions on that talk page). All in all, some more detailed history please? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The mention of sockpuppets is a red herring really...an anonymous editor jumped in and asttacked an editor, so I expressed the hope this was not a sockpuppet (with no particular "puppeteer" mentioned or in mind)...User:SandyGeorgia jumped to the conclusion I meant her. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if this is true, User:SandyGeorgia has been a very kind spirited person, I've worked with her on a mediation for Tourettes syndrome and she was most kind. I'm not sure where she "stabs you in the back", can you make it more explicit? I'm going to notify her about this section so she can reply. - FrancisTyers · 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I have read that mediation and I honestly do not see any evidence of "kindness" (for example: "Sandy is hypocritical when she gets on her soapbox about how I'm violating wiki rules! She edited some things I wrote on the talk page and moved it out of context. She also tried to simply erase the entire section on Marinol, until a sysop reverted the page back!", not quite my idea of "kindness"). I just see yet another editor who has been subjected to the kind of abuse I see on Asperger Syndrome, not being believed, which is a common feature of this kind of situation. --Zeraeph 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the note, Francis. Since User:Zeraeph had not contacted me about any problem or dispute between us, I was not aware of this issue, and do appreciate that you brought it to my awareness.
That is completely untrue, I have repeatedly tried to find reasonably civil ways to express the problems I see and have with User:SandyGeorgia and I have every reason to believe she is aware of that (see [135] and most clearly here:[136]). I really think someone should actually look at the talk pages for themselves and form their own opinions
It has been suggested that she has already behaved similarly on another article. [137] Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have an appointment right now, but will be glad to respond in more detail later this evening, as needed. But, just to briefly address the question above about sock puppetry:
I am not aware of any suspicious or suspected sock puppetry on the article, nor have there been any problems with edit warring or anything of that nature, either right before, during or after Zeraeph raised the question of a sock puppet. I have no reason to suspect there is any sock puppetry going on, and believe the comments Zeraeph referred to were probably from a legitimate, anon editor. Since Zeraeph mentioned a sock puppet in a passage referring to User:RN and myself, I simply asked him to please not refer to sock puppets in proximity to my name.[138] I also reminded him of civility, because of his response to the anon editor, to myself, and to Rdos. Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I should like a few impartial parties to look at the relevant talk pages for themselves. However, I do not think it is for User:SandyGeorgia to presume or inform me (or anyone) of what they mean by anything they say, nor to order people not to mention anything in connection with her name. To whit, if now, or at any time in the future, a person sees cause to suspect her of sockpuppetry User:SandyGeorgia has no right to order them to refrain from remarking it. Nor to dictate in any way what other editors should, or should not, say, yet she frequently does. Frankly she often addresses other editors as though she were a schoolmarm and they children who must defer to her. She also treats articles as though they were her personal property. To the extent of informing other editors what they may or may not do on both talk pages and in-line comments. --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing massive and consensual effort to improve the AS article,[139] and editors are working very well together, with the exception of those few incidents, which resulted in a message to Zeraeph about civility.[140] If a more detailed history is needed, I can provide more input later this evening. I do hope that Zeraeph will not be offended because I asked about a policy that I am not that clear on:[141] it is my understanding that warnings and warning templates are not supposed to be removed from talk pages, which appeared to be the case here. I think a review of the talk page history will reveal why I was concerned that we maintain civility. Regards, Sandy 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Another problem is a persistent tendency to distort facts, present them selectively and express her opinions as though they were hard fact, as above.
I would really like an impartial admin, with whom neither of us have ever been involved, to keep an ongoing eye on this situation. I know what abusive control looks like. I also know that I have never seen behavior like User:SandyGeorgia's on Wikipedia before, it seems to me to be all about "tactics" and "control" for the sake of it, and I am at a total loss how to cope with it, at the same time I really don't want to run away and leave a significant article at the mercy of any distortion of bias or information she may choose to insinuate into it. I'm not putting in a lot of refs because I think the best way for anyone to see this is the look at an overview of the WHOLE picture, and see the pattern, not "selective excerpts". --Zeraeph 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Diffs and refs added. Sandy 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
On the sock puppetry issue, I jumped to no conclusion, Zeraeph, but I did point out that you were using the term sockpuppetry in the next sentence after you mentioned me, and I asked that you please take care with doing that. This is in accordance with Wiki policy (AGF), not a "domineering" directive of mine. We had another problem when you archived the talk page, with no warning, in the midst of multiple ongoing discussions and a FARC. Because you archived *current* (within the hour) discussions, I asked that you not do that, and I restored the talk page, with consensus, while other editors waited. [142] Again, this is in accordance with Wiki policies, not my directives. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
On the sockpuppetry issue, here is my remark [143] Sandy's initial response[144] here is Sandy's second response an hour or so later [145].
I would prefer that one or two impartial admins looked at the relevant pages and formed their own opinions of what is happening in context (not least because, as long as they do, nothing else will happen, and the page will be edited by true concensus of equals as it should be).
I do not believe any WP guideline is meant to be expressed as though it were a personal order to a subordinate. re the above this might be a good starting point [146] where Sandy orders me, as though I were a subordinate, to revert an action I had stated I believed was right in it's context, rather than doing it herself. Which WP guideline impels her to do that? --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
On the TS mediation, those were statements made by my co-editor on the TS page, and since Francis was the mediator, he was in a good position to know whether or not I was kind. The co-editor was emotional, and was mistaken in his statements about the talk page or the edits. In fact, I have been very kind to him, and with respect to him, then and today. A thorough review of the talk pages in question will reveal the facts. Francis, who was the mediator, can respond to your charges about my behavior on that. I would be interested in seeing an example of what you refer to as my abuse on AS, so I can understand what is troubling you. We have gotten a lot of collaborative work done in the last week, and I've not seen any evidence of discord. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As already clearly shown, Sandy is perfectly well aware of discord (see [147] and most clearly here:[148]) and the above statement is untrue.
Also see her own comment further down here where she states You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive. Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. .
It is very hard to communicate discord when the person you are trying to communicate it to dismisses your every attempt to communicate it as a "personal attack", and tries to get you censured for it instead of considering or discussing what you are saying. As a result, you are prevented from trying to communicate by the risk of censure. Unfortunately, the more severe the problem, the harder it is to communicate in a way that cannot possibly be manipulated and presented as a "personal attack", which was my cue to bring this here.
I suggest Sandy show examples of "kindness" because while I have frequently seen her flatter people one moment and undermine them the next in the exact manner of one who seeks to control and manipulate by abusive means. I have never seen a trace of "kindness" --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am aware that you got notably upset when I used the words "unencylopedic tone" to describe an anon editor's insertion of unreferenced, unnotable text which appeared as an advert. [149] You asked me to define "unencyclopedic tone", I answered your question 3, 4, or 5 times, no answer I gave satisfied you, and the topic was dropped. I was not aware you were still stewing on something. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This should be read in context, as it happened [150]. My problem was with the way Sandy persistently dismissed the contributions of other editors without real explanation of discussion, using phrases like "unencyclopaedic tone" in lieu of giving reasons as though this were a self evident fact rather than just her opinion. My error there was in trying to show her what she was doing rather than state it clearly, because I could not think of any way to state it clearly without being represented as "uncivil" again. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You have provided links above to the Asperger syndrome FARC as evidence that you have tried to find civil ways to express the problems you see, but I see no evidence on those pages that I am to suppose you are speaking of me, as the description does not fit me. I presumed you were speaking of problems on the article that long pre-date me (I cannot help but notice the tension) and that I had walked into the middle of something. Regardless of at whom the comments were aimed, they didn't seem very civil. Since you are now saying they were aimed at me, I don't understand your objection to referencing the text from reliable sources, which we are all productively doing. If you had something to say directly about me or to me, the FARC page wasn't the best means of communicating that to me. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You have provided a link to another user's page, where you were having a dispute with him because he had warned you about civility, and not me. [151] I became aware of this when I went to his userpage to notify him of the FARC, as was agreed on the WP:FAR talk page. When I found I was being discussed there, I tried to make light of it. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You have never made contact with me, indicating we had a dispute, but you did seem to engage in a personal attack on me on Talk:Asperger syndrome, when you referred to me as domineering and passive-aggressive. [152] Since we have so much work to do on that article, I ignored the personal attack, called no attention to it, and moved on with our work. Because you are a frequent editor of pesonality disorder articles, I just took it that you tossed terms like that around casually, and decided not to make it personal. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandy on one hand, insists that she was not aware or informed of, any problem, and on the other insists that my every attempt to communicate that was a "personal attack" to be ignored. How manipulative is that??? It's called creating a "double bind" where the target is caught either way. It is also quite typical of her ongoing behavior. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As to "order people not to mention anything in connection with her name", order is strong language. I asked you please not to refer to sock puppetry in the proximity of my name, and this is simply Wiki policy of good faith. [153] What editor appreciates having their name associated with sock puppetry? It is interesting that you say I treat the article as if it were my personal property, when the only edits I have made for five days have been to revert vandalism, cleanup references, make edits specifically requested on the talk page, or add comments to text. I have taken this position because I understand that I am seen as a neurotypical outsider by a few of you. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I cannot be inserting bias into an article, when I'm not even editing the article, and when hundreds of edits have been made by many editors in the last five days. You are "at a total loss how to cope" with this, but one thing you did not do is talk to me about it. My e-mail is activated, I will read and respond, and I guard confidentiality of e-mail scrupulously. You are welcome to resolve this directly with me. Or, alternately, since it seems that what you have is a personal dispute with me, perhaps you would like to request mediation? I am open to any option, and hope that we can move forward amicably. Sandy 04:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps an more accurate picture would be derived from Special:Contributions/SandyGeorgia even the sheer volume of edits on one single article and it's talk page is unusual. My impression, over several days, has been that Sandy has far more interest in controlling how others edit, for the sake of controlling, than in the article or it's topic anyway. --Zeraeph 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm also hoping you'll explain this comment: about an incident she/he had resolved to suit him/herself many hours earlier (which aspect, you will notice, is not mentioned). I don't know what incident you're referring to, what I had resolved, or what is not mentioned. Thanks, Sandy 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me reiterate that as long as one or two impartial admins keep an eye on the situation I do not think the problem will continue or recur. I doubt of it would have got so far out of hand if the active presence of an admin had curbed the situation in the first place. Put bluntly, as long as Sandy believes someone with some kind of authority over her is watching she will behave like a little burnished angel, which, for me, is a perfectly satisfactory solution --Zeraeph 09:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion is that this entry is a personal attack, from an editor who has made no attempt to present or resolve his apparent dispute directly with me. Examination of the talk page reveals cordial and consensual editing, and steady ongoing progress towards improving the article in order to retain its featured status, with two editors now changing their votes on FARC to "Keep" as a result of the progress made. [154] I hope admins will explore the talk page and evaluate the extent of personal attack. I understand it is stressful to see one's past work under fire during FARC, and that tensions will naturally arise, but other editors seem to be coping fine. Sandy 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of this page (Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.), I respectfully request that this issue be taken to proper channels, and struck from this page. This doesn't seem to have the best means of addressing the issue, or the right place for it. Thanks, Sandy 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to participants: I just archived the talk page, it can be found here. - FrancisTyers · 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was stuck on how to handle another editor's request to archive the talk page, in the midst of this. Sandy 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, it is rather disingenuous to simply refer to this a single domineering editor - as I have supported what Sandy has done (YES we are seperate editors thankyouverymuch). Sandy has not been uncivil at all (in fact, I wish I could handle it as well as she does...), but you on the other hand have at times been slightly uncivil - but either way I'm a bit puzzled it is on ANI. In fact, you should really thank Sandy for putting in so much work into saving that article from FARC - her or myself wanting sources for information in a featured article is hardly domineering. Anyway, this particular issue is dispute resolution stuff. RN 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RN, my life experience has taught me that you are mistaken in what you say here. Also, whatever you support, I have never seen you behave as Sandy has to anyone.
If you read above you will see that the only response Sandy has chosen here is to misrepresent facts. If there is any way to resolve any issue with a person who does that then I am afraid I do not know what it is.
I am curious as to why you think that anyone would think you and Sandy are the same person?
I am also curious as to why you would suggest that I should "thank Sandy for putting in so much work into saving that article from FARC" when it is not *my* article, it belongs to the whole community, and I have made it quite plain that, like most editors, I care far more about the quality, true consensus and integrity of the article than I do about FARC...personally, I never even think of FARC --Zeraeph 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blu Aardvark (again)

Blu Aardvark has been caught by CheckUsers making more abusive sockpuppet accounts (about two dozen in all), including such gems as The password to this account is "LOLJEWS" (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and The password to this account is "JEWRANDA" (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). I recommend reinstating the indefinite block that was originally placed on him awhile ago before some people got the mistaken notion that he could somehow be rehabilitated. --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I reblocked indef for the mass sock creation, and given his prior past. 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaranda (talk • contribs).

The one year ban imposed by ArbCom has more relevance and teeth than a community imposed indef ban that is easier to overturn. I'm sure sockpuppetry would restart the clock on the ban. This is ArbCom's baby now. NoSeptember 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This case is such a no-brainer that we don't need to waste ArbCom's time to extend the ban. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't waste their time in these situations, any admin can extend the block and add it to the log on the ArbCom case page. NoSeptember 05:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark. I just added 20 users to this category from just the past week. There are still a lot of socks that Blu Aardvark created in the spring that were never tagged as socks and added to this category. --Cyde↔Weys 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blu has a funny way of showing he's not an anti-semite. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it and believe that blue ardvark was provoked when an administrator removed blue ardvark's own messages in their talk page and protected it, claiming "they attempted to use their talk page." [155] My recommendation is that you unprotect his talk page and try to reason with him. Hardvice 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comment reminds me of why I prefer ArbCom blocks. The beauty of an ArbCom based block is that appeals from his friends at Encyclopedia Dramatica etc. will go nowhere, since it now takes more than just convincing one random admin to unblock him. NoSeptember 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He was doing this for over an week now, and he had his chances, today after the block, he came in irc and PM me calling me a fucking wanker!. No point in having him around Jaranda wat's sup 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hardvice...you must be kidding! I can't imagine any reason to reason with the unreasonable.--MONGO 06:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

<removed post by banned user>

I want to make it clear that despite blocking, Willy on Wheels still does his thing. I recommend diplomacy with blue ardvark. Probably certain people on wikipedia did things to upset him and he may feel justified. Hardvice 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So what you mean is we should give preferential treatment and pander to those who aren't able to behave as adults? --pgk(talk) 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It makes no sense how preferential treatment can mean just talking to the guy. Hardvice 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you haven't edited here between January and yesterday (except for an ED afd, imagine that!), perhaps you missed all the long chats that have already taken place with this user before he was banned ;). NoSeptember 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well he was here in March for three whole edits, the last time the ED article was up for deletion...and voted to delete it.[156]...even admitting he is a SysOp at that website, so that makes two confirmed Sysops from ED and two more that have the same username here and there that are listed as sysops there...ummm.--MONGO 07:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Surprisingly the troll I blocked yesterday had very similar editing patterns ;). NoSeptember 08:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Cyde, can you post a link to the checkuser results at WP:RFCU/SORT? Thanks. Thatcher131 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that indef community ban is justified but I prefer working through the Arb comm. Do not want another attempted rehab that might occur with something indef. Let's extend the ban by working through the formal process. FloNight talk 13:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The CheckUser results are as follows: everything in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark has been established by CheckUser as a definite sock account of Blu Aardvark. One of our CheckUsers ran a report last night and I went through the list and tagged all of the sockpuppet accounts. --Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a public record of the checkusers comment on talk page or something? The reason I ask is, if I create a record at WP:RFCU/Case and say "Cyde says so," someone is bound to cry foul, but if I can provide a diff to a checkuser, problem avoided. If there is no public record (IRC for instance), an alternative would be to create the record but ask the checkuser to personally tag it before filing it. Thatcher131 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I ran the checkuser that discovered all these account creations over the last week. I didn't personally care to bother with tagging all the accounts which were already blocked for their inappropriate names anyway, but Cyde offered to do it and I sent them to him in private. I can affirm that all of the accounts Cyde and I added to the category last night were determined by a very conclusive CheckUser. Put this diff wherever you like. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent and thank you kindly. A record has been created at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Blu Aardvark, which may be easier to find 11 months and 29 days from now than this archive.

In the Arbitration case, as a purely technical enforcement matter I have reset the ban to run for one year from today after Blu Aardvark used non-logged-in IP editing to evade his ban. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • And this is exactly why, given a choice between an indef community ban and a shorter ArbCom ban, I'd pick the ArbCom ban any day of the week. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nod. Support working the ArbCom process to keep this disruptive user (effectively, we can count on him doing something to reset it at least once a year, it seems) indef banned without the danger of some well meaning but misinformed admin undoing the ban. Good block, Tony. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify, I have not blocked Blu Aardvark, who is already blocked indefinitely. I have simply recorded his ban evasion and reset the clock on his one year arbcom ban to run from today, as is customary in such cases. He remains indefinitely blocked, but if someone lifts this indefinite block for any reason they should then impose a block to cover the remainder of the arbcom ban from that date until July 19, 2007. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A useful distinction :-) We can always invite him back in the unlikely event that the rabid anti-semite viewpoint becomes significantly under-represented. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would object to any welcoming of him back so long as he hosts a website which exists for the purpose of defaming and stalking Wikipedians. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

<post from banned user removed> BA, if you wish to reply, please do so in an off-wiki setting, such as the mailing list or the IRC. 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] blocked user evading block; Amorrow vs CanadianCaesar

During the past few days some new users have edited Francis Crick, James D. Watson and Rosalind Franklin. Some of this editing activity concerned moving existing text from those articles to a new article called King's College DNA controversy. CanadianCaesar deleted the new article and indicated that it had been created by a banned user, Amorrow. Several editors have gotten into a revert contest with CanadianCaesar and CanadianCaesar put some edit protection on Francis Crick. I asked CanadianCaesar for information about what is going on but CanadianCaesar told me to ask Jimbo Wales, SlimVirgin, FloNight or Nunh-huh. This was my first stop on the way past CanadianCaesar towards trying to find out what is going on. --JWSchmidt 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the question? All edits by banned user Amorrow must be removed. All articles started deleted. This article Francis Crickhas been edited by Amorrow. I have not checked the others but imagine that CanadianCaesar is correct. --FloNight talk 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"What is the question?" <-- Can you show me the evidence that Amorrow is involved? There have been many editors of these articles in the past few days. How do we decide which are banned users? --JWSchmidt 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
AMorrow is an extreme gynophobe who has been banned for his misogynistic behavior and stalking. I've never encountered him personally but his style should be pretty easily recognised. If the editing stinks like a skunk, it could well be Amorrow. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
From the pattern. You can follow him from article to article. These are his IP ranges. 75, 68, 67, and others in close proximity. This is a topic of interest. From his tendentious and tenacious style. Other things I can't reveal. FloNight talk 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of with JWSchmidt, here. S/he asked a legitimate question and was rudely dismissed by CanadianCaesar. Now s/he comes here for more information and is once again dismissed (although not rudely). The question is, where is there any information on Amorrow's indefinite banning (aside from a single note on its user page) and some way for a user (such as me or JWSchmidt) to identify Amorrow's edits without having been around for the original behavior? Powers 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to ask the question. It takes a few minutes to put answer together. Since you all are interested, I'm hoping this means you will help clean up the mess he has made the past month. ; - )

This IP 75.24.110.198 edits boths these articles. [157] [158] Then look at IP 7523104203's Contribution page. [159] You see the same overlapping articles. Once you find the article then I look for the other IP's. FloNight talk 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This information on AN might be helpful. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AMorrow tries to edit by proxy --FloNight talk 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And this information. Category with Amorrow's suspected socks. [160] and the Wikipedia:List of banned users FloNight talk 00:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks to all for the information provided about Amorrow. As for CanadianCaesar, I am willing to be supportive of any Wikipedian who is devoting time to trying to control vandals and disruptive users. Also, for everyone who helps on this page, thanks for being here when people like me need you. I'm one of those folks who cannot deal well with the dark side of Wikipedia, and I really appreciate those of you who can and do. --JWSchmidt 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have now had a chance to look at many edits that are apparently by Amorrow puppet accounts. Above, Tony Sidaway indicated that Amorrow's editing often "stinks like a skunk". I have noticed this "stink" in a confrontational attitude and willingness to engage in multiple reverts when edits by these puppets are challenged or reverted. FloNight (see above) indicated that, "All edits by banned user Amorrow must be removed. All articles started deleted." However, some of the edits by these puppet accounts seem like valid contributions to the encyclopedia. The article that was apparently created by Amorrow and was deleted by CanadianCaesar was mostly text cut from other Wikipedia articles and written by other editors such as myself. There has previously been discussion about creating an article such as King's College DNA controversy and I am tempted to un-delete it (even if it was created by Amorrow) because it would be a useful article for Wikipedia to have. --JWSchmidt 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Please don't! Andrew Morrow is a banned user like no other banned user. I don't care if he sometimes makes good edits.All his edits will be reverted. If you think the article would be useful for Wikipedia to have then write it yourself, do not undelete his work. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        Theresa is correct. If he makes useful edits, those have to go to, and we can re-make them by hand if they're so good. Here (gotta scroll down to it) is Jimbo saying "Block on sight, revert on sight." That's all I need. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        Or if you want the same thing without scrolling, see here. AnnH ♫ 07:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info, FloNight. It makes much more sense now. I'm not sure I'll be much help, though; I can barely identify MascotGuy. Powers 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When I followed the Amorrow puppets through Wikipedia, I experienced even greater "stink", particularly at Jimmy Wales, so I think I am starting to understand the seriousness of this situation. However, I also found MANY Wikipedia articles where Amorrow has apparently made many edits during the past month. Often these edits seem like serious contributions to the encyclopedia and the edits have never been removed. Many of these past edits are now all mixed in with edits by other users. It would be a lot of work to remove all of these edits. I started leaving notes such as this note about Wikia, Inc.. --JWSchmidt 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw your message on Angela's article and left you this message there. [161]

Some of his edits may look good but they still need to be reverted. Of course some may be missed. That can not helped. We try to catch them as quickly as possible, before they get mixed together with other edits. Not always possible. FloNight talk 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a stubby article King's College (London) DNA Controversy to replace the one created by a banned user. Note the name change. Please start from scratch rewriting it, remember not to violate copyright laws. FloNight talk 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Huge astroturfing campaign for "Christian30"

What does anyone think about this? I haven't done anything yet but have been observing the behavior of the following "separate" users:

Every single edit by these users seems to be here to promote a website called "Christian30 dot com", and the VJs, DJs, and other things associated with it. Google hits on this thing are awfully slim. Has anyone heard of this? Should the whole batch be AFDd? This kind of behavior [162] is what set off my warning light. Antandrus (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment All of these users sound like a teenager. They all sound like the same teenager. Seems to me an RFCU may be justified to confirm. Fan-1967 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To me it seems more like an adult attempting to sound like a teenager. "Supported: Do this!! This is lyk soooo coool... lyk totally man!!! u gota do it :D !!!!!! woooooooooh!!! lol Rachel McLeod 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)" Would a real teenager actually go that far? I agree that a checkuser would be appropriate. Mak (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's major sockpuppetry going on here. Danielle Archanelii, Ralph Itchi, Rebecca Israel, Rachel McLeod and Zoe inPop are pretty clearly the same person. Blocking all the socks seems to be the thing to do. Rebecca 05:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. All are confirmed (via checkuser) socks of the same person. Essjay (Talk) 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
All accounts, like, totally bummed out using my bodacious block button, dude. User:Rachel McLeod designated as the puppetmaster purely because she was first in the above list. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I found another: Danielle Cooley (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). I don't feel comfortable blocking on suspicion alone as all (well, some at least) of these accounts have contributions to other articles, not all apparently Christian30-related. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And another: Rebecca Rowland (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Being used to support Cooley on Talk:Gloria Jean's. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Losing new editors

Wikipedia has a problem with losing new editors. I have seen many comments by editors who have decided to leave because they have felt unwelcome or have been treated roughly. As a newish editor myself the following experience might serve as as a case study. I put the Gill Langley article up for AfD (it has just been closed no concensus). The pros and cons of that are not the issue here, however. During the AfD SlimVirgin thought it appropriate to make a smutty joke [163] which though subsequently blanked remained up for nearly a day.

I considered that the report cited in the article was controversial - whether right or wrong that was my view. I inserted into the article 'The Next of Kin report into what is a contentious subject has, however, not yet been peer reviewed nor subject to critical analysis.' Again, whatever the merits I regarded that as factual point and my right as an editor to make it. However, SlimVirgin the creator, reverted my edit as (delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?)[164] and (rv stop this nonsense)[165]. SlimVirgin than put on the talk page 'BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights.'[166]. When I explained my position SlimVirgin then wrote 'You're talking utter nonsense....As for your attempt to poison the well in the introduction....'[167]

I gather SlimVirgin is an admin, charged amongst other things, presumably, with dealing with aggressive editors. Her comments do not seem compatible with either WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. How can I and other new editors have confidence that she will look after our interests when she is prepared to make these sort of comments to someone who she acknowleges is a new editor?[168]

I have spoken to several people who have expertise that they could bring to WP. However, they are reluctant to get involved because they have heard that if you tread on the wrong toes you can get flamed. From my experience I can only confirm that they are right. BlueValour 03:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I offered a view on Blue's talk, but I wonder whether this ought first to have been raised at Slim's talk page, at which I find no correspondence from Blue prior to his directing her attention to AN/I (my sincerest apologies if I've overlooked a post); surely AN/I does exist in order that one might solicit outside views with respect to the conduct of an admin, but issues are often resolved through direct communication, even in such situations as one thinks (as Blue seem to here) his or her interlocutor to be averse to discussion. Joe 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed post from banned user, as requested on mailing list. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And?????? Does the block (especcially issued by someone like you) make him an underdog here? 85.70.5.66 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
She has blanked her userpage as recently as May as a successful tactic to block other users from Wikipedia, at least for years if not forever. Quite a trick there: I didn't realize that page blanking held such strong magical powers. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin is typically a fairly ok person. She has to deal with a lot of rude people though, and I guess like everyone she can have a bad day once in a while, when the rudeness gets to her, eh?

Wikipedians are normal human beings who sometimes forget their manners, but in general they *do* know how to behave. To get wikipedians to be polite to you, even if they're rude to you at first, just be nice, be patient, explain things using clear logic, stay calm, and stick to your point. People will typically start to listen and start to behave like proper wikipedians again. :-) Remember that you're constantly negotiating where the consensus will be, and that everything you say will be archived for eternity, so stay professional. Kim Bruning 09:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mr.Executive

I recently noticed Mr.Executive (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) spamming article talk pages with this message. I have blocked the account for an hour and reverted the edits. Hopefully someone here knows more about what is going on here and can deal with it appropriately. The account appears to be a sockpuppet (only created yesterday). -SCEhardT 09:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is an obvious sock puppet of Ericsaindon2 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), who has an RfAr in process and who is currently banned for a month. We should block the Mr.Executive account indefinitely. -Will Beback 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Block and revert. You might want to note this on the RFAR page or tell Fred Bauder, who ran the first checkuser on him. Thatcher131 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - have set an indef block & will note at the RFAR. -SCEhardT 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:221.134.8.218

This IP has vandalised Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh seven or eight times. Tintin (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Report it to WP:AIV.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cmoroney (talk • contribs)

Cmoroney edited the Somers, New York page with some self promotion:

Somers is also the hometown of the radical prog-rock band Pujols Divided. Drew Walraven, Andrew Macaluso and Steve Ballow make up the trio of musicians whose work has been hailed as "ground-breaking" (Rolling Stone), "suburb-shattering" (Blender) and "some of the most impassioned musicianship to be heard in years," (VH1). They are currently in the studio working on their sophomore release, "Who's Driving Tonight?" and will tour with Orgy and the Abstract Truth in the fall.' '

Some kids promoting their band, but it is irrelevant to the article and is blatant self promotion.

I reverted it (was not logged in at the time), but I believe that Cmoroney should recieve a warning.

- JDCMAN 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jessica Liao sockpuppet unblock requests

Hey -- apparently a bunch of checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of Jessica Liao were blocked, and apparently they've all got unblock requests up with no reason. I've decided to {{unblockabuse}} all of them that I come across; each one is only requesting once, sure, but Jessica Liao is clearly abusing the {{unblock}} tag here. Mangojuicetalk 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Syrthiss 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 65.138.69.10

User:65.138.69.10

seems to be purely adding content to talk pages to attack other editors by saying they a) have aids b) are faggots and so on... from the context of the user history, I suspect it's a blocked or banned user.

A quick block might nip something nasty in the bud.

He has identified himself as banned Sockpuppet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brando03

--Charlesknight 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JzG (talk • contribs):RfC

Is anybody here willing to help me fill a RfC agains JzG here? There are no pro-forma warnings on Wikipedia. There are warnings or no warnings. Pro-forma warnings are just a form of bullying. After I have proven, that the original reason for warning was removed even before the warning was placed, JzG is searching for new reasons (see his "it is still unacceptable.." comments) or calling the warning pro-forma. Now he is joking about the "cabal", disparaging my comments and complaints and clearly trying to irritate me with those comments. Azmoc 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You got a little warning. Lets order Global Thermonuclear War! --mboverload@ 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No way. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I got friggin BLOCKED for reasons that I thought were baseless. All I did was calmly ask for comment. Calm down. I know you feel wronged but in the end it's just a warning. --mboverload@ 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, if you got friggin BLOCKED for nothing, it is wrong. That's why I proposed the easy-gain-easy-lose adminship on the Village Pump. Azmoc 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't you consider Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to be an entire collection of pro-forma warnings? I would... -- ChrisO 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this even appropriate on this page? You've already made your complaint, now you want to escalate to an Rfc and you're issuing a blanket invitation for someone to second you? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I heard he punched a baby too. KWH 06:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know anything about this particular case, but the attitude to shrug off complaints about abuse of adminship with derogatory comments and mock about "the cabal" is something I know from JzG, too, and I think it is in no way helpful to resolve disputes. An admin should know better that special rights come with a special responsibility. Socafan 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit warring over the weather in London

Perhaps it's because London has been basking in 30 degree temperatures, but there's now an edit war over The weather in London. For a long time this was an intentional red link as an example of an article which should not be created. Now, NeonMerlin has decided to create it as a redirect to Climate of London and is trying to eliminate it as an intentional redlink. (Now I'm no climatologist but I always understood there to be a fundamental difference between climate and weather)

It does seem to me that NeonMerlin by recreating the article after several admins have deleted it is beginning to flout the spirit of the 3RR. I'm not sure where consensus is on this but he seems to be the only editor consistently on his side of the argument. Debate is going on at Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links. Opinions welcome. David | Talk 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not still "trying" to eliminate it as an intentional redlink: I have finished doing so. Now, the only pages linking to it are those that cite it as an example of an edit war. An edit war which I am trying to end, not prolong, by stopping the use of intentionally permanent red links that look like potential article subjects. (See Wikipedia:Choosing intentional red links.)
In general, I support WP:1RR. However, I feel the deleting admins are out of process, since they are not discussing this on the appropriate page, despite that a note on the page itself, and the talk page, leads them there and asks them to discuss before deleting. NeonMerlin 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Weather does not = Climate, does that help at all?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but weather and climate are both discussed on the Climate of London article, which should perhaps be renamed "Weather and climate of London." NeonMerlin 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no they aren't, unless someone blanked the entire article when i wasn't looking--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Dbiv says the redirect is inappropriate. If he is right, which I am not sure of, I would suggest making it a protected deleted page and using the template, now that it no longer needs to be red. My fear is that if it remains red, it will still be used as an example red link, spurring both well-intentioned edits and vandalism. On the other hand, if the link is blue and the page (or its talk) leads them to WP:IPRL, I think editors will choose better red link examples, i.e. phrases that don't look like potential article subjects. NeonMerlin 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:NeonMerlin does seem to be causing an edit war while claiming to prevent one. This includes recreating deleted content despite the exiting consensus to leave this as a red link, while in pursuit of a proposed policy which at this stage has had minimal discussion and as yet no consensus. --Henrygb 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault that not enough people can be bothered to speak up yet. However, bear in mind that nobody appears to have raised any objections to, let alone reverted, the edits that brought these red link examples into disuse in the first place. Instead of blaming me for a few admins' rash decision to speedy the weather in London and ask questions later, I'd appreciate it if everyone else could discuss the relevant guideline proposal on its own merits so that consensus can be reached and it (or an alternative) can become official as soon as possible. As it is, it will probably take all summer to get a guideline in place. That's why we have one of my favourite guidelines: WP:BOLD. NeonMerlin 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tony Alamo article

Recent edits to the Tony Alamo article have added the full name of a child who was allegedly abused at the direction of Alamo in the late 80's. Since no reliable source has printed the name of the child as far as I can tell, it seems that revealing the name in this article could potentially be illegal under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (rather, the laws passed in every U.S. state designed to conform to this federal act). I am not absolutely certain that this is illegal (as this would require research of a lot of states' laws), but given that every state has passed laws to conform to the federal act and because the federal act requries the states to keep child abuse reports and records confidential, I think it's definitely possible. My posting on the article's talk page explains the problem in a little more detail. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If in doubt, cut it out. Generally, every state that I've ever lived in has not only kept the names of minors secret, but they have additionally ruled that such sealed records cannot be brought up at a later date, so it wouldn't even matter if the victim had passed the age of majority since. There is zero benefit and great harm to exposing the name. Geogre 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'd have to delete more than one edit, possibly violating the GFDL here. My personal policy is if in doubt don't delete. No one has opened any sealed records here, the info came from a web site. There was no prosecution so it was only an allegation of child abuse. The minor in question is an adult now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mark Bourrie

Mark Bourrie has a semi-protected tag but is being edited, usually in a disruptive way, by anon. editors. I'm not sure what the problem is. Thanks. JGGardiner 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the article was tagged as sprotected but I don't see anything in the log that says it actually was sprotected. Fan-1967 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] serial copyvios and vandalism by Yr41193

Yr41193 (talk • contribs • count) has been uploading copyrighted images and either not indicating a license or claiming them for his own work. Today I have marked three images he uploaded and claimed as his own work as possible copyvios, Image:Jsesecurities.jpg, Image:Chevy07Impala.jpg and Image:ChevMalibu07.jpg. Yr41193 has now posted a strange message about an image I have not touched to my talk page here and then vandalized my talk page here. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And now I see Yr41193 replaced another editors's signature block with his own on his (Yr41193's) talk page, here. He may just be a floundering newbie, but deliberately misrepresenting the source of copyright images is not benign.-- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community block on User:Mayor Westfall

Recently User:Adam Bishop blocked this user indefinitely for trolling on WP:RD. Having looked through his contributions, I agree partially: some of his posts are clearly inflammatory (check out his first edit, for instance). I feel that this guy could be unblocked eventually, but certainly not yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post a notice about it here; since this would be a community patience block, I think it merits a mention here at least. Mangojuicetalk 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Baron Von Westfall is presently active on WP:RD. — Lomn | Talk 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Suspicious. Mayor Westfall was blocked on 7/11, and Baron Von Westfall became active later. FWIW though, Baron Von Westfall seems to be behaving. *shrugs* Mangojuicetalk 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So were some of Westfall version 1's. The guy's just a timewaster; he had thirteen main-space edits, and two to article talkspace - one of which was abusive. One Wikipedia: space edit that wasn't to WP:RD (which was on an AFD - "I'm the mayor and I say delete"), and north of a hundred, mostly pointless, questions to WP:RD. As far as I can see he was trying to be funny; it didn't work. On it being unsubtly hinted that we knew he was screwing about, he got abusive; on Tagishsimon making the point clearer, he just strutted. Community patience was definitely exhausted on my part - he was being an idiot, wasting people's time, and not even having the redeeming feature of being funny about it. Shimgray | talk | 16:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


There is currently a suspected sock puppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mayor Westfall, with Mayor Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the master and Baron Von Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the sockpuppet. Not only do they have similar names, both of which use the reference desk, here. The account was only created after Mayor Westfall was blocked. Enough to block? Iolakana|T 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (Merged from other entry on this page by Baron Von Westfall 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this block was justified. I have contributed to Wikipedia in many ways. As to questions on the reference desk, if questioning paradigms, and having a differing view on morallity & ethics is trolling, then would Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, and Socrates also be banned from Wikipedia for their views? The reference desk should be a place for Wikipedia users to ask questions they would like answers to. Many of the questions I have may be provokotive to some, but so would have been "Hey, why don't we free the slaves?" in the early 1800s. I shouldn't have responded to rude comment made by another Wikipedian in the manner I did, but other than that I have done no wrong--certanly nothing close to justifying this ban. In the future, I will try not to respond to personal attacks, like this and this. Btw, why where those users not repromanded for their personal attacks against me. Not a big deal, as I know they won't be--Wikipedia isn't as fair as it should be, but I think they should have been. Baron Von Westfall 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
But your username is too similar to the current blocked user. Iolakana|T 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kilo-Lima&curid=2828608&diff=64966492&oldid=64674848 Confirmation of block evasion] has been made in the form of a confession. Please block this sock account and extend the block on User:Mayor Westfall for being an admitted puppet master. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Casteist And Racist Remarks

Someone is making intentional casteist remarks on some pages(mostly talk pages) related to Marathas. Marathas are universally accepted in Hinduism as Kshatriyas. But this particular user is slandering and maligning Maratha image by typing everywhere that Marathas are Shudras (the lowest caste in Hinduism). This is particlarly insulting to the Maratha community on Wikipedia. The Marathas, builders of a former Hindu empire (see Maratha Empire), being a proud community are aghast at this kind of humiliation. I request the admin to please check this user. He is working through different IP addresses everytime. And he is signing his name as "Manu". Here are hi IP addresses -

This kind of nonsense slandering must stop.

--NRS(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar) 10:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am white, but would saying that I am black or asian be an offense to me? No way. In fact, by stating that somebody/you might feel humiliated by comparison to some other ethnical / whatever group of people, you are being a racist yourself. Azmoc 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. While I don't in any way consider Kshatriyas better than Shudras, it seemed obvious to me that calling a Kshatriya a Shudra is an insult... Never crossed my mind that thinking that way amounts to buying into a racist system. Guettarda 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As racist and strange as the caste system might sound to us I really think it is inappropriate to refer to it as a racist system, after all, it is followed by millions of hindus, I really think we shouldn't pass judgement on it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Racism doesn't suddenly become acceptable by weight of numbers, so yes, I'm perfectly happy to pass judgment on it for the corrosive, corrupting, and, ultimately, stupid belief system it is. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics is the better place of this sort of issues. Tintin (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User revealing personal information

User:Karwynn is maintaining a series of attack pages in his userspace, which I expect few would care about. However, on two of these attack pages, he links a valuable contributor to wikipedia's IP address to his username. I have requested that he not do this, but he has refused.

Request to user: [169]

Attack page designed only to propigate IP address: User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted

Section of other attack page used only to propigate IP address: User_talk:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence#Might_be_relevant.2C_adding_for_my_own_later_review. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my good faith attempt to ascertain the best course of action here. I do not know the policy well, I am open to comment.
Perhaps this is unimportant, but please note Hipocrites appeal to a friendly admin about this matter who I have pror history with. Karwynn (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Note in same talk page that same admin said nothing should be done. Any additional action by Hipicrite should be taken as trolling on this matter. rootology 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any further attempts by Karwynn to "out" any other editor will cause him to be blocked. Last warning. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unregistered editor impersonating others.

After a messy content dispute, an unregistered user (IP changing, last seen one user talk: 24.205.142.99) is making all manner of havoc on Firebender, specifically talk page. He’s pretending to be other editors, making insults and so forth and signing the post fraudulently. He’s also inserting random spelling errors in other editors talk-page comments. Furthermore, his talk page had several attempts to talk to him about it, all of which he removed with a notice saying “+ Whateva' I'll do what I want!” I know I and others would like this to stop, for obvious reasons.--Fyre2387 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, though as you've said, the IP rotates. I've s-protected the Firebender page, so at the very least it won't be the target of further vandalism from the IP for now. JDoorjam Talk 03:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism, removal of talk page warnings and minor incivility. Could escalate.

Deletion vandalism by User:Crossmr, on Furry Fandom article: [170]; then removes warnings from talk page: [171] [172]. User has history of previous similar behavior and was recently given a temporary ban. - 81.178.86.15 04:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

legitimate revert. User knew the content was disputed by his edit summary and the sources are dubious at best. Article has a long history of anon IPs trying to push negative content into the article, usually with no or dubious sources. --Crossmr 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
A second revert. [173] Article has a history of POV-pushing from all sides (although my edit wasn't POV and had citations). - 81.178.86.15
Your sources are disputed. Discuss them at the appropriate place. Running to ANI to protect dubious sources isn't proper procedure.--Crossmr 04:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleting content from articles because you believe the sources are disputed rather than discussing it first is not proper procedure. As I said on your talk page this isn't why I mentioned the incident anyway; your constant deletions and reverts of anything that doesn't meet your standard of verifiablity, and hostile behavior and attitude in general are damaging the article. You have a history of doing this and have been warned by administrators for it in the past. [174] [175] - 81.178.86.15 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It was considering you were already aware of the disputed nature. Adding content without proper citation is seen as vandalism. You might also try and keep the discussion to the topic at hand rather than trying to dredge up something to discredit me. It shows the weakness of your point, and the block was inappropriate. Do you have anything to actually suppor the material you want to include or are you just trying to sling mud to cover your tracks? --Crossmr 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Continuing to throw around accusations of vandalism is a poor way to address this situation. If we can shift the conversation away from who's "guilty" of what and towards what the contents of the article should be, that will be good. Nobody is vandalizing here, because we are all out to improve the encyclopedia, so be definition, no vandalism. The only disagreement is over how to improve it, and you won't resolve that by throwing accusations at one another. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The contents of the article should focus on furry fandom, a genre which focuses on anthropomorphic animals. The dispute, in a nutshell: The Furry Fandom article has long been the target of so-called "humor" websites who think it's funny to attempt to get misinformation incorporated into the article because they think the editors who fix it are "taking the internet too seriously." Deliberately adding misinformation to Wikipedia does in fact qualify as Sneaky Vandalism. This has been a chronic problem with the furry fandom article.
User:Crossmr has been helping to improve the article quality by requesting references for material. User:81.178.86.15 is trying to cite dubious so-called "humor" websites as serious references; they are not.
As always, I welcome any suggestions of possible remedies to ongoing Sneaky Vandalism. SOP has been to delete it when it occurs, but this is generally an uphill battle against people whose main goal is to make editors waste their time for entertainment. —Xydexx 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Labelling Disinfo as a humour site is your POV - its Wikipedia entry doesn't refer to it as such. The source wasn't a humour site either. Again you refer to my attempts to balance the article as vandalism. This is exactly why I lodged the incident - it's an uphill battle trying to make any kind of edit to this article that goes against the grain of the opinions of the small POV group of editors controlling. It seems regardless of how many citations you use, they'll always take some issue with it, whilst completely ignoring the citations regarding content that validates their POV. - 81.178.86.15 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Sneaky Vandalism is defined as: "Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos." It'd probably qualify as "Silly Vandalism," except after dealing with it for a while it ceases to be funny. The article has a long history of edits from people who enjoy adding non-notable, irrelevant, and even completely fabricated information to it for humor value. This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia. I refer to your attempts to incorporate misinformation into the article as vandalism. —Xydexx 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Xydexx, you may be right, that our IP friend is deliberately adding misinformation, but it doesn't appear to me to be remotely obvious that that's the case, and in my experience, deciding that someone else is acting with bad faith intentions is a good way to guarantee that the discussion doesn't go well. Let's put the "v-word" aside and focus on the content, and explaining very clearly for anyone who wants to read just what's wrong with the IP's edits, preferably at the article's talk page. This is a content dispute, and there's no reason the people involved shouldn't be able to resolve it without an AN/I thread over who think's who is a vandal. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
My addition was cited, and it's not actually vandalism to add content without proper citation anyway. You've yet to fully explain what you felt was inappropriate about my edits or sources in any case. - 81.178.86.15 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have on the talk page of the article. Maybe you should visit there as that is where the discussion should be taking place. --Crossmr 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive121_9df2.html"