Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive122

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
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] Community ban on User:Hogeye

User:Hogeye was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)

20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)

See the category here. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at Anarchism, so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As the one who protected the Anarchism article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --cesarb 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
They have a new sock: User:Drowner.--The Ungovernable Force 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • <sarcasm>Oppose; useful method for finding more open proxies to block.</sarcasm> Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: They will still use open proxies even after they are banned permanently, so it won't keep you from finding more. The Ungovernable Force 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell sarcasm in type. It was funny though. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning User:haham hanuka

I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at Wikipedia:User page (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia) ; please also have a look here. I consider a block. Any comments? Lectonar 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the translation (which I had been waiting for before taking further action on this), I strongly support the removal of the material. There's no need for a block at this time, but the user should definitely not re-add the material. -- SCZenz 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The content has just been deleted through a formal procedure and he readds as if the community wasn't here. He should be blocked, as he has done this many times before and he was warned about his disrespect for our community decisions many times before. gidonb 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the was deleted at his request, not because of the MfD—and he hoped that adding it to his user page instead would be a compromise. It's clear the community wants it gone, even from his user page, so that isn't acceptable. But at this time, it has been removed from his userpage by Lectonar and not-readded; as long as he doesn't restore the material anywhere, no further action is necessary. -- SCZenz 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SCZenz: a block isn't appropriate at this time. There is a difference between re-adding because he's in a fight and re-adding after he's gotten multiple sets of administrative eyes. In the former case, the slow-ish dispute resolution process would need to take place. In the latter case, it's sort of a different set of offenses that can justify a block more quickly. (No, I'm not lawyering. I'm suggesting that the user can misunderstand some things, but not others.) Geogre 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the page was deleted through a regular procedure with which he agreed. In the meantime he has been blocked for a week for serious trolling on other AfDs. gidonb 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 155.72.100.4 and 24.34.73.135

These IPs (probably one person) had been vandalizing the Crispa Redmanizers and the Toyota Super Corollas pages. I've notified 155.72.100.4 on his talk page when he notified me on my talk page. Then 24.34.73.135 sent me this:

Hoy Putang ina ka na! tigilan mo na 'to pabalik balik natin. wala ka namang na-contribute sa article na 'to

Which rougly translates to:"Hey! <bleep> Stop reverting my edits. You don't contribute anything in the article." I'm requesting an indefinite block on these two IPs. Or any block will do. Even a sem-protect on the two pages. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 04:59, 21 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: [5]( 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] Wp willis

User:Wp willis [6] has done some strange stuff. Reverts following his edits don't work - bring up edit conflict with unrelated pages. When I tried to block the account - the record shows no block. WOW attack? Vsmith 11:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - the block shows up on [7] - hmm. Still cannot revert his changes to Age of the Earth [8] - and when I try to view next change I get an error [9]. What's happening? Vsmith 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Trying to revert to older version of Age of the Earth brings this [10] ?? Vsmith 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There was an issue with the database earlier today, I think this may be screwed. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar problem on Earth which was fixed? by a vandalism edit by user:Wo0sh [11] - seems an odd coincidence. Vsmith 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems some of the the diffs above show something different now - maybe it was just a databas screwup. All those Ws gave me the willys :-) Vsmith 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Some sort of database screwup is crossing the streams. Make a null edit to uncross them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wjhonson reverting Kitty May Ellis stuff

Wjhonson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Hi guys, as a result of this deletion review, I changed my closure of this AfD (and deleted "Kitty May Ellis") and removed all quotations of her works from various articles. Wjhonson is reverting my edits. Now, I've already warned the user about revert-warring, but since I don't want to get into this revert war myself without knowing whether I'm in the right, I thought I'd make a note here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review that was not consensus. My article was a professionally-writen, complete and thoroughly-cited biography. A few attackers kept stating over and over the sources weren't verifiable, which is incorrect. Every source I used for the statements is verifiable and previously published in a reliable source. The deletion *review* came to an incorrect conclusion and there is no reason I should be penalized for trying to expand, valid and useful content on wikipedia. All the sources I used were posted to the article, and the quality was far superior, in my opinion, to the majority of biographies on here. And again every source is verifiable, the attackers took no attempt to even try to verify my sources. Wjhonson 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now, for the first time, been given the opportunity to read the this deletion review. I go to bed with KEEP, I wake up and everything I worked on for the past week — every single quote, every reference to this very notable person has been wiped by Deathphoenix. The sources are on wikisource, a sister project, and have been accepted there as documents of historical interest. Aside from that, I have posted portions of those quotes to various genealogical and history boards for the various communities and names mentioned, and each has expressed great interest in this source. And yet, one of the remarks on the review is that this person is not notable. It's relatively hard to reconcile the two positions. One person, a descendent of Chief Joseph wrote with profuse thanks that there is yet another source on her ancestor. The mere fact that a person is not universally known, is not a sufficient reason for stating that person is not *notable*. The notability page I would add, states that a person is also notable if they *should* be more widely known. If nothing else, this person should pass on that criteria. Wjhonson 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have some experience with genealogy. What are the links at wikisource so I can look it over? Never mind. This belongs on Wjohnson's talk page and DRV. Thatcher131 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment User:Wjhonson's conduct, the DRV should either be properly closed (and the old version possibly userfied?) as the closing admin has reverted his prior decision, or the history be restored until the DRV has run its course. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The DRV has been closed in favor of deletion. Without getting into a debate about the merits of the deletion, in the interests of tidying up, I'd like to remove all the redlinks to the now-(re)deleted article. I'm afraid, however, that another edit war will ensue. Any advice would be appreciated. Katr67 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I unlinked references to Ellis mostly without deleting the text. If an article is developed that the community agrees is viable, the links can be restored. Hopefully this solves the above issue for now. Katr67 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The user has now reposted the article under Kittie May Ellis. Perhaps another AfD is called for. Katr67 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Absoluly incorrect. The article was reopened for further review, and then the deletion-request was closed *moribund*, no result. This is just more of you and your friends attempt to mischaracterize the situation. The article stays. Wjhonson 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD already started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittie May Ellis (second nomination). And I am no friend (or enemy) of Katr67, I don't know her (?) at all. I'll conduct further discussion at the AfD, if needed. Fram 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me just state for the record that I am not a friend (nor enemy) of any of the other users who have expressed their opinions on the merits of the article under discussion. Katr67 20:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Any *new* review should either be based exclusively on new comments, or should take into account the many responders in the original AfD who voted to KEEP. And should not be done, in the middle of the night, in a few hours. The persons interested in the history of the Pacific Northwest in general are not awake at 3 in our morning to respond to attacks on our published history by people who have no idea what's going on, and who are boldly lied to by others in the response pool. Wjhonson 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with the result of this deletion again. I have recreated the page and I am requesting some sort of arbitration, I just don't know how to do that yet. Verifiability is not reliant on ease, only possibility. Notability is not reliant on google hits. So someone tell me how to accelerate this up to the next level. Thanks. Wjhonson 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. I have posted cogent rebuttal to the most salacious of claims Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Assume_good_faith, and I would appreciate comments on this meta-issue, What happens when editors who have not read a source, assume it is unreliable. Wjhonson 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz has protected my #redirect of "Kitty May Ellis" to "Kittie May Ellis". What possible resason could there be for this? Can someone please unprotect this page. Thank you. Wjhonson 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[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 [12]. 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] admin Zanimum violating hot button article protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&action=history

Please review and get him to stop. This article is locked, is under AfD, and the crux of half the arguments revolved around perceived admin bias based on the fact an admin was attacked on the 3rd party site the article in question is about. Why is this admin being allowed to edit a protected article under AfD condtion? It needs to be immediately reverted back to this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&oldid=64682131

And this abusive admin stopped immediately. rootology 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Back on topic, this abusive admin continues to make unchallenged, undiscussed, unilateral edits on a protected page being discussed for AfD. We need an admin to stop him and revert the edits he is doing in violation of policy. Its a protected article and his edits are inappropriate. rootology 17:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum has reverted himself, leaving only minor formatting edits. Move along, nothing to see here. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. This is the second time an admin has changed content on this article in some fashion while it was locked, and editors had no ability to revert. What is the actual, official policy on edits done to locked articles? Zanium on the talk page also stated he would not revert, which to me is abusive. rootology 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
How about you actually read the policy before making such accusations? --InShaneee 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I had read them.
"In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." - thats my objection.
"Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In most cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, unless a case of obvious trolling and/or revert warring, or blatently unsuitable content." not done, another objection.
"In the following specific cases, an exception is made:" - none apply. Thats it. I'm done. Cheers. rootology 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It says "be cautious"; it doesn't outright prohibit it. --InShaneee 00:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Are we saying that admins get final say on content then? They can unilaterally change ANYTHING on an article, and if a 'regular' editor doesn't like it, protection can be used as empowerment of the admin's viewpoints on what that featured content should be? Because to be frank, his breathless "the edits stay" can be construed by anyone as saying "I'm not changing it and you can't do a damn thing about" due to the protection in place. rootology 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like the "be cautious" part applies to indefinately-protected pages, such as the main page or templates; the page in question is a "temporarily protected page", which falls under the section above the one you were reading. That says, in an extremely straightforward fashion:
Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies.
Of course, common sense should also be applied, and I don't think these edits were really such a big deal; but they weren't direly needed, either. Part of the purpose of protection is to force people to come to the talk page and participate in discussions about the article's direction; if admins start handling seemingly trivial maintenance edits on temporarily protected pages, that encourages people to leave the page protected longer, and increases the chance that editors who are generally happy with the protected version will stay out of discussions. The annoyance of being unable to make small corrections like these is part of what makes protection work the way it does. --Aquillion 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

People found some sources in real newspapers, not blogs of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I think those should get linked at the bottom of the article, protected or not. Hardvice 00:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not something to discuss here. --InShaneee 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inproper deletion

Hi, not sure exactly what to do here, this is a new problem for me. One of my subpages was being considered for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted. In the midst of ongoing discussion about its merit, during which 3 of the four participants agreed it was harmless, User:Tony Sidaway speedy deleted it without even mentioning the matter. THe reason, "attack page", was the subject on ongoing discussion on the MfD page. I have discussed it with him, proposing continued discussion and compromise, but feel his answer is unsatisfactory and request a second outside administrator opinion. Karwynn (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony acted properly; the top of the page begins with "Below are links to edits by multiple users. Because these users are administrators, they will likely use the article delete power to hide them." and Karwynn, on occasion in the page, is trying to figure out the ISP of one admin, MONGO. This is a form of harrasment and Tony acted properly to have this deleted before the MFD is finished. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is incorrect. The page is a copy of a former page, I am not the original author. Additionally, if that is the only problem, I will recreate it, delete the first paragraph, and delete any mention about the IP. Thank you for (finally) clarifying the problem. Note once again that the page was not an attack page. Karwynn (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
People, in the past, have allowed to keep evidence for related issues, RFC's and RFAr's; but anything that is trying to "out" an editor usually gets deleted for being an attack page. An example of outing is trying to figure out the ISP of a person, real name of a person, real location and their real job (unless, of course, the subject of the investigation gives it out willing). But since MONGO and others have not, then it is considered harrasment. It doesn't matter where it came from, nor if you were the original posted, the reason why we have pointed it to you is that the page is in your userspace. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm particularly shocked to see the results of another wiki's checkuser pasted in there. They may have low standards for IP outing but we don't. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Criticism is not the same as attacking. I agree that the IP addresses are a concern, but those could have been removed while leaving the rest of it. There's discussion of this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Karwynn also. Friday (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was the entire thing deleted and not just the offending material? That was--as the note mentioned--a copy paste of a previous diff that multiple users were actively checking against. My note also said it would be removed after. It seems the IP info at most should have been removed, not the 40-50+ referenced links. Why was that information removed as well? It is all public record in the WP history; we had simply compiled it into one location for Good Faith analysis, criticism and review. rootology 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Can ED drama stay on Encyclopedia Dramatica please?? --Cyde↔Weys 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

THe issue is not about ED, please make an effort to be informed and not dismissive. Karwynn (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't ED drama. See my above post. It is a criticism/review of whether Tony overstepped what is an appropriate deletion. rootology 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As you yourself (rootology) so willingly splurted above, "Any additional action {...} should be taken as trolling on this matter."
You're not going to convince people of the importance of following up your claims of supposed process violations when you continue to willingly post personal identifying information and dismiss the importance of avoiding personal attacks. This entire crusade of your fellow ED editors here on WP (defending the article, attacking people and then claiming process vios) is a major violation of WP:POINT, and an obvious (and quite pathetic) attempt at intimidation of users. Might fly on ED, but not on WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't know that it was MONGO's IP, and if it was, and confirmed (not to us, in general) as MONGO's IP by an admin, that info can be removed. If it wasn't his IP it's a random vandal IP and no harm to leave it up--anymore than the thousands of others scattered in notes all over WP. Was it appropriate for everything on the page to nuked and the earth salted? In any event, everyone else can fight this now. I had nothing to do with ED and came to the defense of what (opinion) seemed like MONGO's friends defending overreaching actions as an admin. I did not know that researching/compiling public WP records for a possible perceived violation by a user was against the rules. rootology 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Does rootology have an ED account? Begging the question? YOur premise is faulty, faulty, faulty. Karwynn (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't. rootology 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever he claims, it's unverifiable. WP:V. Much like other trolls I've met (Karwynn, or whatever your prior names have been), you answer with a misstatement of the question. The pathetic actions of a troll are not often this conspicuous. And I sense from the response to your pleadings here that the community's patience is fading. Return to ED, or choose other areas of focus for WP... if contributing to the article is indeed your goal at all. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Look at every one of my my edits before this ED disaster pulled me in. NOTHING to do with it. I worked on my own little baby project, and a bunch of comics/TV related stuff. We'll have to just agree to disagree in good faith that this sad mess is littered with bias on both sides--possible bias on some staff/admin/whatever pro-MONGO, some editors/admins pro-ED. I'm done with this and am going back to my old stuff. I kept trying to argue that everyone stay neutral but the attacks just kept swirling from *both* sides (fact). Sorry if anyone's time was wasted. rootology 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like ED drama to me - someone gets ahold of MONGO's IP from a CheckUser on ED and then people on here run around releasing that information. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, sir. I had no idea if that was really his IP, that's why it was up in the first place, to compare contribs. I've stated here and copied that diff link to several other places that I didn't know if it was really his IP, and that if it really was, I would take it down because it would be moot. Karwynn (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In view of the nature and provenance of this material, I don't think assumption of good faith is appropriate here. It was correctly speedied. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree strongly and feel that you came from a biased position in light of your history with MONGO and Hipicrite. Another admin should have dealt with this. In any event I'm done. Everyone else can fight over perceived or factual bias on this one. rootology 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Cyde. This has everything to do with ED, and is therefore ED drama. I am sick and tired of this. This garbage does not belong on this site. We have much better work to do. --Pilotguy (roger that) 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this page (and nearly all this ED related cesspool). I'm just sick of all of this. Sorry again if anyone feels their time was wasted--I'm going back to my old projects. If anyone has any important questions or whatever for me hit me on my talk page or email me if it's private. rootology 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if the discussion lasted longer than 5 minutes on this topic than it was too long. We aren't a internet hosting service. We allow some extra stuff on users subpages for the work of writing the encyclopedia or to make the place more enjoyable. If something is disruptive in anyway it needs to go. The sooner the better because it will cause less disruption that way. FloNight talk 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but sadly, as is often the case, the deletion of the "disruptive" material ended up causing more disruption than the presence of that material. Friday (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has been affected here, but I've also been getting email spam from at least two users about 'innapropriate admin action' on this deletion, which upon investigation is really nothing worth noting. --InShaneee 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sweet fancy Moses this entire issue needs its own notice board, it's clogging up both WP:AN, and WP:AN/i, get a grip people--64.12.116.65 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cry me a river....the IP isn't mine anyway.--MONGO 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • missing the point? this is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, why is this here at all?--64.12.116.65 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I felt like adding something...there was a complaint, and this is the proper forum. You're missing the point anon.--MONGO 22:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I meant this entire header, why is it here at all? this meets a new level of off-topicness, even for AN/i, it has nothing to do with anything administrative, and it's not an incident--64.12.116.65 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What's this edit <stalking deleted - User:Zoe|(talk)> 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)>? Hardvice 23:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Meaningless is what it is, if he doesn't want to disclose if it's his IP, then that's his choice, you pushing isn't going to change anything--64.12.116.65 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


About Zoe's removal. I thought MONGO would want to leave it as it is and say, "That's not me." If he wants it hidden and it is him, that's fine, just don't say it isn't him. But if he says it's not him, that's different. The removed link was actually posted on one of these boards earlier by another user and it's still up to my knowledge. Hardvice 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's it. Blocking this fellow for blatant trolling. Three hours I guess. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked Karwynn for this edit attacking MONGO. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:NYTheaterHistorian Continues to post personal info

User:NYTheaterHistorian continues to post another user's personal information, including this individual's alleged current place of employment on his talk page [[13]]. Wikipedia pages pertaining to this individual have been deleted, yet, NYTheaterHistorian continues to re-post old warnings and discussions of the deleted pages on his own User Talk page, including derogatory statements about this individual and personal information.

Neither User:NYTheaterHistorian, nor his sock puppet User:OffOffBroadway behave like legitimate Wikipedia editors. Any reasonable person reviewing the contribution history of "both" these individuals can see that nearly all of their "editorial" contributions have been geared towards a targeted campaign of harrassment against this person.

Will somebody, please, do something?--MissMajesty 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The information posted on my discussion page is all relevent in explaining edits that were done in trying to work towards truth on two pages, which have now been deleted due to being seen as self promotion and of being not worthy of having pages. There are no derogatory statements that I have posted; simly truths in explaining my actions. Information that she says is personal is information that was relevant and specific to the pages she created. No contact information such as phone numbers or addresses have been given; simply information relevant to the page, and available with a simple google search. user:missmajesty has been noted as puppet master of numerous logins and has been threatening me with legal threats. This user is selectively removing information off of my discussion page, yet leaving the numerous 'warnings' that she left for me in hopes that I would not make legitimate and factual edits to the pages she created, at the same time mistakenly leaving the same warnings for an administrative editior. She is also incorrect in stating that user:offoffbroadway is a sockpuppet of mine; that is a completely seperate person and I encourage any administrative research to see that this is so. Kind regards, --NYTheaterHistorian 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the information from my discussion page that user:missmajesty has questioned as personal. --NYTheaterHistorian 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism on Dance Portal?

On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Dance, the Featured article is replaced with the sentence "ina hamash kose shere raghs kiloee chande baba sare karemon gozashtin ba tashakor". I guess its Persian but I haven't a clue to what it means, so I don't know if I should remove it or not (and besides I don't know what to replace it with). Annaxt 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been there since the page was created. I'd leave it or leave a message with the portal's creator. Naconkantari 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind about that, it was a template used on the page. Naconkantari 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both! Annaxt 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DangerZoneYes

I blocked DangerZoneYes (talk • contribs). Someone is jerking us around. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay. *cough* I mean, it is with sincere regret that I concur that this user has exhausted community patience and endorse this indefinite block. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Self Promotion

The following was previously posted: On the Attachment Therapy page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. RalphLender 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since mercer has financial interest in the book and her group ACT has a financial interest in the book, I'd thought that mercer's promoting and posting her book is a violation of Wiki policy. Furthermore, the text is really more of an advocacy and publicity piece than a professional publication. If you can respond here or on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. SamDavidson 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Self Promotion

Pm_shef (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is the son of Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman, and habitually edits Vaughan articles either by removing relevant information and claiming there is consensus for that, or adding complimentary information. When he doesn't get his way, he gets involved in edit wars and complains to an/i as well kissing the ass of his vast network of allies and admins.

Within the last month alone, Pm_shef has been busy. He has not only removed corporate donations from the list of election issues in Vaughan in this edit [14], but also removed compromising information about Michael Di Biase, including those 3 traffic tickets that mysteriously disappeared a few years ago [15], his $164,074 salary that is one of the highest for a politician in the country [16], his being appointed without an election upon the death of Lorna Jackson [17] [18] and the fact that he, along with father Alan Shefman, is being investigated for corruption and receiving.... corporate donations [19].

Pm_shef has in the past been warned by bearcat and mangojuice, and this did slow him down for a few months. But now he is starting again. He's even gained the attention of the local media, who have left him a message on his talk page, wondering why he believes corporate donations are not an election issue, and if this is the campaign of his father's. Can we have a temporary ban or some other measure to indicate to him the nature of this neutral encyclopedia? Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your second edit to Wikipedia. Don't you think you're diving into the politics and conflicts of the place a little quickly? JDoorjam Talk 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Flaming/Vandalism by anon user

Hello, I had a comment about an IP user that made a trolling comment to me: here, and I believe it is vandalism to get me to flame him (i.e. trolling). It's discouraging me, and he/she/it has been trolling other users as well, among vandalism. Thank you for your time. --VelairWight (my discussion) 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Apparent GNAA troll at large

Werto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log).

New account just created but contribs indicate an apparently experienced (banned?) Wikipedia editor. Makes some sort-of-reasonable typo corrections, tries to get Klerck biography speedied [20], uploads Rush Limbaugh screen shot with GNAA data in the form fields (Image:Freelimbaugh247.png) and posts racist trolling at [21] and [22] etc., still actively editing. -- Phr (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter91

Hi, I have a problem which encompasses a question on policy. As you'll see here, [23], Hunter91 (talk • contribs) feels that I'm incorrect in some of my advice to him and my actions in an AfD (all of my correspondance has been deleted from his talk page, but with history: [24]). He's removed votes from an AfD, claiming that they were by sockpuppets and he left no comment on the AfD discussion [25]. He also changed my nomination, leaving no comment. The users he has labelled as sockpuppets have no warnings for sockpuppetry on their talk pages. From what I can see, the user has a history of removing comments which conflict with his beliefs on the article talk page Talk:Battle_Field_2 like here. I feel that this user is distrupting wikipedia (to an extent), and am trying to get in contact with an admin to see if they can/will do anything about it. The response I'm hoping for is a kind word to Hunter91 and a revert of his edits to the afd page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_Field_2). Thanks Martinp23 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Do not alter other people's comments. If he thinks they belong to sockpuppets, he should add a note to the discussion for the closing admin, but removing AFD comments or nominations without leaving comments is not acceptable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am with Martin. I voted for the 'Delete' of the article, and then he comments saying that the vote was done by a sock puppet! I am most certainly not a sock puppet! I also commented against the article in the discussion page, but he deleted my comment. He's then accusing everyone of being vandals. If you compare the article of Battle Field 2 to Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, there's a huge difference. You gotta help. Seriphyn 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-added a delete vote that he had removed and then he accused me of being a "sockpuppet and a vandal" - someone might want to have a polite word. --Charlesknight 21:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PoV Edit War

ED209 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and JohnnyCanuck (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) have been continuously adding PoV comments to both Michael Di Biase and Vaughan municipal election, 2006. Myself and a number of other editors have attempted to reason with them, to no avail. Discussions on both article talk pages have shown that the only people who believe the information should be included are the two users mentioned above. Every other objective editor believes that they have no place in the articles. Could someone step in and make a definitive ruling please? These people have demonstrated they have no interest in abiding by community consensus. Thanks - pm_shef 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Di Biase had three consecutive traffic tickets 'misplaced' by the police, and this was suspicious enough for the Toronto Star and the local newspaper to report. How does a ticket just vanish? This would be a lucky coincidence for most people, but when it involves the allegedly corrupt Mayor of the allegedly most corrupt council in Canada, luck may not be involved. Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Also where is this so called "community consensus"? If you go to the [talk page], you'll see that only one person agrees with Pm_shef, and that's JamesTeterenko. Bearcat says that he has "no strong opinion about whether the traffic incidents belong in the article" and CJCurrie writes "I don't have any strong opinions about Michael Di Biase, and I'm willing to grant that the information could perhaps be presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner." The question is, is pm_shef, the son on Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman, capable of writing objectively about City Hall? Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Zereshk Internal Spamming

The user has been internally spamming to try and get a favorable outcome on this afd. Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. (Wikipedia:Spam) [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40][41] [42] [43] [44]--Jersey Devil 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm rolling back as many 'notices' as I can, and issuing a stern warning to Zereshk. However, it appears he's also been busy trolling for meatpuppets, which I think deserves looking into seperately. --InShaneee 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that a temporary block is neccessary here, this kind of action isn't going to stop with a warning on his talk page and will just be brushed off. I also don't think it is fair to the rest of us who want a fair afd process and who do not resort to this action to get keep votes on afds.--Jersey Devil 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I've removed the messages. He's not currently spamming, and unless he starts again, he's not going to be blocked. --InShaneee 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
If he starts up again, do what you have to do, with my support. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that he was also doing it externally, on the Persian Wikipedia: [45]. And I've been told there are precedents of similar behaviour: [46], [47]. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us on that I am going to tell InShanee in his talk page.--Jersey Devil 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Those posts all belong to the period before Zereshk was asked to stop spamming other pages. --Aminz 06:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question, and an important one: Zereshk has now vowed to continue spamming off-site, which of course he can't be caught in the act as easily. Any suggested course of action? --InShaneee 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain he's been doing just that anyway, in similar earlier cases too. And his behaviour is being rewarded: there are in fact around a dozen new keep votes on that AfD by now, almost all from Iranian users. It's exactly this sort of behaviour that has made pages like Misconceptions about the Shi'a (even worse piece of POV writing) survive up to three successive AfD's, apparently. Probably nothing much than an Arbcom ban would be able to stop him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've issued a 48 hour block for the moment, and if I ever see that his 'groupies' show up mysteriouly in any more AfDs, I'll be more than happy to block again for longer. --InShaneee 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz Request :

Aleged Injustice: Can other admins please have a look into this: ** Is 48 Hours block appropriate for such violation of policies? ** I seriously doubt! Zereshk has remained civil and hasn't done any vandalism. He has spammed some pages and this was his first time. Later, he has said to a particular user that he will inform him next time via email (please note his tone in that comment which seems not to be serious though it was very improper). I have seen all the relevant evidences & I personally find this block as it stands to be injustice (48 hours! for doing something once!). --Aminz 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another evidence: One reason that I like another admin to look into this is that when InShaneee first warned Zereshk of not spamming, InShaneee warned Zereshk of getting blocked. I was completely surprised when I saw that. I've been around in wikipedia for awhile and have got a sense of the warnings. Nobody gives a {{test4}} to a person who has done vandalism for his first time. --Aminz 01:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting again. Can any other admin for the sake of God have a look into this case. Thanks --Aminz 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another evidence : User InShaneee believes: "As I said, policy is policy and if you break it, it's broken. Sure, he didn't vandalize, but spamming is a policy too, and such flagrant disregard cannot go unnoticed... Showing such disregard for policy is the mark of a troll, and users who show no willingness to follow policy are often blocked indefinatly."
I personally think InShaneee is not taking the required steps one by one in dealing with user Zereshk. Blocking a user (particularly for 48 hours) should be only taken as the last resort. InShaneee, on the other hand, is trying to identify Zereshk's comment as a mark of being a troll. This is a very quick judgment based on a single comment and I believe InShaneee is over-generalizing the situation. Furthermore, this block doesn't serve in a constructive manner. I am still confused why InShaneee didn't warn Zereshk of not showing disregard for the policy. Much worst things happen in wikipedia all the times, but the admins are much more tolerant (and they are supposed to be). Just put yourself in Zereshk's shoes: He is going to be accused of having the mark of a troll and getting banned for 48 hours in his first violation of a policy!!!!! (well! two policies) --Aminz 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Myrtone86 blocked for a week for (repeated) disruption

I have blocked Myrtone86 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for a week for adding an angry emoticon to the end of Template:UsernameBlocked [48]. He also added an 'autosig' which also needed reverting, as sometimes extra commentary can be inserted after templates - I could almost swear that he's been reverted and warned about adding autosigs before, but perhaps that was someone else.

If it needs to be said, and I really hope it doesn't, this is a completely inappropriate edit to a high-visibility template which regards a very sensitive issue - blocking users indefinitely who may not have been expecting it. It turns a rational and clear explanation into a statement that we don't take permanent blocking of users who may be editing in good faith seriously. The edit stood for several hours until I used the template on a user's talk page, had to edit my own edit to remove Myrtone's crap, and then revert him. For all we know some editors used it without noticing (the template is designed to be substed so whatlinkshere won't be any use in checking). Silly edits to templatespace are many times more damaging than silly edits to article, user or projectspace.

My block of a week takes into account Myrtone's 5 previous blocks, albeit two were later undone. Given Myrtone86's history of silly edits which have got him blocked several times in the past, I don't feel any more such edits from this user should be tolerated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been involved with him before because he had an incredibly stupid signature that used {{PAGENAME}} in it. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I briefly blocked Myrtone in June for persisting in that after multiple warnings. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the autosigs, the editor I was thinking of who had been doing it before was actually User:Flameviper12, not Myrtone. Flameviper had a similar history of mixing good edits with phenomenally stupid ones (more stupid than Myrtone, it has to be said), including disruptive signatures, until he was eventually indefinitely blocked (for the third time, after being unblocked twice after promising to be good). --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Myrtone86 has a history of constant disruption which he attempts to do in a way that he can pass off as an innocent action. Check a classic example here Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels. Suspect JoW is a sockpuppet of Myrtone86. Tyrenius 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am truly baffled as to why this user has not been blocked indefinitely. He is an incredible nuisance who has contributed virutally nothing to Wikipedia.--SB | T 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say the next time this nonsense happens it's permanent. --Cyde↔Weys 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#How_it.27s_done_on_OrthodoxWiki might be of interest as well. Essjay (Talk) 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Looking for some more eyes/peacemakers at William H. Kennedy

Got a page of a living person, with two editors with very strong views holding an edit war over the page. One pro-Kennedy, one anti-Kennedy. The page was semi-protected a few days back, at the request of the pro side warrior (User:617USA). On the anti side, there had been several IPs followed by a user account, (User:Suture). I'm pretty sure this is all one person. The anti warrior has been pushing to have some serious derogatory claims included in the article. I've been trying to reason with him on the talk page about the need for WP:RS. His account appears to have just passed the age for getting around the semi-protection, and the fight is on again. And I'm about done for much of the weekend, with little time to deal with things. It would be great if another admin could keep an eye on this page, as I can see things getting out of hand again there very easily. - TexasAndroid 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block Evade: User:McMeaty

Here, I reported an incident with an unregistered user making havoc, and it resulted in him being blocked an protection of the relevant article (Firebender). Well, he must have managed to change his IP, because he’s back at it. It seems he also has a member account, User:McMeaty. I’ve reverted his changes on talk: Firebender, but they are still visible on the page history. He’s also added personal insults towards another editor to his talk page.--Fyre2387 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've temporairily blocked him. Sasquatch t|c 02:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New user requesting help may be a sockpuppet

When a bot at #wikipedia-bootcamp notified users that RumDuck (talk • contribs) was in need of help, he was asking why his IP was blocked. He used {{helpme}} prior to any welcome message posted there. It appears that his IP is blocked because of the indef block put on Werto (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Based on the way that he is signing his messages as well as the use of the template with no knowledge how to, I believe he is a sockpuppet of Werto. I believe that the IP address that it came from should have a block on account creation, now that he's used it to try and get unblocked. Ryūlóng 05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of the IP in question is peppered with {{blatantvandal}}, and appears to also be involved with racist remarks that Werto was blocked for (24.83.203.198 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)). Ryūlóng 06:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
When I did block, I checked to make sure the account creation was disabled, but I have no idea how it works out, since I am still somewhat unfamiliar on the new blocking system and how it "works." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Energyblue blocked as sockpuppet

I just put an indefinite block on Energyblue (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for being a SOCK of VaughanWatch (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). My reasoning for this is:

  • His first edit was to "out" pm_shef, the apparent archnemesis of VaughanWatch [49]
  • His second edit was to report pm_shef here [50]

This seems like a pretty clearcut case for sockpuppetry of a blocked user, but I did want to post it here to make sure that no one sees any issue with this. -- JamesTeterenko 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm cool with it. Even if he's not VaughanWatch, he's pretty obviously a sockpuppet. JDoorjam Talk 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would surprise me if it wasn't a VaughanWatch sock. Good block. Syrthiss 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Improper reversion on WP:SOCK

Please take action against FT2 for improper reverting of Wikipedia's policy on legitimate sockpuppets. PooIGuy 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that PooIGuy (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)'s edits to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry were the first and third edits under that account name. (The comment above was the second.) Although new users are of course welcome to participate in policy discussions, I think that a major edit to a policy page by a brand-new account is suspicious enough to merit reversion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as an impersonator of PoolGuy (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). --Cyde↔Weys 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that PoolGuy is limited by Arbcom to one account. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Easyrider roo (talk • contribs)

User:Easyrider roo has a total of four edits, consisting of only copyright violations. The user has posted the entire afterword ("Author's Note") to Philip K. Dick's novel A Scanner Darkly in two places: User:Easyrider roo/AScannerDarkly and User:Easyrider roo. Note, this is not just the list of names that appears in the movie. I have just blanked the pages, but I think the history should be purged. Could someone take care of this please? —Viriditas | Talk 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Next time, I suggest following the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. These things usually are not an emergency. Basically, you blank the page, use the {{copyvio}} template and then list the page at the copyright problems subpage that is on the template after you save the page. Anyway, I deleted User:Easyrider roo/AScannerDarkly, since it does not have much purpose now that the text is deleted. It is not necessary to remove copyright violations from the history unless there is a complaint. Therefore, I would have saved the user page, except for the fact that there is a good chance that he or she is not coming back based upon my experience with copyright violators - all of the edits were copyright violations, they were all made on the same day and no edits have been made since, which is classic copyright violator style, at least for text (as opposed to images). -- Kjkolb 08:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The reason I wanted to bypass WP:CP was due to the fact that this was showing up in recent Google search results, which I just found. The text was uploaded by the user around the time the film was in limited release (July 7), however the film is going into wide release on July 28, so I felt that a quick response might be needed. As I recall, WP:CP has a backlog. —Viriditas | Talk 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vestal Senior High School

Could some more people watch this article? I've removed some slanders from it - but it is still full of trivia which (even if true) is of no value to wikipedia, and is likely to attract more nonsense. This is a good example of why schools' articles are a Bad Idea. --Aoratos 08:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Added. This is a very nice high school article. Iolakana|T 11:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators pushing their own POV

This is a serious problem. Take a look here and you'll see that MONGO and tom harrison are pushing their own POV's and also not being civil (using terms "conspiracy theorist") How long is it going to take for wikipedia to ditch them already? They (and others) are nothing but troublemakers. CB Brooklyn 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where MONGO or tom harrison called you that. Mind providing a diff to an actual edit instead of the whole freakin' history page? Additionally, I don't see why you need to take an editorial dispute to ANI. Shouldn't you handle it with an RfC or something? Kasreyn 08:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks more like a case of administrators pushing policy to me. Just zis Guy you know? 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if they are pushing policy at the expense of unsourced crap, something should be done! Barnstars? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a STERN barnstar. You have been awarded this as a warning that you are doing something right. Please continue. If you do, you may find yourself being severely complimented without further warnings.
This is a STERN barnstar. You have been awarded this as a warning that you are doing something right. Please continue. If you do, you may find yourself being severely complimented without further warnings.
STERN barnstars. --InShaneee 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
*dies laughing* ^_^ Kasreyn 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's too good an opportunity to miss! <heads for Photoshop> Here you go... :-) -- ChrisO 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You're my new hero, ChrisO. :) --InShaneee 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Great barnstar, I agree.  :) --Elonka 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone going to award it? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
done. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fake user

I really hate it. User:Wizkid357 wrote a message on my talkpage and signed it as Ral315. I thought I ought to report here, as he is clearly faking his sig, but still...he is trying to be Ral315. Treebark (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Wizkid357 was trying to impersonate Ral315. I assume that you're talking about this edit to your talk page...? It seems that Wizkid357 was just copy-paste quoting Ral315's remark from Ral's comment here. Wizkid probably should have made more of an effort to set off his remark as a quotation, but he did sign the edit with his own signature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Note Based on the user page and edit history, it appears that Wizkid is a pre-teen, so may be a little careless in some areas (like the barnstar that doesn't seem to have been put there by the editor whose name is signed to it). Fan-1967 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Molobo (talk • contribs), Sciurin%C3%A6 (talk • contribs)

These two were edit warring over articles that concerned Poles in Germany or similar things. If you check this diff: [51], you will see that both versions are sort of biased, Molobos was at least sourced. The blocking admin (Dmcdevit) said he was tired etc. and wouldn't do the same thing (evidence collecting) for Sciurinae, but that probably someone should do it, because it was always him who pursued molobos edits and warred over them. However, Sciurinae was blocked for 72 hours, (despite warning for months), and Molobo for 1 year. I don't think that Molobo should be unblocked, he surely did what he shouldnt have done, but why is his sparing partner only blocked for 72 hours? Azmoc 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Dmcdevit thought that there was still hope for Sciurinae, and that a shorter block might drive home the point that we're serious about not tolerating edit warring. Checking the block log, I note that this is Sciurinae's first block, whereas Molobo has been blocked many times over the last nine months for edit warring.
Molobo was nearly blocked indefinitely a couple of months ago – see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring – and was only allowed to return after a shorter (1 month) block on the condition that he refrain from the edit warring conduct that got him in trouble in the first place. Molobo has had ample opportunities to reform his behaviour, and has failed to avail himself of those opportunities.
I assume and expect that should Sciurinae fail to modify his behaviour, he too will face additional warnings and escalating blocks—however I hope that this 72-hour block (which, for a first block, is far from short) will discourage further edit warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] question

[52] is this a personal attack or not? Azmoc 11:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that User:Azmoc was User:Ackoz. This pretty well confirms it. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] user:Gamesmasterg9 --- case of trolling on Vote Bank

This user has been found persistently indulged in Moving the page to different Titles after being unsuccessful in AFD for which he nominated the page .He has created new page Votebank and have done vandal redirects to this one which have now been fixed by redirecting to the old version.PLZ also see relevant talk on the page Votebank politics in India which has been shifted to this title by this user from Vote Bank.I recommend some admin action in this case.The user must recieve block for these disruptions.Holy---+---Warrior 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Azmoc

Azmoc (talk • contribs) has only one edit to article space, but spends all of his time making uncivil remarks and attacks. I have blocked him for 48 hours (the second time he has been blocked) for this threat of vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can a user deny an unblock?

Can an normal user deny an unblock if it's an obvious no?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, except in the case of someone not giving IP address or autoblock information, who isn't blocked by name. Then, you could leave {{autoblock}} there and remove the request. I think otherwise, it's important that at least someone who can unblock takes a look. Mangojuicetalk 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
How about in cases where someone puts an unblock template on a user/IP that isn't blocked at all?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's a user or IP and they aren't blocked (or haven't been blocked in a long time), leave the {{autoblock}} message, if they didn't leave the block message. I guess it's also okay in cases where the block shows up but has already been undone or has expired. If you guys want to help, actually, one thing that would be very helpful is to go through the Reviewed requests for unblock, and remove tags that are old or for which the block has expired. The {{unblock reviewed}} template says that the request continues to be visible, but that really isn't true if most of the requests are out of date. Mangojuicetalk 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't see why not, generally non-admins can do anything which don't require the admin buttons close RFAs AFDs which are keeps, detag speedies which aren't really speedies etc. --pgk(talk) 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Corrected RFA --> AFD, as I'm sure that's what Pgk meant, and I *really* don't want to have to deal with the effects of what a misreading of the statment could do at RfA. Essjay (Talk) 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Haha, better than that, has an anon ever tried to close an RfA? I'm sure it would be User:69.145.123.171 if ir was anyone...... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal......I won't make any block decisions unless I become an admin, it's not in my power to unblock or protect a talkpage from attacks if the user goes bad. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I posted a couple denials:
  1. Case 1: Vandal continued to vandalize articles, after test4, I requested an admin to block, and I posted the blockmessage. When the user requested an unblock, I contacted the admin who performed the block and decided to deny the unblock, so I responded to the unblock request.
  2. Case 2: User requests unblock multiple time while I and admins are on rcpatrol. I report the unblock request reason, they deny it, and I post the unblock deny on that user's talkpage on behalf of the admins. This case was brought up in my RfA.
I'd say, the best course of action would be to play it safe and only do so if you have an admin backing you up and willing to vouch for the unblock deny on your behalf. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citing own material in which financial interest exists

On the Attachment Therapy page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. RalphLender 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not self-published, but was brought out by Praeger, an imprint of Greenwood. This is an academic press that provides initial expert review, developmental review, and professional editing services. Jacket comments were provided by Elizabeth Loftus and Frederick Crews, and there is a series forward by Hiram Fitzgerald of the World Association for Infant Mental Health (the series was Child Psychology and Mental Health). This book was cited by the APSAC task force in 2006 with respect to the use of Attachment Therapy. However, as is the case for many serious books, the royalties have been very small-- I would suppose each author has realized no more than $200 from the book in the three years it has been out, rather less than it took to prepare the ms.. This is in fact the only single publication that gives a thorough analysis of the topic, and that is why I cite it.

I could, of course, avoid being the subject of such complaints if I did not reveal my identity, but I consider it important for people to know who is speaking about a subject so relevant to the well-being of children and families.

Incidentally, I applaud the distinction made by InShanee between self-published and other material, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that today there are a number of what one might call "printer-ready publishers" who provide none of the services of a company like Praeger, but permit authors to avoid having their work tagged "self-published." Such publishers add complexity to the existing problem of identifying authoritative information without careful reading and analysis.Jean Mercer 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This belongs on the article discussion page, not ANI. Phr (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tribalwar AFD Page

Has gotten lots of hit with personal attacks -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar -- and has nothing to do with the subject matter. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend the personal attacks be removed, but would rather have clearnce to proceed. --Pilotguy (roger that) 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty grotesque. There has been a huge influx of red accounts and IP's, all showing up in an instant and uttering nonsense. I'm not sure that anyone will be able to close the thing and feel secure about the decision, so I'd guess that DRV will be necessary. At any rate, actual personal attacks can be stricken through (the old <s> </s> tags), as that leaves them where they are but shows that the remarks are clutter and insults. Geogre 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Very nasty business, though inevitable - after all, it was nominated by a Wikipedia user with some sort of previous personal dispute with some (possibly many) of the forum members (see here and here). Nothing good was ever going to come of this - in fact, I suspect the only reason the AfD hasn't been closed as bad-faith is either that the editor is sufficiently well-established to get away with it, that the admins reckon a reasonably proper AfD process can still be salvaged from this mess (and I hope it's this one), or that no-one has noticed yet. - makomk 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
If this were to be reviewed once more. All you need to do is check the history to see what is going on. --Shane (talk/contrib) 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 216.164.203.90 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

It appears that the "Nanook vandal", known by such registered names as Raptor30 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), Rappy30V2 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (V3, etc.) and Nookdog (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), is asking various people to be unblocked. If it can be demonstrated that there is collateral damage at other IPs (strangely, starting with 64) or because others using "Google Web Accelerator, which assigns a small set of proxy Ip's [sic] to it's [sic] users" as claimed (despite the seeming impossibility, as this user's IP has been static from the start), then any such damage certainly should be mitigated. Given the massive evidence against 216.164.203.90, however, this IP should not be unblocked under any circumstances for the foreseeable future. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This user (who previously impersonated me in IRC and on Wikinews) has created wikt:User:Radio Kirk (where I already have an account, without the space) and wikispecies:User:RadioKirk (where I didn't) to impersonate me again. Fortunately, it's painfully obvious... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] 81.36.29.122 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

This guy simply doesn't follow wikipedia's standards. He continuosly makes edits to Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 without showing any proof, then when asked, still doesn't until he gets close to breaking the 3rr. Even then, he claims other experienced and respected user's to be idiots or stupid, makes various personal attacks, and blanks user's comments[53]. He ignores all warnings given to him, and has been given countless chances to stop his hostile behavior/vandalism. I am becoming very stressed with this retunring vandal, as he uses different IPs to escape blocking, and is very stuck up. It's becoming a challenge for me to not make personal attacks myself.--KojiDude (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Port scanning

I'm wondering why I'm getting this.

16:55:56 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (4749, 4748, 4746, 4742, 4744, 4745))

15:59:46 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (3179, 3146, 3181, 3184, 3182, 3183))

(timestamp is in gmt-4) This is a Wikimedia IP. I've been getting this intermittently for the past 12 hours. Just thought I'd make a note of it someplace. — Nathan (talk) / 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might get more response. --pgk(talk) 20:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll post it there too. If you feel you need to remove the post from here, go right ahead - I'll be watching both places. — Nathan (talk) / 20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] User 68.96.102.166 - please unprotect talk page, he's vandalizing again

The block for IP editor 68.96.102.166 has apparently expired, because he is making a mess. He's blanked the Talk:Newbie page, redirected Floob from Newbie to Wright brothers, and I can't warn him because his talk page is protected. Could someone lift the talk page block and/or reblock him? Thanks - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected (you know, that's the reason I was one of the few against allowing blocked users to edit their user talk pages...). --cesarb 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Sarner and User:DPeterson

I've blocked User:Sarner for 48 hours for the following personal attack: [54]. There's some nastiness going on here; I first became aware of it when I denied a very inappropriate speedy deletion tag on Advocates for Children in Therapy (see [55]), which itself could have merited a block, but instead I gave a stern warning. I left WP for the day and came back to find they'd had a bit of a fight on my talk page. Advocates for Children in Therapy has now been nominated by Sarner for deletion; his reasoning consists of a LOT of failing to assume good faith. I invite others to review the situation. Mangojuicetalk 01:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

This user is tagging article after article for deletion to "illustrate a point" relative to the current Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. A little warning might be in order. Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This user's own words, "I'm trying to demonstrate". Definitely fits the definition of POINT. (→Netscott) 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Every one of the SEVEN tagged articles are minor ones that warrent PROD and all fail a variety of things. Some of them have support from others to delete. What disruption? I can't PROD articles? rootology 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith here. He could have used other accounts--which I believe the wikipedia's rules are like ebay's: none can be blocked and they can't interact on the same articles, and it's allowed--so his actions would not be watched, but he didn't. assume good faith? Hardvice 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Rotology's words, "I'm trying to demonstrate that the WP:WEB for wikis overall are valid to keep". Tagging article after article for deletion to illustrate your point is not the way to do things. You're just going to cause problems and anger folks who in seeing your POINTed behavior are likely to start editing in retaliatory ways relative to yourself and further disrupt Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hardvice, according to User:Tony Sidaway you're on notice for trolling over this issue... you're not in the best position to be discussing this matter. (→Netscott) 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that "he didn't try to hide his rule violations" is hardly a saving argument. --InShaneee 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's okay for people to make points while NOT disrupting Wikipedia. I don't see how those articles are inappropriate to nominate, nor how the AfD debates that might result (if the PRODs don't go through) would be disruptive any more than any other debate. To me, WP:POINT use of deletion process involves either (1) tagging of articles that are clearly worthwhile, or (2) tagging of articles for disingenuous reasons (such as, because they are edited by an editor someone else is in a dispute with). Mangojuicetalk 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's understandable that in light of hardvice (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s own pointed demonstrations he'd be inclined to defend User:Rootology. Both of these users should be blocked for an extended period of time. (→Netscott) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass AfDing/PRODing is going to rile folks up especially given the environment it's been done in. Doing that just causes hard feelings and inclines people to act in retaliatory ways... (→Netscott) 04:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I'm actually not trolling. I am expressing myself. I am inclined to think you are the one trolling: following root around, personal attacks on me here, and stirring up trouble. Hardvice 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that if the only way we can reference an article is by it's homepage, then that may indeed not qualify it as an encyclopedia entry under WP:RS. Though that is just a guideline, not policy, if we are not able to find reliable secondary sources about the subject, it may not be notable for inclusion.--MONGO 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Netscott also posted (I believe to Tony's Talk page) that we should have an official WP policy against articles on subjects that criticize Wikipedia. I don't think I should be banned for anything. Look at the replies to WP:WEB on my post. Compliments, civil discussion. "Good job on the PRODS". Hipocrite and Netscott are e-stalking my activities I think, given I stood up against them in good faith. ED is gone from WP. They can come back when they eventually get more notable, and when they do should be welcomed back the same as any other "notable" subject. I prod'd articles that are lacking. Would it be not disruptive if I did "one"? Or is seven too much? If I find 5,492 articles merit deletion per policy, am I not allowed to PROD? If I find (somehow) 15000 or 100000, should they not go because it's a big number? I don't understand this. I never wandered into any of this admin stuff before. I edited my cheerful little projects, and while digging around for the one baby project I started, I found Habbo Hotels mess. That led to this. If I get banned, ban. I'll appeal to ArbCom if I have to. This is absurd. Thanks, I'm done and am unwatching this page now. Apparently only people popular in the right cliques can "be bold". rootology 06:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Leaving aside for a moment the evidence of disruption, nominating those articles is, on the whole, uncontentious: none of them appear to have reliable secondary sources, and most can easily be dealt with in a single sentence in some other article. MONGO is right - if the only source is the site itself we really can't cover it per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 4.243.215.217 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) abusing {{unblock}}

4.243.215.217 (talk • contribs) is abusing {{unblock}} on User talk:4.243.215.217. An admin told him to wait out the block, and he readded {{unblock}} with the reason: 'I don't wanna!'

He was blocked for engaging in personal attacks on his talk page. Due to this and the abuse of {{unblock}}, I seek protection of his talk page. Computerjoe's talk 10:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-07-21 SPUI

SPUI (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has gone off the deep end. S/he's been edit warring on Freeway-related topics all month. There was the WP:POINT move of Freeway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to Highway with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). That took weeks to fix (that was prior to my involvement).

But today, s/he's gone hog-wild WP:POINT creating:

And making hundreds of re-categorizations. Categories take even longer to fix than mere moves.

After losing the renaming of Category:Freeways (edit|talk|links|history|logs) to Category:Limited-access roads (edit|talk|links|history|logs), and then losing the July 1 CfD to rename it back, a Deletion review, a re-listing for more comments, and losing the CfD relisting, and on the way to losing another Deletion review. I've posted two notices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, should I make it 3, 4, 5?

Please stop this quickly, it's gotten ugly!

--William Allen Simpson 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This is too complex for me to feel comfortable doing anything about, since I have no previous knowledge of this issue. However, a quick glance at the block log shows quite a colorful history. If there really was ill behavior here, I would suggest a somewhat long block - probably at least a week- as there sure seems to be a history of other disruptive behavior. Friday (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
See the arbitration case from a couple weeks ago (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways). I recommend an immediate block to stop further damage if the editing is still in progress; decide afterwards how long to make it. Phr (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no "ill behavior" here. Most people in the deletion discussion begun by William do not wish to see these categories deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Still you can't deny you've made disruptive edits to some of these pages in the last 4 days all in violation of your probation. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I do deny that. Not that you'll change your mind based on said denial. --SPUI (T - C) 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at Limited-access road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

--William Allen Simpson 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Simple removal of uncited material that has been uncited since I tagged it about a week ago. --SPUI (T - C) 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada, where none of the subcategories or articles applies. According to their own main articles, these are expressways and controlled access roads, and therefore do not have "no cross traffic". For example, Ring Road (Regina) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has signals at railroad crossings.

--William Allen Simpson 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

William has added improper speedy deletion templates to the categories several times, and has tried to empty Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada. --SPUI (T - C) 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether WAS is right or wrong as I think it could go both ways. However what is a fact despite your denial is that you've been edit warring with him. That is disruption. Disruption is an immediate block per yours and my probations. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked William Allen Simpson for personal attacks for repeatedly referring to SPUI as "Vandal SPUI". That's unacceptable. More explanation on William's talk page. --Cyde↔Weys 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ill-advised words, sure, but a blockworthy personal attack? A warning first sure wouldn't have hurt. Friday (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That was inexcusable language. A three-hour cooler sounds sensible here. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait. You guys block WAS for being mildly uncivil yet don't block SPUI for two days worth of shirking his ArbCom imposed probation which specifically forbids edit warring on highway articles and incivility, both of which he was proven to have done??? How the hell does that work? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(ec) He's been blocked so many times he's got more than one page of block log. Is referring to him as "vandal" THAT unreasonable? I'm all for being very conservative with the use of that word, but let's be reasonable. Friday (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I endorse the block of William Allen Simpson. He is clearly out of control on this issue (unlike SPUI) and needs a breather. If he doesn't tone down the unwarranted rhetoric, he will find himself getting longer blocks. SPUI has a checkered history on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean he's fair game. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
None of SPUI's blocks are for vandalism, so yes, referring to him as a vandal is entirely unreasonable. SPUI may have some problems dealing with content disputes, but he does a lot of good work and he's certainly no vandal, and I know he doesn't appreciate being called one. --Cyde↔Weys 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He's continued - "I was not able to assist you, as SPUI had his chat friends block my account for reporting his repeated vandalism at WP:ANI, the usual place for reporting vandalism." --SPUI (T - C) 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Vote corrupted (again) by user

William Allen Simpson (talk • contribs) closed a vote in controversial circumstances. A list of categories different to the ones being voted on was added to during a vote after quite a few voters had already voted on the original list. He chose to include votes cast for deletion prior to their late addition as block votes for deletion of the late added categories too, even though the original list was of people who speak universal or majority national languages like English (hardly a topic worth a category), while the late additions were of small languages with so small a usage that the ability to speak it was notable (for example, Welsh). His cock-up in counting and in misrepresenting votes led to a decision at deletion review to undelete the categories added in and re-list them, something he grudgingly did, while refusing to accept any responsibility for the screw-up.

In the relist he added in a false explanation (how it was merely that they had not been listed for a full seven days, not that they had been suspiciously added in when a votes had been cast on other categories). He then corrupted the second vote by canvassing users, asking them if their original votes had been to delete the categories.

  1. 19:53, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Merchbow (People by language)
  2. 19:52, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Golfcam (People by language)
  3. 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calsicol (People by language)
  4. 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Smerus (People by language)
  5. 19:50, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Osomec (People by language)
  6. 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Olborne (People by language)
  7. 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Musicpvm (People by language)
  8. 19:48, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sumahoy (People by language)
  9. 19:47, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Yonatanh (People by language) link to diff, all the above are the same notice
  10. 19:38, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Syrthiss (some category help) link to diff

Prior to the deletion review, his attention to the error had been drawn by a Welsh user. Instead of paying any attention he attacked her in a manner that suggested he was hardly a neutral observer of the debate. She discovered that he had added in the loaded (and completely) misleading supposed explanation for the revote and that he was canvassing support, and informed the users on their pages that the issue was more complex, to try to undo the damage he was doing to the second vote.

To make a mess of counting the first time could be excused (even if his comments suggested he was hardly a neutral observer fit to interpret the results). To deliberately corrupt the revote through a misleading explanation and canvassing, is unacceptable. At this stage it is impossible to work out how many genuine voters are voting, or whether others were canvassed by other means (email, etc). What do we do now? Wait until they are deleted a second time and then relist a third time? At this stage any chance of a balanced debate had been destroyed by Mr Simpson's conduct. A glance at his edits suggests that this is not the first time that he has been engaged in widespread canvassing on issues he feels strongly about. He is making a mockery, and a mess, of the whole deletion system. User:Jtdirl 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen him doing this same sort of thing in other CFD discussions. Sorry, nothing specific, but it's as if he thinks he runs that place. --Cyde↔Weys 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jtdirl, if you had bothered looking at my talk you would have seen that he most certianly did not canvass me for votes. User:Deb made the same erroneous assumption and then deleted her comment off my talk page when she realized her error. He asked me to do two things: do an unreleated history only undeletion that had sat around for ~20 days on DRV (IIRC), and to undelete the cats relative to the relisted CFD because people in a froth about it had re-added items back to the deleted cats and he didn't want to see relinked categories in articles while it was sorted out. I'm going to go check the other edits listed by you to verify that you haven't misrepresented them as well. Asking users who have participated before in a discussion to weigh in is perfectly reasonable, especially if perhaps he felt he was in error in the original closing...as long as all of them are notified and there isn't any attempt to sway the debate ("its up for discussion again please vote KEEP"). Syrthiss 11:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Linked the notice above, it was a question regarding their intention on the debate. Full disclosure is a nice thing, rather than a witch hunt, wouldn't you say? Syrthiss 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Asking users if they intended their vote to be "to delete" is an non-too-subtle way of canvassing. If he had asked then what their vote was meant to would be somewhat neutral. But asking them to deny his interpretation that their vote to delete, at a time when the he wants people to come to a page to vote to delete, is blatent fixing. Deb caught him up to his usual tricks and simply pointed out that the issue wasn't straightforward and showed them a link to a debate. He has blatently now corrupted two votes on the issue. Users have been blocked from Wikipedia for less. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from your personal attacks and repeated prevarication. The Cfd practice is that such parties be notified upon re-listing. The neutrally worded notice was (all notices were substantially identical):

Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.
--William Allen Simpson 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are Wikipedians voting on this matter in the first place? --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That is, indeed, a good question. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A list of categories of people by language spoken was put up for deletion. The list was all of national dominant languages (eg, Danish, given that practically 100% of Danes speak Danish, Dutch, given that practically 100% of Dutch people speak Dutch, etc) and mass international languages like English, French, and Spanish. Categorising people by such languages is pointless — its a bit by listing people per having two eyes, etc. In other words it is the natural default that one would expect and in no way notable. Well into the vote a different type of languages, small use languages where the ability to speak it is so rare as to be notable, for example, Welsh (which few Welsh people can speak), Latin (which few Catholic clergy can speak anymore) etc were sneaked in unto the list even though they are fundamentally different. (For example, the fact that Prince Charles can speak English isn't notable. The fact that he can speak Welsh is notable and made headlines when he studied it. The fact that George Bush can (sort of) speak English is not notable. It is to be expected. If he could speak Latin or Welsh, that would be notable, putting him in a very small elite.) Simpson counted votes cast to delete the first block of widely spoken languages which had been caste before not small minority languages were sneaked onto the list, as votes to delete the entire list. When he was informed by users, who presumed he had not noticed the mistake, of the error, he turned on users and attacked them. A deletion review relisted the rarely spoken languages, amid much moaning from Simpson. He got them relisted (grudlingly), put a misleading explanation for the reason of the vote at the top, placed the relist back with the earlier vote (meaning that new users had to dig around in all the archives to try and track it down) and then to rig it more contacted users in a none-too-subtle attempt to canvass them. So having mishandled one vote, he then tried to set up the second to deliver the result he had announced his support for. But then, as Cyde noted, Simpson seems to be acting like judge, jury and executioner far too often, rather than standing back and letting independent people not committed to one side, to analyse the results, reach a conclusion and implement it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not notified of this discussion by the petitioner.
To the best of my observation, and careful annotation on the current discussion,
  1. No languages were sneaked onto the list by anybody, they were all properly tagged by Chicheley (talk • contribs).
  2. It is not unusual for additional categories to be added as discovered during an umbrella nomination.
  3. The entire discussion had more than 20 participants. There was no controversy. This is an overwhelming supermajority. Also, look at the well-reasoned comments.
  4. The actual count for the discussion following complete tagging was 8d:3k. Again, clear, convincing, and obvious supermajority.
  5. You will be given an opportunity to prove that I "turned on users and attacked them".
  6. The deletion review was concluded promptly (not awaiting the full 7 days) and the debate relisted.
  7. The relist copied the entire preceding discussion, as required at Wikipedia:Deletion process.
  8. The relist explanation was entirely accurate and objective: RELISTED FOR FURTHER COMMENTS PURSUANT TO Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18, because 3 categories received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.
I will bring the above personal attacks and prevarication to RfAR as soon as practicable. (I'm very busy, I have a couple of briefs due at the Court of Appeals.) The involved administrators should have their priviledges revoked.
--William Allen Simpson 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] User:Hopiakuta

Hopiakuta (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is adding a long, incomprehensible rant at various places, for instance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, User talk:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability, claiming some article of his on racism has been deleted. (If the article was anything like his other writings, I'm not surprised.) I fail to see the encyclopedic usefulness of his/her contributions. Seems like a person who will very soon "exhaust the community's patience". Tupsharru 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, he was an IP editor when "my page but you deleted" happened. Under this account name, he has done nothing but talk pages and project talk pages, and in each of these cases has had something awfully Zen to say, in poetic form. He's quite a newbie to computers, and I assume his handicaps are causing the short lines, etc. So far, though, he seems exasperating, but I can't see where he has crossed a line yet. Geogre 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for information, he appears to be 71.102.31.67 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) --Lo2u (T • C) 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have been originally upset by an image which was at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Doppleganger, which was quickly removed when the issue was brought up. In response to this he created Wikipedia:Racism, attempting to outline the incident (somewhat incoherently), and seemed to be upset that a project of this sort did not already exist, implying that no one on Wikipedia cared about issues regarding to racism etc. (which I personally found somewhat insulting, but whatev.) I tried to inform him of both the two projects noted above, at which point he proceeded to copy and paste his grievances in multiple places, in a format which is very difficult to understand or read (perhaps because of disabilities). As Geogre says, frustrating, but Good faith nevertheless. Mak (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laser Tag and WP:EL

On July 6, 2006, I made this revert with VandalProof and has resulted in some problems. 65.78.112.37 (talk • contribs) then made this comment on my talk page and re-added the link here. In response and based on criteria at WP:EL, I cleared out links here with the edit summary of removed a great numer of links based on WP:EL (specific companies; dicussion-only forums; niche or small area tag sites, ect. that reported on other aspects and companies and clubs dealing with Laser tag. The IP then reverted my edits [56], commented on my talk page [57], and started commenting on the dicussion at Talk:Laser tag#External Link Discussion [58] [59] [60]. I started stating some reasons why the links were removed in detail [61] (IP responded [62] and I responded to this with [63]). The IP then gave reasons for each link here, and I responded to each with this edit as did Sugarskane (talk • contribs) here. Both me and Sugarskane took a break and since then, the IP has responded with this, using our sleeping/work/ect as a reason to re-add the links. Even before this, Sugarskane had implored the IP several times to express why these links are needed [64] [65].

Finally, I returned last night, saw the reentries to the ELs on the main Laser Tag page and reverted. The IP then left me this message, then user Whateverpt (talk • contribs) (most likely the IP, based on talk page comments and articles of interest) left this message, and the IP then left this message. I believe this is all to make a point by the IP to push his webpage that was the starting point of this mess.

I would VERY much like someone to take a look at this and respond. I am going to walk away now, because the time I spent on this the other night, and the time I am spending now reported this, could be used for most important things like creating articles, WP:CVU, and helping to wikify articles. Thank you for who ever can respond. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:Whateverpt created the article Actual Reality, which seems not to be notable enough for inclusion, but since I have mentioned all of the above, I will refrain from "prod"ing or "csd"ing it. They have also include the webpage I have brought into question above in the article as a external link. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Moeron, you've done a great job removing all those external links. That other user(s) is QUITE in the wrong here. Simple case of overlinking. --InShaneee 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I originally commented out the entire external link section and asked someone with more experience to the topic to look over the section. There were a few links that, during the discussion, I thought might be good to keep around. Could a non-biased, more experienced, admin look at the following and consider them for inclusion?
"Non-biased, more experienced"? --InShaneee 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Non-biased -- someone that hasn't been dealing with Whateverpt... More experienced -- someone that knows the EL stuff better than I do. Do any of the above links seem valid for inclusion? --Sugarskane 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job Moeron. And shame on whoever is that IP for blatant lack of civility. Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. "Actual Reality" is mentioned VERY breifly an almost inconsequentially in the article. The link that was readded was to a site with what appears to be a particular company's laser sensor (and possibly equipment). Its almost useless to the reader of the article. Also one of the diffs I checked with a brief arguement by the anon is a straw man arguement ("the other links are still there" and its relatives). Last, the other diff I saw with 5 or so links added is clearly not a good idea. Kevin_b_er 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Repetitive category deletion attempts

I'm an administrator but I'm a little biased so I figured I'd ask for an impartial ear. Isn't there some unwritten rule about nominating categories for deletion over and over?

If they were whacked on the first or even second attempt, I wouldn't say much ---- but FOUR now?! All within an eight-month span.

Moreover, this time, the categories weren't even tagged until three days after the CFD was started so if you're like me and don't keep close tabs on WP:CFD, then you end up only being the fourth or fifth vote which is clearly a disadvantage.

What gives?! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They appear to each be nominated by different editors, who presumably all independently thought they should be deleted and didn't know there had already been a discussion about it, as most of the talk pages don't mention the previous CfDs. The two recent ones are also several months apart from the others and each other. Tagging them incorrectly is bad, but I think it is pretty likely that these users just all thought they should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 08:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Pppppfffttt. Oh well.... Sour grapes = —Wknight94 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AOL Vandal Fun (again)

The AOL ceiling cat vandal is back, this time with [[Image:Michael-Jackson-With-Kids.jpg]]. We've been reverting him like crazy for the last 20 minutes, but the ip's keep changing. I know a lot of you have dealt with this on a routine basis...any ideas? I'm about to call it a night, and I've got nothing. I'm not sure a block would really help. Alphachimp talk 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmph. Wasn't there supposed to be a fix for the AOL proxy issue a while ago? Zetawoof(ζ) 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copy-paste move redirect vandalism

Comanche cph (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) made Ragnarök a redirect to Ragnarok and then proceeded to copy-paste the content of Ragnarök over to Ragnarok. I have reverted these edits, but I am not sure as to how long they will stay as such. Ryūlóng 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't call it vandalism? Do you use more user names since you come from no where and call it vandalism?

Ragnarok is the English word, and this a English wikipedia right? Ragnarök is not the old Norse word. But the Icelandic. Look at how the article Midgard looks like. On that way this article should be. Or do you also think that we should change that article to "Miðgarðr"

The letter "ö" is not in the English alphabet. --Comanche cph 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct approach is to move the article from one name to the other. Copy-pasting it destroys the history (essentially, it makes it look like you wrote the entire current article by yourself in one sitting.) If the move can not be made because something already exists at the old name and the system will not permit the move, you should list is at Wikipedia:Requested page moves for an admin to do it properly. If the move is contested, you should have a discussion first on both talk pages. Thatcher131 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because the letter "ö" is not in the English alphabet does not mean the article should be named without the ö. There are plenty of articles on the English Wikipedia about non-English topics that are named with special characters in the title. WP:MoS-JA will rename articles so they are named with Hepburn Romaji and use characters such as ā, ō, and ū. The move is also contended at Talk:Ragnarök, partly because "Ragnarök" is the Old Norse spelling of the work, and that spelling is used in the modern Swedish language, as well as on other non-English Wikipedias (off the top of my head, the French Wikipedia uses ö in their spelling of "Ragnarök"). And what does the "Do you use more user names since you come from no where and call it vandalism?" accusation mean? Ryūlóng 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Istartfires

This user has in the last few minutes done a long series of bot-like edits, wikilinking one word on a many pages. Many of these are very dubious--ceded, high, etc., links to disambig pages or redirects. It's not vandalism, but I don't know how to communicate with him about this clearly. I would like him to slow down and do what he's doing more carefully, since a lot of these will end up being reverted if he keeps going as is. Can someone look at his contribs please? Thanks. · rodii · 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted seeming random Wikilinks and asked for a reason (no response yet); another admin blocked 24h. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is getting a high number of revert's so I think it's urgent, and necessary to bring here. Requesting Semi Protection due to large amount of vandalism. Hello32020 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Large revert war going on Hello32020 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind it was just protected Hello32020 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For future reference WP:RFPP is the appropriate place for page protection requests. --pgk(talk) 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Elkman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Can someone take a look at his recent contributions? They seem like calculated disruption of the sort I am often accused of. He made Pink fuzzy bunnies a few days ago with what's now at Highway 33 (Minnesota) - see [66] for his rationale. --SPUI (T - C) 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that Pink fuzzy bunnies was a mistake borne out of frustration of this situation. As for the rest... well, let's just say that I'm off the Minnesota State Highways project. I'm not sure why I ever got involved in the highways project in the first place.
Basically, since I've created and/or modified a number of articles under the wrong title ("Minnesota State Highway (x)" instead of "State Highway x (Minnesota)"), that means I did something wrong. That, in itself, is a blockable offense. So I won't argue about the blocks being applied. Indeed, since I made a number of mistakes editing List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota this afternoon, and since I wasted time and server space using AWB, I suppose it's going to happen anyway. --Elkman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (Note the short signature format)
Ah, you have not been blocked by anyone. Take a deep breath and calm down. :) FCYTravis 23:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: it was Elkman who added the {{vandal}} to the section title. I do not believe him to be a vandal. --SPUI (T - C) 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Fecil

This user has vandalized Seduction in the same way that it has been recently. At the very least, it seems like the article should be locked, but beyond that, I don't know how to get this activity to stop. Andrewski 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:TJ Spyke

Could someone kindly tell TJ Spyke that calling my good-faith edits "trolling", is against WP:NPA. I tried nicely to tell him, but he keep reverting my edits with edit summaries of "Lousy trolls" and "STOP CHANGING THAT YOU TROLLS". Although I don't agree with his edit summaries, I also don't agree with his edits either because my edits have a source, which I provide, but he persistantly remove them saying I'm trolling which I'm not. 209.214.141.10 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not the first time he's done this, and user is a bit of a revert warrior besides. Warned. --InShaneee 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, he also said he was sorry if he offended me, which I accept if that was apology. 209.214.141.10 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Link spam and possible threat

While I am watching Xiaolin Showdown, this edit popped up: [67]. While the user only put up a link to a Xiaolin Showdown fan RPG while also separating the notable TV.com from the Kids WB and Wizards of the Coast sites, his message is particularly poignant. I think he's just a link spammer, trying to advertise the RPG that he's a part of. While it is an AOL IP, something should be done. Ryūlóng 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP, 15 minute block, Please drive through to the next window. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lebanon

Someone want to take a look at this page? Seems there is, pardon the expression, a war breaking out. Fan-1967 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Page sprotected by User:Mark. <;;;i>~Kylu (u|t) 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of Afd Tag

User:Rlk89 removed the afd tag of an ongoing afd [68] I placed the afd tag back and asked the user not to remove tags from ongoing afds (as the template asks you not to remove them from ongoing discussions) [69] and he removed the tag again saying in the edit summary "Conflict is resolved" even though the Afd is ongoing. [70] I don't want this to turn into an edit war so I ask that an administrator intervene. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, the situation seems to have been resolved as he self-reverted his edit.--Jersey Devil 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal attack and/or death threat

From [71]

"Now at least I know there are some people who personally cannot stand me here and will do anything to delete any content I enter - even if they are too stupid to notice that the joke is on them. There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award.".

Phr (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. --mboverload@ 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Awww... that was the most amusing nutjob I've seen in ages! Check out his user page if you haven't already. the wub "?!" 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The current page is nothing more than a "user banned" notice. I assume you meant to link here. -- llywrch 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a surreal userpage. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that makes me sad. Phr (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a tiger if I ever saw one. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to clear off the "novel" the user posted on their talk page? Paul Cyr 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Silver and Kreese: Getting Down and Dirty

As far as I can establish this film is a hoax. There is no independent Google sourcing and it is not in IMDb. The article Silver And Kreese - Getting Down and Dirty has been prodded for this reason. If you check Martin Kove you will see that it has been repeatedly added by anons. I cannot remove it any more since I am at my 3RR limit. Can anything be done or must we accept that this article will contain a hoax film? BlueValour 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a case for sprotection? At least until whether the "Down & Drty" movie is determined to exist. -- llywrch 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is apparently user User:Jackman69, evading his through AOL IPs. he was the creator of teh Movie article and was blocked for his actions at Kurt Cobain, where he keeps removing alternate spellings through the same IPs. I have semi-protected Kove for now. Circeus 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Circeus. BlueValour 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] user:kjlee is using open proxies and is most likely a sock of user:lightbringer

user:kjlee started editting a few days ago and immediately/exculsively made edits to Freemasonry related articles exactly like a known banned user user:lightbringer. A Checkuser was requested and it was stated that he is using open proxies, which has been a tactic of LB in the past. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer has the information on this user and his MO. Can an admin please block his latest sock. Chtirrell 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Kaleen, Australian Capital Territory

Please look at the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleen%2C_Australian_Capital_Territory. It has been repeatedly vandalised by 137.92.97.111 , Princeofkaleen, 58.169.8.255, Grizzlydeer, and 137.154.16.30.

Note that 210.9.138.222 is me as an unregistered user, and that my contribution was an attempt to remove the graffiti. Thanks! They come along about once every month... There's absolutely no need to act here. You can always sign up for a user account and get access to a watchlist to more easily monitor changes to the page though. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User Removing Warnings and Stonewalling pages

  • For some reason, whenever I post here, it gets ignored. Let's hope that doesn't happen this time.
  • ED209 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) recently removed an NPA and a AGF warning from his page. I would do something about it, but if I do, he'll just accuse me of vandalism. In addition, after removing them from his page, he copy/pasted them onto my page. I removed them as nonsense, but if an administrator could step in, it'd be much appreciated. Secondly, the same user is stonewalling any additions to Michael Di Biase. I have spent the last 3 days attempting to compromise, changing a dispute paragraph, providing citations, making it as neutral as humanly possible, yet he continues to make up total nonsense as reason not to include it. Not to mention his nonstop personal attacks. Honestly I feel as if I'm being assaulted from all sides here... I'd really appreciate some help. Again, could someone please step in and make a ruling here? His antics are preventing any progress on Vaughan related articles. - pm_shef 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have given him a warning about it the whole thing. Looks like he is very involved with articles related to Vaughan, Ontario, and has POV issues all over the place. Maybe a Request for comments is in order. Circeus 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Anybody who actually gets involved with this dispute better read the entire history of the situation. user:pm_shef is guilty of everything he accuses me. When he removes warnings from his talkpage it is fine, when I do it he calls it vandalism. His additions to the Michael Di Biase page are POV. His father is a Vaughan Councillor. He was quoted in the local newspaper as being a watchdog for Vaughan-related pages on the orders of his father. He has attacked me on many occasions, he is condescenting, and never assumes good faith. He has acted as a bully to me as a relatively new user. He has accused me of being a sockpuppet for user:VaughanWatch. I was proven innocent through an IP check and by the support of many admins. He still insinuates somehow connected to that user. Please help. ED209 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


    • This entire situation looks like it really needs Mediation. And user:pm shef has not removed any warnings from his talk. Your adition was clearly retaliatory. Circeus 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think ED here is referring to this which he added... and are baseless... Sasquatch t|c 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really a strange situation. It seems every day or so, a "new" user or a user that has been dormant for months comes out of the woodworks and adds really POV information in either the Vaughan municipal election, 2006 article or the one about Di Biase. As a sample, see this edit that actually starts to mention this edit war in the article. Also, through all of this, I have not seen pm_shef make a personal attack or add anything that was too POV even though he has been significantly provoked. -- JamesTeterenko 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This edit has user:pm_shef deleting what I deem to be crucial information to his talk page. Admins and other users need to see this article to understand the situation. Yet, user:pm_shef deletes this. When I delete his sarcastic warnings off my page, he reports me. Go figure. ED209 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the entire Vaughan dispute, but something is definitely going on here. Both users are now having rather ridiculous quabbling on my talk page. ED, linkslike tehse do not belong there anyway and pm and every right to remove them. If anything they should have been posted on the proper article talk page. Circeus 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm on it. I'm familiar with the Vaughan wars and all the players. Mangojuicetalk 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hope you do better at damage control than me. On my side, I shall go to bed, as it is past one in the morning here. Circeus 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] another troll/vandal

KJFhjf (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Brand new account, vandalizes several random pages (see contribs), jumps into Klerck AfD to press for deletion, [72] and deletes a related section from Two Towers film article [73] with no edit summary. Might be sock of Werto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log).

-- Phr (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: see also RumDuck (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who came in via the same IP as User:Werto according to User_talk:RumDuck. That IP has been blatantvandal-blocked several times and RumDuck appears to be a vandal [74]. Ryulong's post a few sections up has some more info. Phr (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:South Philly, repeated editing of another's signed comments, and incivility

This user has repeatedly Changed people's comments, contrary to the vandalism policy, in the process misrepresenting the intent of the nominator of an WP:SFD listing ([75], [76], [77]), interleaved with highly discourteous denials and evasions of the point ([78], [79], [80], [81]) in response to my several requests that he cease doing so. I'd block him myself, but I'd prefer to avoid suggestions of being "too involved" (as the person reverting the vandalism and misrepresentation, the one on the receiving end of the incivility, and the one getting quite frankly highly annoyed at the whole business). At the very least, can someone else tell him to knock it off? The claims of "harassment", WP:DICK "cites" (great idea that, a page that lets people dispense insults purporting to be project-space references), and "only you have a problem with this" jibes are extremely wearing. Alai 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that in a previous discussion on the user's talk page, after being blocked for inappropriate use of fair-use images on his user page, he used the same insult against the admin who blocked him: [82]. Use of WP:DICK to insult others seems to be a way of life for South Philly. Kasreyn 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SandyGeorgia - out of control?

Sorry to bring this up again but it seems this user is now totally out of control.

Here she is accusing another editor she is engaged with in an edit war on Hugo Chavez and Criticism of Hugo Chavez of "personal attack" for politely asking her to "keep a cool head" and expressing his opinion, well within guidelines, on her edits [83] (this seems particularly mean-spirited to me as English is User:SuperFlanker's second language and it must be so stressful for him to have his usage constantly critiqued and micro-managed in this way).

Here she is using User talk:Torinir‎ for her own personal attacks and dialogue because he was going to close Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome, as she had requested herself [84] but was actually beaten to it by User:Kylu(???).

Here she is trying to misrepresent the final edits on the previous WP:ANI [85] thus [86] and [87].

I am posting this here because it is impossible for me to negotiate with a person who manipulates like this and I honestly do not want to get into some kind of personal, ongoing war with her, but this behavior CANNOT be right? --Zeraeph 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentations again. It looks like I've acquired a friend for life.
I did not request the mediation be closed: on the contrary. Zeraeph is pointing to a copy of my post here, on AN/I. I have suggested that this be taken to proper channels, which *is* mediation. I requested the case be closed here on AN/I, because Zeraeph's previous comments did not belong here. User:FrancisTyers already requested that he not post about it here. [88] Dispute resolution belongs on MEDCAB. Yet, here it is again, although Zeraeph has still refused to talk directly with me [89][90] about his allegations, and requested that the Mediation be closed [91] before it was even started.
I have reminded another editor that if he continually characterized legitimate edits as vandalism, that could be interpreted as a personal attack.
And Zeraeph came into a conversation I initiated with the mediator, when he quickly closed the mediation case that was and still is sorely needed. Sandy 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again User:SandyGeorgia is making statements that do not accord with the facts of her behaviour in the histories thus:
She says: I did not request the mediation be closed: on the contrary."
I will admit that I have only just noticed that the statement that seemed to indicate her wish for 2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome to be closed ([92]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)) was, in fact, a copy and paste from the previous WP:ANI, which human error I regret, however I responded to it as the request to close 2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome I sincerely believed it to be here [93] thus: ::I am in agreement, though I initially hoped it might be possible to resolve this issue here, which is why I made the request, but since I saw the responses on WP:AN/I I now realise that would be inappropriate, as well as impossible --Zeraeph 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) more than three days ago, which should have made the misunderstanding abundantly clear, as well as my feelings on the topic, as I have also done in on her own talk page [94].
She says: :I have reminded another editor that if he continually characterized legitimate edits as vandalism, that could be interpreted as a personal attack.
And yet in this edit[95] she clearly states (follow links for full picture):::::I could accept your apology, but you have just done it for the third time. This is your third warning now to refrain from attacking my character or motives or good faith editing. I am not vandalizing, I am not retaliating, and I am certainly calm. As you know, we've had conversations before about your attempts to paint me as hysterical, and I will not accept any more personal attack characterizations, either on talk page or in edit summaries. Please refrain from describing me as retaliating or vandalizing in edit summaries, and please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine. I am certainly calm, and expect these personal attacks to stop. Sandy 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
She says:And Zeraeph came into a conversation I initiated with the mediator, when he quickly closed the mediation case that was and still is sorely needed. Sandy 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And yet, in this edit [96] it can be clearly seen that, in fact User:Kylu closed the case, which fact I was about to communicate to [User:Torinir‎] when I saw this edit [97] and this edit [98] stating: Not so fast :-) The user appears to have started that mediation for the sole purpose of harassing me, he didn't back up a single allegation, and the case needs to be closed in a way that I'm also satisfied. Sandy 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand. But he initiated the action for one reason only; he gave not an ounce of evidence for anything, smeared me on AN/I, MedCab, the AS talk page, and my talk page. I have recorded the final AN/I statements on the MedCab case, and will make a final statement there, because it was not a genuine attempt at mediation. It was a smear. Sandy 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) which, coming from the same person I had just seen, in this edit [99] instruct another editor to please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine. made her claims to know my motivation in a far more complex way seems very hypocritical and vexatious to me. As though there must be one liberal standard for User:SandyGeorgia and another, far more rigorous one every user who does not suit her, to be policed by User:SandyGeorgia.
When I tried to communicate with her, by her own admission she simply disregarded every word I said thus: [100] (making exactly the same assumptions about me that she fobids other editors to make about herself.
At this stage I do not know any way to communicate civily with a person who consistently misrepresents facts and insistently applies double standards, and I do not know what can be resolved by mediation with a person who constantly re-invents history and refuses to deal in the facts.
I have already explained, in several places such as [101] (:I do not see any realistic way to resolve any problem directly with any person who's only attempt at resolution is to distort the facts as Sandy has chosen to do below and in other instances. Resolution is dependent upon change, not pretence. --Zeraeph 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)) why I feel I made a serious error in judgement in thinking this could be solved by mediation, which I now fully acknowledge. --Zeraeph 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that you see the misunderstanding (that I did not request mediation be closed), I hope you will either speak directly with me, e-mail me, or re-open mediation, and refrain from further entries here. As Francis explained to you, this is not the right place for dispute resolution. Sandy 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the above are out of the question. I cannot, and will not, participate in any form of dialogue with a person who is manipulative and is not truthful, for many reasons, not least of which is the sheer futility of attempting achieve resolution in the face of that kind of behavior.
When I thought mediation was an option I did not realise User:SandyGeorgia was capable of the degree of deceit she has shown since I requested it. Thus, my request is now withdrawn.
This is not a "personal dispute" of any kind. This is an issue of User:SandyGeorgia's abusive behavior towards other editors and manipulation of WP:Policy to suit herself. I am not prepared to enable that to go on covertly. --Zeraeph 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Second mediation refused. [102] Sandy 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


It should be obvious from my comments above that I will decline to participate in any dialogue or mediation involving User:SandyGeorgia. If any Admin wishes to mail me for a, strictly private ,further explanation please feel free.
I find it telling that User:SandyGeorgia has not acknowledged, let alone attempted to explain, the two blatant lies she told, and I showed evidence of, on this board tonight. --Zeraeph 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it 'telling' that you wouldn't participate in mediation, myself. Without investigating terribly far, I'm troubled that both of you are making personal attacks at each other above. --InShaneee 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you? Well let me explain the reality, I have a life, I do not have time to spend wading through histories, to check, and usually debunk User:SandyGeorgia's constant confabulations and misrepresentations to the point where the discussion would concern fact rather than fiction.
I do not possess the necessary masochism to voluntarily submit myself to unrelenting manipulation and psychological abuse, which is all the User:SandyGeorgia's behavior towards me (and a few others who don't suit her) consists of, and if her strategies are too subtle for you, aren't you the lucky one? But unfortunately that does not blind me to them or prevent them from affecting me adversely, does it?
Even if I was prepared to do all these thing there would be absolutely no point, because any agreement made by User:SandyGeorgia would probably be a pretence, and there is no way I can pretend to find her behavior acceptable until it really is. --Zeraeph 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal attacks against and possible harassment of User:Wzhao553

Wzhao553 has notified me that Logoi, with whom he is in a long-term dispute over the Asian fetish article, has been posting Wzhao553's personal information on his talk page (User talk:Logoi). As far as I could tell, most of this has to do with the fact that Logoi revealed the location of Wzhao's blog. Dark Tichondrias mentioned the blog in a separate post on Logoi's talk page. [103] In addition, Logoi was also making personal attacks against Wzhao and then erasing them, so that they did remain in the page history. Is it appropriate, in this case, where Wzhao is claiming that Logoi is harassing him, to edit out comments with the link to the blog? And/or should Logoi's talk page be refactored and protected? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, his talk page seems to serve only or almost entirely as an outlet for personal attacks against me. Also, Logoi first posted my personal information in User talk:Dark_Tichondrias#Hi.2C_Dark_Tichondrias. If it's possible, I would like that removed as well. --Wzhao553 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I just read a little bit of Logoi's Talk page. You might as well include User:Human Fetishist as another user that's been engaging in personal attacks. It looks like he included me, too. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User talk:VelairWight

This user talk page has been vandalized a few times in the last couple of days by what appear to be sockpuppets of Dorsoduro (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), who was indefinitely blocked for vandalizing this same user's user page. The vandalizing accounts are The return of Dorsoduro (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), [104], and Gyt (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), [105]. There is also a possibly related IP edit, [106]. Since these accounts are likely sockpuppets and their only edits were to vandalize this user's page, they should be blocked, and if vandalism from their IP or IP range continues, then that should be blocked for a little while. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked both reg users, the IP's block has expired—no activity since, but the user should clearly be watched based on the contribs. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
IP came back, re-vandalized, reblocked. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents

The page Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents has been created in main namespace, which seems to be the wrong place for it. Could some one please work out were the best place (Wikipedia:?) and move it, thank you. --Blue520 06:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry now known as Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. --Blue520 06:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved this to Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. --Tony Sidaway 07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And, in turn, I've moved it to Wikipedia:Iran, Shi'a, and Middle East related articles noticeboard/Incidents. I am not involved with the project - I'm just applying consistent capitalization and word usage to the page name. ("Iran" and "Middle East" are both nouns, so the adjective "Shiite" doesn't really fit in.) Yes, I fixed the double redirects too. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Friedrich Bauder block please

He made an edit to Template:Dispute-resolution indicating that he is a sock or imitator fo the Communism vandal. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 06:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with a couple hours ago (as of now). Essjay (Talk) 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Not untroubling

On Su-Laine Yeo's talkpage there is a comment by Heptor (17:34, 6 July 2006). Inbedded in that comment is a message in Chinese (Hanyu Pinyin), added by an IP [107]. It translates as follows: (secret/confidential) Su-Laine, could you please help me out. A friend wrote me an email and told me there is people who think that I am you. Don't know why. It's a mess. Could you please quickly on here tell them that you think homey is zion's son/zion's daughter. [name removed] is too much trouble (maybe he wants to die?). Thank you. I am clueless as to what this is all about but the message spooked me out. I trust hope there is people here who knows (if this should be handled, and if so) how to handle this. Thanks. אנונימוס Date: 10:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything really can be done. I don't even understand the translation. I gave him a warning but I had to say 'if' it was true because I can't read it. The IP is from Sweden and I don't understand at all. Yeah... if I understood more maybe I could be more helpful. gren グレン 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Has Su-Laine said anything about this? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The translation is correct. However, as the above is the only contribution of its author, I suggest we stop scratching our heads on this unless evidence comes forth that User:TemporaryJohnSmith was not just trolling. Kusma (討論) 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is actually the first time I noticed the comment. I don't understand Chinese, by the way. It was added as part of vandalism that I mostly reverted, but I didn't notice this part. I'm going to remove it from my talk page now. I figure that the IP who added this is just up to create chaos around the Homeontherange sockpuppetry case. Su-Laine Yeo 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 70.59.95.119 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

70.59.95.119 (talk • contribs) has been using the edit summery to make death threats and racist/nationalist/antisemitic comments. Major and intentional breach of NPA, CIVIL, etc. Someone check out the contribs and ban immediately befor more damage can be done. ---J.S (t|c) 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has blocked the IP recently. Please take such matters to WP:AIV in the future, where you will likely get a quicker reaction. -- JamesTeterenko 14:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't seem like vandalism to me. Just violations of 8 other rules. ---J.S (t|c) 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally regard such blatently racist comments as vandalism, especially with no other contributions. I see that some of his comments have been deleted from article histories already because they were so bad. I wouldn't hesitate blocking the IP if I saw this on AIV. -- JamesTeterenko 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] vandalism at hannah spearritt

sorry if this is the wrong place etc. etc. - 81.170.59.56 has been vandalising Hannah_Spearritt for half hour or so, and has now created an account, User:Maxclifford (name of a famous PR guy / scandal merchant in UK) - and carried on.... hope this helps! Petesmiles 14:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked; and, WP:AIV is where this goes in the future. Thanks! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User removing warnings from his talk page

What do we do in this situation? [108] --Liface 16:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pgk protected the talkpage so the user can't remove warnings anymore. 207.145.133.34 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Nomae

I've given User:Nomae a warning about dubious edits. Frankly, I think I'm being very generous in extending any assumption of good faith here. Someone may want to keep an eye on him. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removing CFD notices and removing proposal from CFD

Please investigate the behaviour of BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). She is removing the notices from categories which I have tagged for discussion at CFD, and striking out the cats from the CFD page itself. --Mais oui! 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like she is objecting to you tacking on those categories onto an existing merge discussion. Feel free to create a new discussion (and include a link to the original, please). Syrthiss 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Syrthiss. You are correct: my objection is solely to their being tacked onto an existing merge discussion, which I feel raises some subtlely different issues (although user:Mais oui! disagrees). Please may I have some admin assistance in preventing them from being tacked on the existing CFM? User:Mais oui! and I are getting into an edit-warring situation, which I find very unpleasant, and there is a simple solution available through a separate CFM, where we can see if any separate issues create a different consensus. --BrownHairedGirl 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Libellous use of my username

User:Pat Paine was recently set up, and left an offensive message on my talk page. His entire userpage is the same message. I have reason to believe this user is User:NickTellis who got irate and abusive when I deleted a piece of his vandalism. He is the roommate of another WP editor, whose name I do not want to disclose as he is a responsible editor. Pat Payne 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: He has also vandalized my userpage placing libellous content there. [[109]]Pat Payne 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for the inappropriate username. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Allen Simpson trying to make CFR a vote

Can someone look at and possibly revert [110], [111] and [112]? See also Template talk:Cfd2. --SPUI (T - C) 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

CFR might not officially be a vote, but it certainly is how discussion proceeds de facto, and changing the templates or page name won't change that any time soon. Circeus
We shouldn't be encouraging this though. After I substed the template I had to go back and edit out the bolded merge. --SPUI (T - C) 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody apparently hasn't read the instructions. We have 3 templates, Delete is cfd, Merge is cfm, and Rename is cfr (plus cfr-speedy). Each logs its name. Not particularly difficult for those that read and follow instructions. This is not new, it's just SPUI wiki-stalking my contributions.
--William Allen Simpson 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
More like me listing something on CFD, finding an extra merge that I didn't want, and removing it. --SPUI (T - C) 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, what is this? Less than 10 people talking about changing CFD, now its not a deletion debate anymore, but insted a discussion with voting? Shouldn't need to have the forced "* '''Delete'''" at the start of any XfD template used to start a discussion. Kevin_b_er 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
CfD/CfM/CfR has always been a discussion with voting, and the templates are there for the folks that can read and follow instructions. The rest of you are free to make up your own words, which will be fixed to conform to the format the rest of us are using. We have to do that all the time!
As for only 10 people being involved, you were certainly free to join that procedural discussion, too. But things have been this way since long before I began using my well-known mundane name to edit here.
--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised that William has apparently agreed to keep this out. --SPUI (T - C) 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind - he's added it to the other templates.[113][114][115] Better, as it's easy to remove, but still sets a bad example. --SPUI (T - C) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT nominations are speedily closed.
--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthurmore, why can I find no mention of this stuff in the history of the village pump on policy or proposals? Why is CFD now a vote with forced selections of wether it should be merged/deleted rather than need arrising through discussion like the rest of the deletion discussions? Kevin_b_er 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When was it otherwise? What other deletion discussion(s)? The same formatting appears at RfD and TfD.
--William Allen Simpson 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Crap. That's a mess. It needs fixing. It's generally a bad idea to hold votes. We really prefer consensus, if that's ok with you. :-) Kim Bruning 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Kim, I have 30+ years of experience in consensus-based organizations, including non-profit, political, and technical organizations, and the first technique taught is "let's go around the circle and each person state their position and reasons".
The Cfd process (recently renamed after much effort by us from "for deletion" to "for discussion") has since its first day clearly specified:
'''Your vote''': Your reason for nominating the category ~~~~
Wikipedia is by no means a consensus-based organization. As cited by an especially obstreperous administrator in another "discussion" trying to tell me what consensus actually means here (quoted):
Wikipedia is not the mundane world. See WP:Consensus and the talk page for the many ways in which "consensus" in Wikipedia has been redefined, sometimes in stark contrast to the common understanding of the term. At times it strikes me as Orwellian doublespeak to describe certain Wikipedia practices as "consensus". But in this case, the "lack of objection" is actually among the least disturbing distortions. It's a sort of consensus by apathy. ..." -- <unsigned>
Yup, I agree, it's a mess. :-) We generally use "no objections" as our *test* if consensus exists. If there's an objection, we then go around the circle. (see: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for an example of such a method, thought that particular application is fairly heavy duty) We've also used straw polls to test if we need to go around the circle again. In some situations, people have failed to learn how consensus works, and are skipping the "go around the circle" bit. Oops. Especially polls are vulnerable to this problem, since they look a lot like votes to people who aren't used to them. I recently got told off for agressively pursuing consensus at Requests for adminship. I'm still busy resolving that and convincing all the new people that *yes* I may actually pursue consensus and have been allowed to since 2001 ;-) . Kim Bruning 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I firmly disagree, and have done my best to improve the processes to be better and clearer and easier. This SPUI-style "consensus" by wearing folks out is wrong!
--William Allen Simpson 03:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Its a deletion discussion, not a 'Separate activities to do to namespace discussion'. TfD and RfD don't have their templates automatically treat it like a vote and put "* '''Do this'''" in the created text. Only 10 people probably saw it because I would hope such a change occurs thourgh larger discussion. Kevin_b_er 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not and has never been about deletion only. Merging and renaming are both extremely common, both as proposals and as outcomes, and there are other possibilities as well. Complaints about the inappropriateness of the old name were aired on several occasions over at least a year. Osomec 07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to second this. Because of the vagaries of the category system, CFD tends to work in a very different way to the other deletion pages. There tend to be more complicated discussions, often involving blanket changes over several categories, and there are a wide range of possible outcomes. This is the reasoning behind the recent name change. However as far as I can tell these templates are intended for cases which the nominator believes can be resolved simply, and in those cases these templates are a time saving measure. This does NOT in any way prevent anyone else from suggesting alternatives, at any stage in the process. Nor does it prevent the nominator from using a more "customised" nomination message if it is felt appropriate. the wub "?!" 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Myself and User:Ghirlandajo, again

moved to AN, after consideration Circeus 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] History Student (talk • contribs)

User was recently blocked for repeated attempts to recreate deleted article Japanese American Evacuation of 1942, as well as behavior noted in this RfC. Has appeared again in Talk:Japanese American internment as 69.57.136.39 (talk • contribs) and 70.129.12.61 (talk • contribs) and admits to spoofing his IP address to get around the block [116]. --NeoChaosX 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I noted on the talk page of that RFC the pile o potential sockpuppets he created, listed (and blocked) at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of History Student. --Syrthiss 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Another address he has posted under is 200.88.223.98 (talk • contribs). --NeoChaosX 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:208.57.234.30

This user (and a few of his/her IP address sock-puppets I suspect) have been removing information from Joe Francis and Girls Gone Wild numerous times in an attempt to keep his image clean . I and others have warned him/her numerous times and I need an administrator to take action. Any help will be greatly appreciated. - Ouzo 00:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I can see two recent editing sessions which have been reverted by User:Ouzo. I don't think semi-protection is yet warranted.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bonnieisrael

I'd appreciate another administrator stepping in here. Ever since I took a hard line against User:Israelbeach, I have been targetted by his sockpuppets and friends both on and off the wiki. Israelbeach crossed the lines and is effectively under community ban, but his puppets are still allowed to edit. user:Bonnieisrael is now trying to engage me in another personal edit war. As in: [117] Which I foolishly corrected: [118] And was of course reverted: [119]. I know I have a part in this too, but I'd like to point out Bonnieisrael's history. She was blocked by Slimvirgin as a suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach, for this sort of behavior and worse. She was unblocked by Jredmond. Jredmond promised Slimvirgin to keep an eye out [120], Slimvirgin said she would reblock Bonnieisrael for continuing this kind of behavior [[121]. Bonnieisrael has since contributed almost nothing but more Israelbeach-type edits. Jredmond has ignored my protests about Bonnieisrael's continued disruptive editing [122]. I'd also like to point out that as an administrator, I could easily block any one of Israelbeach's sockpuppets myself, and I believe I would by fully justified in doing so - but I excercise restraint because I am personally involved. I count on other administrators to use clearer judgment. But mostly I think other administrators can't be bothered to check what these sock/meatpuppets are up to. --woggly 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know about the rest of your dispute, but generally it's considered more polite to dispute someone's claim by replying to it saying "That's wrong" than to edit their claim to what you think is correct. --Improv 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And this my impropriety was the only aspect anyone thought worth responding to. Fine. I'm sure Israelbeach will be happy to continue populating Wikipedia with his sockpuppets, including the new baby: User:Jerusalemrose, and make many useful contributions to his self-promotion campaign wikipedia. I will no longer stand in his way. Heaven forbid, I might be tempted to be impolite again. --woggly 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Woggly, I've left a note for Jredmond, [123] as he should deal with it in the first instance as the unblocking admin. Please keep me posted, so I know that it's being looked into. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked her indefinitely; on top of her continued involvement in that whole mess, her other contribs have been POV/copyvios/both. I expect Jimbo and/or OTRS will hear about this, but after blowing her second chance I don't expect she'll receive much sympathy.

(Sorry about the delay, Woggly, but I haven't had much time for Wikipedia recently [as evidenced by my contribs].) - jredmond 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JR. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Racist edits

It's bedtime where I live. Could someone please keep an eye on the edits of Ratty5 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. It will be bedtime where I live fairly soon; I will watch for a little but someone else will need to check later. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry; the "good grief" was at the edits, not at the bedtime. Massive apologies for any confusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have stopped rather quick just then. Doesn't seem to be anything going on. --Crossmr 06:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it appears that Zscout370 blocked him indefinitely, around the same time this conversation was originally going on. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New PoolGuy antics

So it appears PoolGuy is using some interesting new avenues for his complaints.

First, there's this Mediation Cabal case I stumbled across a few days ago that smelled funny to me, as I regularly read these pages and have followed the PoolGuy situation; today, User:AquaticTheory posted detail outlining that the complaint being made involves the GoldToeMarionette RFCU that he apparently feels was done without proper justification. (I assume this follows along after the rejection of the ArbCom case on that topic.)

Then there's this discussion that started from the Association of Member Advocates page, in which User:WelshCountryside tells the same story as AquaticTheory, though hasn't filled out the detail quite yet.

I posted both of these links to User:Mackensen's page after spotting them and seeing he had been involved with the RFCU side of things, but after seeing the new detail posted today, thought a post here would be appropriate. Tony Fox (speak) 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked both as obvious socks of banned editor User:PoolGuy. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

{Sock manifesto removed}pschemp | talk 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been talked to again and again and again. There was an arbitration case which ended in the very clear result that you are allowed one account, either PoolGuy or a new account. GoldToeMarionette will not be unblocked, and since you can't behave like a sensible adult, PoolGuy will not be unblocked either. If you want to create a new account, edit Wikipedia articles, and drop all this infantile crap, that route is open to you. Given your history as PoolGuy, however, it's pretty clear you have no real interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Hence the community ban. --ajn (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A postscript: if you have a problem with any of this, the only solution - the only solution - is to appeal to the arbitration committee to have that decision changed. Mediation and whining on AN/I and creating sockpuppets are going to get you absolutely nowhere. --ajn (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit warring by sockpuppet on Anarcho-capitalism

User:70.48.250.129, most likely a sockpuppet, has been removing information from the A-C article, and reverting anybody who attempts to add it back in. See [124], [125], and [126]. --AaronS 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He seemed to stop after 2 reverts.--Crossmr 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He's back at it. --AaronS 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:JzG

I posted a new version of my message on his talk. I notified him, that I am not mass-posting this and that I am only giving this message to him. One message doesn't qualify as spamming in any sense. I only post this here because I think he is going to block me for that post with the reason spam Azmoc 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone who claims to want to do so much good, your attitude toward your fellow editors isn't that great. People spend their time here because they've chosen to do so. We are all capable of making our own choices here and aware of the options. If you think this is a waste of time, you are welcome to go elsewhere, but you may not disrupt this community to do so. Please do not post your message any further, especially not to those who have removed your previous messages to them. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Some people watch television for 6 hours a day because they've chosen so. They are capable of making their choices, and aware of the options. Still, I will tell them that they should reconsider if they are spending their time wisely, and advise them to do something else. Wikipedia is the same addiction. I advise people to reconsider what they are doing. Azmoc 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't go into a church and preach evolution. Go preach it somewhere else. Sasquatch t|c 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for activism, and it is most certainly not the place for anti-Wikipedia activism.--SB | T 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh? That's a weird position. Actually, if more churchgoers understood science then we wouldn't have such ridiculous situations as the president getting away with using his first veto on life-saving research. I say we go into more churches and teach evolution. If anything, the statement you meant to say is "Don't go into a science classroom and teach creationism." --Cyde↔Weys 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
See - you would also go into the church. So don't blame me for this one. Azmoc 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I support (and would be glad to carry out) a short block of Azmoc for disruption should he post this sort of message again. --InShaneee 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if they asked me to leave, I would. You didn't, and you got trespassed and banned from the premises permanently. --Cyde↔Weys 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a very long block, either. Anti-Wikipedia activism is something we shouldn't tolerate here, for obvious practical reasons. Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless he is actively disrupting Wikipedia right now, or is credibly threatening to do so, a block for disruption per se is not appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, he's certainly threatening to continue posting his message. I would say that's credible enough for our purposes. Kirill Lokshin 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that was like half an hour ago, Mr. Manipulator. After that I said, lets bring this to ArbCom, I don't want to get blocked. Azmoc 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't preach. I am telling the person sitting next to me in a church that I don't believe in everything the priest says. Am I not allowed to do that in a church? And who told you that this was a anti-wikipedia activism? Let's get this to the ArbCom, I don't want to be blocked and I want to use that message. Azmoc 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Any more of this nonsense Wikilawyering and I will block for a nice long time. --Cyde↔Weys 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For what? Stop threatening me. Azmoc 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between threats and warnings. You've been warned, and I suggest you take it to heart. --InShaneee 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you're going to a church and telling the person beside you that they are wasting there time and that they should stop going to church... And I concur with Cyde. Despite his rather sarcastic comment about preaching creationism :-P Sasquatch t|c 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Warned? For what? For preaching? You really make me laugh. Azmoc 22:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Let he who is without sin cast the first copy of The Origin of Species, etc... :-D -- ChrisO 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, although I am not breaking any rules here, I will not use that message. I will, however sometimes say something similar on users' talkpages, it will not have a form of a pre-formulated message, I will take the care and formulate my thoughts each time in a new way. Sorry but there's nothing you could do against that even if you don't like that. Azmoc 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Err, no. Messages asking people to avoid contributing to Wikipedia are not acceptable, regarless of whether they're pre-formatted or not. Kirill Lokshin 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Why??? Some people do place messages like "remind me if I contribute too much" on their pages. Who said it was not acceptable? Did you decide? Did the community decide? Who decided? I guess its just you Kirill, so stop harrassing me I am not afraid of you. Azmoc 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
blocked indefinitey dissruption in the form of trying to stop major contributers from doing so and trolling. I'm not interested in playing games. Further justifaction under the rules can be provided if needed.Geni 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Good riddance. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. He's done nothing but be disruptive for a long time. Look at the edit history of his previous IP [127] as well. Antandrus (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I too support the block. He does not appear to do anything other than disrupt. -- JamesTeterenko 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I obviously agree with it. What a loon. --Cyde↔Weys 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I support the block in accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience--A Y Arktos\talk 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I support it as well. FeloniousMonk 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you even wait this long? We have more important things to do than debate with trolls. *mboverload gives everyone a carbon-fiber stick so they can swing it easier* --mboverload@ 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. This type of disruption is unacceptable as per WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

<-- over here again; I support this too, especially because his last User talk edit reveals him to be a sockpuppet of another neighborhood troll who invoked his m:Right to vanish. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, don't think they'll go away that easily. History here has shown us that dissenters who are indeffed because of some arguement usually come back with a squad of sockpuppets. Perhaps an arbcom case or RFC would yield more justice for their side? It would give them no excuse to decry a lack of fairness. And a formal case would help get more wikipedians on the lookout for sockpuppet accounts if they decide to take that route. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
They got justice and arbcom is busy. People who ahve been through arbcom often decry a lack of fairness in any case.Geni 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
See PoolGuy, for example. ArbCom decisions tend to throw things back to administrators anyway - probation and allowing bans from articles often end up with the user being banned shortly after the ArbCom case, because people who have got that far down the road are often the obsessive types who can't let things drop even when they know there will be dire consequences if they don't. --ajn (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, good point. I still like formal process though. Plus, some arbcommers have already contributed to this thread. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The formal process works well when you have time, but this one just came to a head very suddenly. Unfortunately, disruptive editors and people who cause these ANI train-wrecks waste far more of our time than vandals, and sometimes a community ban is the only way to get the problem to stop. I think we did the right thing here, thanks Geni. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
In an open-and-shut case, arbitration is deprecated as a waste of time. Arbitration doesn't scale. We still have only 14 arbitrators (of whom 10-12 are normally active at any one time) whereas we're getting new administrators every day and community bans are easily administered. If there isn't community agreement on such a ban, then we can go to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony is right here, admins should ban away according to their understanding of policy, as long as they don't wheel-war. How many active admins do we have at this point? I predict that as soon as we have significantly more than 1,000 active admins, the "mature editor consensus system" will break down (meaning almost nothing will get done by admin-consensus) and we'll need a whole new layer of bureaucracy for interaction between admins. dab (ᛏ) 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration already provides something called "General probation", a remedy enabling an editor to be banned from Wikipedia for reasonable cause on the agreement of any three administrators. This is already very close to our more informal community ban system, and as administrator numbers grow I don't anticipate any scaling problems. Administrators who persistently stick a spoke in the wheels (Everyking springs to mind) tend not to fare well. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive122_b98a.html"