Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Krawndawg owns Superpower article[edit]

This user has begun a revert war calling my reasoned edits as POV. As regards the article, it is a joke and shame for this encyclopaedia. Failed states like India and Russia are included as superpowers while Japan is conspicuous by absence. Can someone look into this circus? PlusDrawn (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this issue here is WAY premature. You've posted to that article's talk page exactly one time. Do your best to hammer out your editorial differences there - things usually work themselves out without admin intervention. That being said, Krawn is showing a little WP:OWN and is close to 3RR violation... Tan | 39 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't get around much, do you Plusdrawn? "Failed States like India and Russia" are currently on a major upswing any way you look at it.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I am sick and tired of babysitting. All the arguments of Krawndawg and other editors seem to hinge on fantasy, opinion, theory, destiny and legend, not facts, ground realities or even common sense. What they really need is a crash course on economics not history. PlusDrawn (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
What have you been "babysitting"? Unless I'm missing something, you've been involved with editing that article for a grand total of about 8 hours. "Reasoning" isn't the problem here, and isn't how Wikipedia works - our core is NOT truth, it is verifiability. If you can make good-faith arguments that the current sourcing is somehow deficient, or give new sources that refute the existing information, people will listen, and you will have built a case. Right now, you're just personally disagreeing with it. Tan | 39 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm showing WP:OWN. If you'd look at what PlusDrawn is trying to do (removing a good 5-7k words worth of sourced information), and look at his reasons given and the fact that his change is based entirely on his own POV, it's quite clear that this controversial change should not be allowed without consensus. Krawndawg (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Very true, I agree that this major edit needs to be discussed amongst yourselves. Just watch that 3RR... Tan | 39 16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the traditional issue found in political pages, a user is trying to push his world views on the article by removing anything that they don't consider merits mention. As a side note I concur that not mentioning Japan as a superpower is absurd. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, regarding Japan, although I wasn't involved in any decision making on whether or not to include them, I think two main reason they're not included would be the fact that they have no nuclear weapons, and their military usage is restricted to defense only as a result of their unconditional surrender in WWII. Same for Germany. Not that this is the appropriate place to be discussing this, but...! Krawndawg (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, Japan is a economic superpower, from what I recall being a military force is not a requisite to have great worldwide influence. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dave1185, disruptive, ignoring copyvio questions[edit]

Hi, I have recently come into contact with Dave1185, when he chose to defy project standards and amend several firearm articles to his liking and standards. After reverting several of these edits I informed said user of applicable templates, but he ignored them for the most part. Several more disruptive edits followed, indicating the user's vindictive nature, despite me assuming good faith and taking the time to educate the user. To no avail. Then I noticed he uploaded an image to a page I was watching that is clearly a copyright violation since it is company promotional material and no permission or source is provided, so I asked the user to substantiate his claim to ownership of the image on his talk page here. I cite Wikipedia:Copyright violations and try to resolve this issue by simply inquiring about the image. My edits are removed and user calls me a stalker, several times. Perhaps someone else can take this up with him since I induce an uncooperative reaction. Thanks. Koalorka (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image as a blatant copyvio and advised this editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy resolution. Koalorka (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed the user deleted our input and any sign of controversy. Aren't users supposed to maintain these for reference? I know I do (though I'm not proud of some of my incidents). Koalorka (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
He can do that on his own user pages, it's taken as acceptance that he's read them. They are still visible in the page history, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
10-4. Koalorka (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Severe personal attacks[edit]

The level of personal attacks, vandalism, and spam coming from this IP address seem to be quite severe. I recommend the IP address be blocked for a lengthy amount of time and that the Clayton Bennett article be semi-protected. Check out edits like these ([1], [2], [3], and [4], from User_Talk:76.22.19.239. If I'm not mistaken, the level of personal attacks being used here are abnormally bad even by typical vandal/trolling standards. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Have left advice re WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA and that his next such comment will result in a block. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Next time, you can also go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you just need the protection (if say multiple or a rotating IP address is attacking). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The situation is a little better. But now, an editor has spammed/astroturfed the Clayton Bennett talk page. [5] "Save our Sonics" was not an appropriate edit summary, and the user managed to get in completely unnecessary links to the Save our Sonics cite. I would remove the links myself, but because I'm in involved in editing the page and the same user has accused me of incivility, I didn't want to give the appearance of impropriety. I recommend that the "Save our Sonics" links be removed from the talk page though. The Sonics issue has riled some emotions in people, and it appears that even long-time good editors are willing to bend the rules to try to "save" the Sonics. Chicken Wing (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. The editor is trying to start a legitimate discussion on the inclusion of the Save Our Sonics link. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Harrisonlatour[edit]

Can someone look over the edit history of user:Harrisonlatour‎? He's embarked on a process of placing his entire family tree onto WP. Pretty much every article he's written has been deleted or has required a total rewrite. Almost all of his edits have been reverted. A lot of editors have wasted huge amounts of time on watching him - I'm sorry to say I'm one of the most active watchers but by no means the only one.

Unfortunately he clearly has no understanding whatever of how WP works and seems utterly incapable of learning. He's been blocked twice but goes doggedly on promoting personal causes and dumping the entire contents of his family archive into any article that seems even vaguely relevant.

He contributes almost nothing to WP and creates a lot of low level disruption.

andy (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Andy, you seem to be the one that has more problems with my articles than anyone. My entire history is on wikipedia. That is because I am descendent of French\Creoles, which is part of the French and English monarchies. You have a problem with me, I believe because of my correctness. I will publish with or without wikipedia. I find it funny, that some wikipedia articles have used my research as references, not knowing that is is me.

LaTour Genealogical Collection is a genealogy file that has over 20,500 names entered in it. It has bible families, kings, queens, presidents, and just common folk in it. Today, the rootsweb page at

http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=kingharry

has gotten over 36,600 hits. Some of hits inner pages are histories of entire cities and towns.

Muskogee County Genealogy and History http://www.latourgenealogicalcollection.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page12.html

Okmulgee County Genealogy and History http://www.latourgenealogicalcollection.org/My_Homepage_Files/Page13.html


Harrisonlatour | Talk LaTour Genealogical Collection 04:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything other than your personal websites that show that members of your family are notable individuals? Have they been covered in non-trivial critical means? Or are you just trying to put your geneological data onto Wikipedia?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Publicly posting people's IP addresses[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See this diff -- I don't think posting IPs matched to usernames is appropriate, even if the information is available due to mistakes by the users (ie accidentally not logging in, then editing signatures). Checkusers and admins usually don't post this stuff publicly, and I think users should give the same courtesy, even though the evidence didn't come from checkuser. This user keeps on reverting my removal, so could someone else weigh in on this? Thanks. Equazcion /C 23:19, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

He's using it as evidence relevant to the sockpuppetry case, and the information itself was public and Wikipedia-hosted already, so it's not so terrible to have it up temporarily. His calling you a vandal for trying to respect others' privacy is disturbing, however. Anyway, I don't understand why he's really bothering; checkusers has access to far more information than he did and reached the opposite conclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Equazcion. The mere fact that information is publicly available doesn't logically imply that it's OK to post it; it can still violate privacy IMO. It being publicly available doesn't logically imply that all the person's enemies are already aware of where to find the information. Checkusers post such results tactfully, i.e. without including the actual IP addresses or actual geographic locations. Other users can do the same, can't they? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The SSP files don't have any information other than they live in the same country. Slakr emphasized several time that Bsharvy and Rachel63 might edit in the two different place to avoid sockpuppetry accusation, but how other people are convinced as much as his mind? In this case, time record seems very important because he or she can't transport the two locations in one hour and edit wikipedia. --Appletrees (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for having me here. I would've raised the issue if you did not start the issue. As I said, posting ips is the only way to prove the unfair blockage on Bsharvy and Rachel63. The ips are already publicly revealed and don't have any information regarding their work places. The admin, Slakr did only provide circumstantial evidences (several coincidences and unconvincing duck test), so I am not convinced that they're the same person. You and Slakr strongly refused to request for checkuser on them and I don't believe they're socking each other per their way of speaking and time record. You also erased whole time stamps by your own judgment. I don't share any point of view with them, and never will be, however, I don't think the admin's threat is more disturbing and inappropriate. --Appletrees (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Slakr had the same IP evidence as you, but didn't post it due to privacy concerns. Then after he told you how he got the evidence (see here), you followed those steps and posted the info publicly. Doesn't some part of that seem inappropriate to you? Equazcion /C 00:03, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
No, he has more ips than I have. The ips that I collected don't tell Bsharvy's work place at all. I only said my assumption at the SSP page that the two different locations are different school zones, so sockpuppeting is impossible. If Slakr have not said about his occupation, I would not know what he does. I think his revealing provacy is not even comparable with min. Besides, how other admins or editors judge the situation without any technical evidences? You initially erased time records because I think you want to nail down the case. You also call me "vandal", so my calling you troll is very appropriate. --Appletrees (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The number of IPs or the amount of personal info is irrelevant. It's personal information that shouldn't be posted publicly. My removing the IPs had nothing to do with the case. I didn't even read your remarks and still haven't. My removals were only in the interest of protecting people's privacy. I didn't call you a vandal, except when you said the same about me and called me a troll on my talk page, after which I reverted those comments as vandalism. Making a point about differing locations can be done without explicitly posting IPs and whois information -- checkusers do that all the time in sockpuppet cases. Equazcion /C 00:23, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Since you're so caring about Bsharvy's privacy, you should've posted the admin Slaks' inappropriate comment like these.[6][7]. His comment not only revealed his occupation but also perfect threats. Making a point about differing locations can be done? How so? Slaks already has the ips that I posted, and concluded that they're the same sock because he does not know about the specific geographic information of South Korea at all. Posting ips is one of ways when editors do duck test!--Appletrees (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Slakr didn't post anything specific. He just said Bsharvy is a teacher. That's not personally identifiable information. Posting IPs is done when they're used as sockpuppets. People don't go researching accidental IP signatures and then post them along with whois information. So no, posting IPs in this way is not "one of the ways" editors do any kind of "test". Equazcion /C 00:38, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
So, we disagree again. "Teaching at some school" and "faculty" have nothing to do with "specific" revelation? That is a very big and specific information. Most of foreigners from English speaking world work in private institution in South Korea, not 'school'. English instructors are not called "faculty" as well. How would I guess that university areas around their residences? Posting ip is surely one way to do a duck test. If I did not have any ips, I would accept the conclusion by Slakr even though the block of Bsharvy and Rachel63 does not look reasonable. I need to persuade others with the same information.--Appletrees (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to be getting the point. Yes it is evidence, no it shouldn't be posted publicly. I don't think Slakr is aware of the naming conventions used in South Korea -- he saw the user worked at a school and therefore referred to him as "faculty". Either way it's not personally identifiable information. You can disagree all you want. All I asked was that you wait and see if Slakr thinks it's appropriate to post them, since he found them first yet specifically refrained from posting them. So just don't post the IPs again. Wait and see what he has to say. If they are appropriate, posting them is no emergency, so kindly wait for him to weigh in. Thanks. Equazcion /C 00:55, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
In all reality, I figure that if someone, on their own, finds and re-posts stuff a user's already said by diving through a person's contribs, then so be it (assuming it's not oversight-worthy). The dude said he's a teacher, then so be it as well. However, when posting the actual IP, you should probably contact the user first to see if he even wants you to do so. I say this because technically-speaking, someone actually from the person's institution could google search the IP and discover it here. Though, it's not like it's some horrible policy breach or anything (afaik), and it doesn't really need to be either added to or blanked from the report, but, I figure it's kind of one of those common courtesy things to maybe Special:Emailuser or something before doing so.
However, should the dude go on to create even more block-evading sockpuppets than he already has, then there's a decent chance that as part of our relatively routine approach, someone will file a long term abuse report or something similar, and having publicly edited from a given IP or IP range would make it easier for whomever investigates the long term abuse report to inquire about network resource abuse. So *shrug* I guess there would be pros and cons for both; or, maybe there's already some sort of precedent that I'm not aware of. I dunno, *shrug*. Anyone else happen to know? Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. The ips are already exposed. Obviously you don't know anything related to education system of South Korea. Do you guess how many foreign faculties work in South Korea? In contrary to your assumption, they're very a few, and can easily identified unlike US has many foreign faculties. I do think Slakr should not make the final call because he is deeply involved in the SSP case just like you do. --Appletrees (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't make the final call, and Slakr already said he's not making it, if you read his comment in the conclusion section of the sock case. Anyway I think we're done here. Equazcion /C 01:10, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
No, Slakr indeed made the final call on Bsharvy. He said such only at Squatt's page and has not unblocked Bsharvy and Rachel63, so the case is not done yet here. The checkuser, Fred also suggested to unblock them. --Appletrees (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bsharvy and Rachel63? That case is most certainly done. Just 'cause the user keeps arguing about the block doesn't mean it's not done, and Slakr had no bias in that case so there's no reason to say he shouldn't have been the one to close it. Fred didn't suggest unblocking anyone. He just said Rachel and Bsharvy edited from different IPs, which is not proof of innocence or a suggestion of any kind. Equazcion /C 01:20, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Why would I make such the effort to post the evidences by looking through their contributions? You just to want to finish up the case and be free of it! I believe Slakr made a big mistake in blocking them with his assumtion. They can't be the same user per my above wording. Fred "did" suggest to unblock Rachel.[8]--Appletrees (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's Fred's comment: "While based on their editing history Rachel63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock of Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) this is not confirmed by checkuser, although they do edit from the same country. Squatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), on the other hand is the same editor as Bsharvy as confirmed by checkuser. Fred Talk 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"
Fred suggests nothing. As far as Bsharvy and Rachel, this isn't an incident for ANI. It's already being argued on talk pages and at the sock case page. Continue your arguments there. Equazcion /C 01:29, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Fred surely suggested something and you posted just the partial of his whole notice. Besides, why would I be writing my statement here? I already told you that Slakr's threat on Bsharvy is also way much relevant to your "privacy concern". The reason you post this here is you want to let other people know the revert warring and confirm that you're doing fine wiht which I disagree. I also let others know Slakr's mistake as well. Two birds with one stone --Appletrees (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted only part of Fred's comment? Please show me what I left out: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bshanvy. Equazcion /C 01:47, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Already addressed here. See the above.--Appletrees (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(posted by Appletrees, moved down)"I think you should consider unblocking Rachel63 and unprotecting her page. However, I have not analyzed the edits in detail. Fred Talk 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"
(Moved it out of my comment) -- I don't know where that came from, but I haven't seen it and it isn't in his comment on the case page. Anyway, (if he does say that somewhere) he does say he hasn't analyzed the edits in detail. Checkuser, again, doesn't prove innocence. Equazcion /C 01:55, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You did not carefully read my comment and followed the link. I already inserted the link above. Again, checkuser don't confirm their "guilt" (quote from you) or relation either. That's why I posted their IPs to do a duck test. I'm done talking with you at here. --Appletrees (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Equazcion /C 02:12, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Littleteddy indefinitely blocked[edit]

Following a checkuser investigation I have indefinitely blocked Littleteddy (talk · contribs) for operating multiple vandal sockpuppets. I originally sought feedback from the community. The case was archived off AN/I without final action, in part (I think) because the rest of the admins could not fully evaluate the evidence. However, the discussion did reveal a number of facts that have helped me to reach a conclusion of my own. Further details on User talk:Littleteddy.

Because the details of the evidence much be kept confidential per checkuser policy, I recommend that should Littleteddy request unblock, the request be referred to Arbcom, with whom I can share the relevant data. Thatcher 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stupid page move[edit]

Resolved: RBI -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone's moved Vagina to Cock goes here., and because both pages have been edited since then, I can't rollback the move over the redirect. Could an admin take care of this (and move protect the Vagina article if necessary)? Deor (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Daniel's taken care of it. Deor (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems re: image[edit]

As I understand it, images licensed under a {{GFDL}} must identify the author to conform with the license. Around two months ago this image was uploaded here, the uploader listed it as GFDL but didn't provide the author's identity. The site it comes from does not either.

Anynobody 08:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I hope this does not need saying, but we don't assume images are free unless there is proof otherwise, all images are inherently copyright unless explicitly released by the rights owner. It would need a fair use rationale, and the onus is on those seeking to include the image, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. But it should undoubtedly be removed from Commons, as there is absolutely no credible evidence to back the assertion that it is free. Commons is not for unfree images. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • commons vapourised it some days ago. I suggest en do likewise.Geni 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#I4, or maybe WP:CSD#I3. Either way, I agree. It only seems to be proposed as a way of supporting a certain POV anyway, from what I can see. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take this as sarcasm, but thank you so much, really, for saying we don't assume images are free unless there is proof otherwise, it's exactly what I've been saying to those trying to keep said image and now coming from someone uninvolved maybe they'll finally listen. Anynobody 03:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been saying the same thing too! Guilty until proven innocent. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, as the uploading person , I did my best to show that the information was included in Persian . WP:CSD#I4:"A-Images with unknown source","B-Images with unknown copyright status", or "C-Images with no copyright tag" plus WP:CSD#I3:"for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission". The source is known: that is the official governmental website that Iranian government has made for remembrance of the war's victims. Many images of Wikipedia are from US governmental sites but the same possibility is not considered for an Iranian site. As it is not routine to delete a US governmental free picture with the claim of US governmental site being unreliable, I believed that is also true about the Iranian government. Anyway, I can understand there maybe a public mistrust against the claims of Iranian government, but still I thought that opposing to Iranian governmental image should be done by including the opposition in the article and not by deleting it as a whole.I mean there should be difference between governments and personal sources.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As an example , I want to mention some of this images(some among many!): Russian State Archive (from Unknown Author),The NANJING Memorial site from this site : [9] (without caption) and so on ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Editor5435[edit]

Editor5435 started editing 18 Feb and is a WP:SPA editing articles related to fractal compression. He's shown a persistent inability to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK in general. He's recently been reverting nearly all attempts to address problems in Fractal compression, having reverted eight such edits in the past 24 hours [10]. See also [[11]]. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ronz' persistent vandalism is destroying the article on fractal compression even while an active discussion is taking place of how to improve it. Many hours of hard work has already gone into improvements. It is quite evident Ronz lacks the necessary understanding of fractal compression to make valuable contribution and in fact, his tampering is only spoiling the integrity and usefulness of the article.--Editor5435 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that Ronz is simply tagging what should be tagged (e.g. unsourced information) and removing what should be removed (e.g. linkspam). I wouldn't call that "destroying". --clpo13(talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Further, from looking at Talk:Fractal compression, you have been extremely uncivil and possess apparently no assumption of good faith. Regardless of the merits of yours or other editors edits, you are expected to act in at least a remotely respectful manner. Continuing to accuse Ronz of vandalism and butchering every time he raises an issue is only going to get you blocked, so I'd suggest you find a polite way to disagree with him, and perhaps take a look at dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please ban Editor5435 again, ideally for longer than last time. He is an unrepentant and repeat violator of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV,WP:NPA, and WP:V. Spot (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Spot, you should be reminded of your excessive NPOV and COI violations involving your own article Scott Draves and your shameless self promotion in the article about the English word Spot.--Editor5435 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You nominated Scott Draves for deletion. The result was to keep the page, and when it was all over another editor concluded: "There's absolutely nothing here that could be construed as POV and notability is established by WP:RSes, of which there are several. Notability is established and WP:NPOV is being adhered to." After a WP:THIRD was brought into adjudicate your repeated reverts of Ronz's edits, they concluded "Editor5435: you're now the only one in opposition". Spot (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair "you're now the only one in opposition" wasn't so much a conclusion as it was a summation. Even after I said that, I continued to talk to Editor5435 to change his mind but maybe I shouldn't have bothered. It seems that Editor5435 is violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by rehashing the same arguments about User:Spot and Scott Draves despite the community's disagreement. I also notice that, whenever challenged on his civility, Editor5435 makes a tu quoque red herring about his belief in Spot's COI and NPOV problems. Problems that he doesn't feel worthy of reporting and that have been addressed already anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]
You are right, alas it was not the conclusion of the thread, just a turning point. Note that I am not proposing banning Editor5435 for his behavior on Spot and Scott Draves, I was just responding to his attack here. My real beef is his behavior on Fractal Compression and it's talk page where he has a larger range of ad hominems and much more persistent violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (thanks for the pointer, I'll use it). Spot (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User User:Ascidus seems to be vandalism-only account[edit]

Resolved

For the last few days a number of IPs have been having fun vandalising Villa Park High School, specifically changing the relative demographics to improbable values. I reverted one again an hour or two ago, and now noticed this new user has been even more creative than usual. Please check out his contributions and particularly the comment on his first contribution. Thanks. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, vandalism-only account. If this keeps up, please report at WP:AIV or WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User 24.230.86.125 vandalizing Edina, Minnesota article.[edit]

Resolved
He's been blocked already. For future reference, reporting simple vandalism at WP:AIV will get faster results. Sandstein (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W[edit]

This user has an admitted conflict-of-interest on the page hydrino theory. He was previously banned from editing the article on Randell Mills, which has since been merged into the page. In a discussion at WP:COIN, User:Mastcell limited Stolper to 1RR on hydrino theory. Technically, this was 1RR per 24 h, and Stolper hasn't violated it, but he certainly hasn't respected the spirit of the ban, and continues to push his POV, fringe ideas, and pseudoscience onto the page.

Stolper seems to be checking the hydrino theory article every couple of days. He then finds that another editor (frequently me, because I've been watching the page) has removed his version in favor of a version that respects NPOV, FRINGE, and the scientific consensus. He removes this version, and replaces it with a copy of his favored version, which includes, among other things, a flat statement that quantum mechanics is wrong.

Given Stolper's unwillingness to cooperate, and his lack of any substantial contributions to the encyclopedia, I'm afraid the only way to resolve this will be a complete block. Could one of the Admins please take a look at the situation? Michaelbusch (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet on autism articles again[edit]

This section has been blanked as a courtesy to the participants. The discussion can still be viewed in the article history.06:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with SPA invasion in math AfD[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination), some issues are cropping up regarding some SPAs (some registered, some IP) who are jumping into this deletion debate pretty hastily. They're all making some pretty far-fetched accusations about self-promotion, and are generally being pretty tendentious and assume hardly any good-faith on the part of those who created this article. The nom reads more like a rant than an AfD nom, but if you want a real rant, check the AfD's talk page (and I had to move it there from the AfD page). It even appears that some participants in the counterpart AfD in the Russian Wikipedia vowed to come to the English Wikipedia to delete the article here. I'm concerned that these users, particularly the one who posted the giant rant as well as the influx of one-!vote throw-away accounts, are either acting in collision (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or some other puppetry) or are at least disrupting the AfD in a way that requires administrator attention. Could anyone uninvolved in the AfD lend a hand? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: The most disruptive user of the bunch, mentioned above, is continuing to re-insert his rant / personal attack spree into the AfD discussion quite tendentiously. I'm not sure why he considers it the appropriate place to stick an essay titled "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" but I'd appreciate a hand (particularly one with a mop in it) to help sort this out, sooner rather than later. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post for intervention here myself so glad it's been started. The AfD seems to be corrupted at this point so guidance on how to sort it all out and the related issue of cross wiki gaming seems too special for words. Benjiboi 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not think you will find sockpuppets, though there is definitely something suspicious going on here. I hope I am not infringing on AGF here, but there is a possibility of COI on the side of the deletionists too. They seem to use university accounts, and came only to support the deletion proposer who does not seem to have many edits outside this subject either. They may a bunch of guys working on these equations themselves, and may want to get the Wikipedia article deleted (thinking this would rid the world of the name "Myrzakulov equations") before Myrzakulov's faculty gets visited by American specialists in the field. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I scanned through the AFD, and though it does have more participation than expected, it seems like an experienced person will be able to close it.
We are at a point where we know what to do with articles on completely unpublished theories (delete them) and articles on theories that appear in every textbook (keep them). But there is no overarching standard for articles on a theory that has been the subject of papers by a very small group of researchers. It will often be true that professional researchers in the same field haven't heard of them, for various reasons. We have to consider them on a case-by-case basis.
By the way, this is a physics article... — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I presume the "good" version of the AfD you saw was after I cleaned it up, and before R physicist disruptively reinserted (and rereinserted, ad nauseam) his polemical "wikipedia or wackopedia" essay and the half dozen other irrelevant things that belong, if anywhere, on the AfD's talkpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on an Afd re disruption[edit]

Moved here from WP:AN and merged from above. Black Kite 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The user MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (a history of being uncivil and disruptive in the past [12]) is persistantly disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies‎, the AFD of a controversial article he created. Fair enough he wants the article kept, but he is getting out of hand, making ridiclous long arguments/disrupting the page/Assuming bad faith and generally being uncivil to anyone who "votes" delete and calling them liars, aswell as personal attacks against Americans. It is extremely disruptive and he cannot accept the general concensus of the dicussion, see his contributions [13]. AndreNatas (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is disruptive, and I have left a note to this user regarding this. I am also watching his talk page and the AfD for further disruption and will escalate the tone of my warning to indicate a pending block for disruption if it continues. (1 == 2)Until 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Basicaly, admin Black Kite has raised an Afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies, on the basis that the disruption to the article is so bad it warrants deletion. (I believe currently the disruption is due to only one user, the notorious sock puppeteer User:Molag Bal). BK provides comparisons of Liancourt Rocks to claim this list (no Afd until now, no deletion comment ever) is on a par to this disruptive article of 18 Afds. His other concerns regard dissallowing 153 verified sources as a case for deleting the article, even though he accepts the majority are ok in his opinion. I would like some impartial admin advice and input on this issue, wrt deletion precedence, per deletion of an article for disruption/disagreement only. I would appreciate only non-invlolved admins give their time, and take heed on the regionalistic nature of the content. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, forum shopping? Tan | 39 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the procedure when you believe an admin has incorrectly filed an Afd case? MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually just posted to Mick's talkpage to suggest that here was not the correct forum for his concerns. Basically, Mick has ownership problems with the article, and whilst there are undoubtedly problems with another user employing socks to revert, the basic problem behind the article is that its content can never be anything but original research, as outlined in my nomination. On the AfD so far, Mick has been uncivil a number of times, calling the nomination a "joke" ([14], with the edit summary "unbelievable") and myself a liar ([15], with the edit summary "lie"), together with comments of "rubbish", "outrageous", "contrived" and "ridiculous". His latest addition accuses an editor of commenting on the AfD when he doesn't know anything about the subject ([16]). This forum shopping doesn't help him at all, and I have removed the link to here from the AfD. I suggest an uninvolved admin closes this as resolved. Black Kite 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(indent)I will freely and fairly admit to the only ownership issues I have ( verifiable by the history), that of creating this list article out of the main artice (stupidly now it seems, to protect it from vandalism), and converting the list to a sortable table to actualy help the ignorant to decide the argument for themselves, i.e. not for wp to decide it for them, and reverting obvious sock puppets. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to be judged on any standards here, my point is, you have raised a deletion based on comparison with completely non comparable cases. You have completely over stated this case, to get perfectly verifiable information deleted. I will happily concede if an admin shows a case for deletion that even remotely resembles the articles that have been deleted for unreconsilable disruption before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Mick, I raised the nomination based on completely different concerns. The Liancourt Rocks issue only came up when you said to me "this is never a reason for deletion, and if it has been, I would ask you to provide an example of such a case where it was." - so I provided examples. Black Kite 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely, I am asking the admins if this nomination even comes close to any article previously deleted because it is a lost cause. It is my assertion this article is no more divisive than any other controversial article on WP, hence the tags I placed a while ago. Following your digging in at Afd nom, I am asking the community of admins, if this low level article dispute is actually worthy of deletion, and if so, then where next for Afd? MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time for you to take off the Spider-Man suit and come down form the Reichstag. Your comments are well out of line, and you are taking this way too personally. If you can't bring yourself to allow the debate to proceed in an orderly manner, you will probably have to suffer the indignity of being blocked until it is over. Please don't make me do that. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. I don't think it is anywhere near a spider violation to reasonably ask neutral admins if a precedent being claimed at an Afd by a deleting admin is a true precedent or not. I would like to point out, the disruption title is meant to reflect the subject, i.e. a request for an assessment as to whether the article under Afd comes close to the level of disruption of any of the articles held up as examples in the Afd of sucessfully deleted articles due to disruption. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't see a whole lot that's reasonable about your behavior. Tan | 39 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Delete the whole thing, because that is obviously what you think the standard is, the original editor, not the content or the reasons for deltion. Ignore the original request, it is obviously of no concequence. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'd !vote for delete even if you were the model of civility, able to be reasoned with, and respected Wikipedia processes. As you are uncivil, unreasonable and disrespectful, you just manage to sink your own ship even faster. The AfD is a massive landslide on the delete side, so much that WP:SNOW is knocking at the door. Tan | 39 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)- is doing nothing but disrupting the dicussion. He is questioning every delete, being extremely uncivil towards it, and generally assuming bad faith towards everyone who has a different POV to him, this has gone on all day, plus the user has been blocked for incivility and disruption in the past. AndreNatas (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed this edit [17] from the AfD. I've now been accused by McNee of posting a "joke" and "pointed" AfD, of being a liar, of not knowing what I'm talking about, and now of doing the job (proxying, effectively) for a banned user. If I wasn't involved myself I would've blocked him for disruption, NPA and CIVIL long ago. Black Kite 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked him for 72 hours for repeated disruption and incivility. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Block him for incivility, sure, but "disruption"? The only disruption that should matter is the one related to the civility issues. His actions outside of that should not be seen as "disruption", and that certainly shouldn't be a reason to block him. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have declined his unblock request because I think it is a valid block. (1 == 2)Until 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible that MickMacNee and Gregs the baker know each other in real life - maybe sharing the same ISP in a dorm or a company. Greggs the baker - with three g's - is a well-known UK chain; see http://www.greggs.co.uk/ . The account name might therefore raise some issues with Wikipedia:Username policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, but he continued his incivility at his talk page and that has been protected as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with his rationales, but Mick's concerns here are honest, and a lot of you are having problems distinguishing between "disruptive" and "disagreeing". -- Ned Scott 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Breathtaker evading block, vandalizing at will[edit]

Breathtaker, indefinitely blocked last November for edit-warring and for sock puppetry, is using an IP range - based on WHOIS, it's a shared IP range (87.122.0.0 - 87.122.255.255) registered to Versatel Deutschland - to continue his edit-warring on articles relating to the Goth subculture and to vandalize the user and talk pages of any and all editors who take issue with his activities. Several of the IPs have been blocked for periods of 48 hours to one month. Clearly, this has not been enough, because the vandalism has continued. An IP range block would seem to be in order. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tentatively blocked the range for 24 hours. Looking only at anonymous contributions it does not seem like there are many other people using the range. I'd like input from a checkuser about possible collateral damage before doing any longer blocks. Mr.Z-man 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not questioning your examination of the evidence, Mr.Z, but my examination of the IPs found no other users but Breathtaker. Have you found anything that directly contradicts that? I certainly do not want to see collateral damage from a block, or innocent anons blocked needlessly, but this does not seem likely judging by the evidence I have seen. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Aahhh... should have done so earlier, but posting this will help. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're sticking to softblock/ACB, I don't foresee any collateral damage from a rangeblock. That range has been producing almost entirely vandalism and edit warring for the last two weeks, from at least the anonymous users [18]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There have recently been a handful of good edits to unrelated topics. See [19], [20], and [21]. Mr.Z-man 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that was just a registered user who didn't log in. I actually have a fair idea who it was, but I won't type that in anywhere...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really matter, the reason a checkuser could help is because they can see how many accounts are on that range. A lot of active accounts means a high likelihood that other people would want to register an account and would be blocked from doing so. They could still request an account, but inconveniencing many people due to 1 annoying person is less than ideal. Mr.Z-man 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Do checkusers even have the ability to scan an entire range? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I recently semiprotected Neoclassical (Dark Wave) per a request at WP:RPP by User:MBK004 and User:Dr who1975, who argued that it was being attacked by Breathtaker socks, after expiry of the previous week-long 87.122 range block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My actions may be taken out of context. I did not request protection of the page, I actually declined it because there was not overwhelming (to my view regarding the protection policy) amounts of current vandalism to warrant page protection. I do not remember who requested the page protection, and am uninvolved in this matter except for declining the RFPP request to protect. -MBK004 02:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this guy for about 6months now. The vandalism is persistent. He's on line right now--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • HELP he's being insulting again--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • He's not going to quit... the one week block on the 87.122 node did not work... I suggest a one month block.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Now he's jumped to 87.122.9.127... this will not end without intervention.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked the original IP for incivility, but it looks like a rangeblock may be needed after all. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter... he;s jumped to 87.122.6.215.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Now he's hitting other pages under 87.122.1.177.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 87.122.4.101--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock[edit]

It's clear that this is not going to go away and I have soft blocked 87.122.0.0/16 for a week. If any other admin would like to check this, that's fine. It seems from above that collateral damage would be minimal but I am wary of cutting off 65K users without a second pair of eyes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In the past, I have also delt with this /16 IP range as well. If you see All the sockpuppets of breathtaker, you'll notice that virtually all the IP's are in the 87.122.*.* range. To be honest, I endorse a rangeblock since it seems no one else but him is using this range. Momusufan (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User Spellmanloves67 is making personal attacks and being vulgar[edit]

There is an ongoing problem with Spellmanloves67 . These problems have already been reported Wikipedia:Third opinion, one article WebCT has already been locked once. Spellmanloves67 has also engaged in constant personal and hostile attacks regarding an apparent obsession about an lawsuit filed against Capella University and is continually posting irrelevant information about it on other Wikipedia artices (i.e., WebCT and University of California, Irvine). Sxbrown (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some specific diffs so that we can see what the specific problem is? It is hard to weed through someone's whole contribs history trying to find something... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
He called you a dick; once, as far as I can tell. I'm not going to provide diffs. You should learn about dispute resolution, if you haven't already. And for what it's worth, I sort of agree with you, anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Other Wikipedia editors have now stepped in. Here are some examples of Spellmanloves67 's previous warnings
March 21, 2008 Warning [[22]]
Concerning Edits[[23]]
March 16, 2008 Warning[[24]]
December 24, 2007 Warning[[25]]
Hopefully, things will settle down.Sxbrown (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:121.90.255.23 as sock of User:Chuck Marean?[edit]

I suspect 121.90.255.23 (talk · contribs) is being used by Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) to evade his own block and UP protection in order to place yet another unblock request on his own page (diff). The other unblock requests by this IP immediately after this detailed one appear to be random and with no reason, which might be an attempt to cover his tracks? I suggest the IP blocked, and perhaps even additional sanction against User:Chuck Marean. (I've been involved, so don't want to take any action myself). --ZimZalaBim talk 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that based on the IP's contributions this looks like Chuck Marean evading his block. However, notice this vandalism to my user page yesterday, also from a Vodafone New Zealand IP address which was followed by this to Bongwarrior's user page. This was then followed by yet another Vodafone NZ IP with this vandalism and this. Given that there is reason to believe that Chuck Marean edits from the US, not New Zealand, I wonder if 121.90.255.23 (talk · contribs) is in fact a different blocked vandal, probably Joe5545 (talk · contribs) who was responsible for this vandalism to my talk page, also yesterday? I did mention to CambridgeBayWeather that I thought the Vodafone NZ IP might be Chuck Marean, here, so I wonder if Joe5545 is just trying to sew a little mayhem? Joe5545's contributions don't fit the Chuck Marean pattern and it appears he simply copied Chuck Marean's last unblock request and placed it on Marean's user page. Gwernol 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. I'll remove the warning I left at Chuck's page. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And another Vodafone NZ IP with the same pattern of vandalism: User talk:121.90.92.36 (talk · contribs). Already blocked. Gwernol 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this the whole 121.90.*.* range? The list of IP addresses sure does look it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I made an abuse report to Vodafone earlier. The email given on the whois is incorrect. Should anyone else wish to report it the correct email is nik dot kitson at vodafone dot com. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to Whois, this is a shared range (121.90.0.0/16), a bunch of them were blocked last night as well. Momusufan (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I have blocked HydeDoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a disruptive SPA and likely sockpuppet, based on recent edits. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A very likely sockpuppet judging by his editing behavior. Seems like a good block to me.--Atlan (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Good block. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this one. But then again, Guy is a solid sysop, and I probably give too many chances anyway. :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please help educate me? I don't see SPA; I don't see disruptive; I don't see sockpuppet; and I don't see any warnings on the user talk page. (I do see that the user removed a reference that he thought did not verify the statement, he self-reverted because he removed too much, then he removed the reference without removing the second /ref.) I'm always willing to admit I am wrong, but when I am wrong I like to learn from my mistakes so I hope someone will help me see the evidence. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there was a need to block the account at this point. The account's earlier comments in the DRV were helpful. However, it appears that almost all of its edits are pushing Murphy's POV, whitewashing Murphy related material, etc. Given edits like this one I don't think we're missing all that much without it. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not benefit from people who come here with only one goal and one POV. There is a real abundance of sleeper accounts waking up to mess with the Murphy article(apparently some by Don's request), and this seems to be one. Good eye. (1 == 2)Until 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think he's done anything block worthy either. The sleeper accounts that Until speaks of are meant to be vandalising Wikipedia; all I see this account doing is cleaning stuff up. -- Naerii 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Some forms of trickery are far more subtle than simple vandalism. (1 == 2)Until 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but can you explain what you mean with references to this particular user's actions? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Check the last edits to the Murphy article. Frankly, what we really need least of all right now, is single purpose accounts editing the Murphy article. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher#Single-purpose accounts, and that article was less contentious than this one. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit, the involvement at Don Murphy may have influenced my evaluation in this case, so maybe I would have been more lenient on this editor with these edits in another context. As Guy notes, though - there is already plenty of drama here to go around, we need no more. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I did read the last edits. I don't see the disruption. Yesterday he had one minor edit of no significance. Today he made one small edit (three consecutive edits with the second a self-revert and the third doing what he meant to do the first time) which removed a reference that he thought did not match the text. AGF it was a reasonable edit in line with policy. Another editor misconstrued the edit and left a note on his talk page, but later apologized for an incorrect warning.
Looking at the contribution history, I also don't see the SPA. And I don't see the evidence of sockpuppetry.
If I'm not seeing something that I should be able to see, I'd appreciate any pointers so that I can learn to see better. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)




  • I would support an unblock. We can explain why the edits were wrong. And then go from there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

**Me too. I don't see blockable offenses at the moment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that this is not what it appears to be. (1 == 2)Until 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support an unblock too. There is no evidence of bad faith in his edits and it's not a SPA. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 Note: BonnetonTop (talk · contribs) is on the same IP, although it is registered to a large company and has been alleged to be shared. Thatcher 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well considering the topic overlap, this being the same IP seems a little indicative of our concerns about it being a SPA sock being founded. (1 == 2)Until 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I changed my mind in the light of this new evidence. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, this bit makes me uneasy, these BLPs are sensitive enough. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call, Guy. This is probably as good a reason as any to change the software so that accounts that haven't edited for some time have to wait a few days before editing semi-protected articles. Blueboy96 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happier if such blocks were done based on (or in addition to) checkuser evidence, instead of solely on "gut feelings". Guy was right this time round, but he is not always right. Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Starfire777[edit]

Resolved: Indefinitely blocked.

Starfire777 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been inserting creationist comments in a few scientific articles, then posting creationist rants on various user pages (now reverted), after coming off a 1 day block. I blocked him for another 2 days, and now he responds with this rant on his talk page. Do you think an indefinite block would be in order? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The user clearly isn't ever going to be able to edit in a collaborative manner, so an indef would be reasonable (quite apart from the egregious violations of NPA and CIVIL). Black Kite 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm one of the primary targets of his attacks, so I might be a bit biased but considering he says at one point that "neither your nor Wikipedia's rules superceded God's" I think he has made it pretty clear that he isn't interested in abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Support indef. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yikes. Support indef. Hopeless. Am I going to hell now? (he said as a conservative American Christian and admin) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess we can always afford another religious extremist sockpuppeter. *A huge lightning bolt crosses the sky and smites Keeper* - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support indef. ColdmachineTalk 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support indef. The vandalizing of User pages with long angry rants is unacceptable. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This person appears to be only interested in inserting his POV into Wikipedia, and not in abiding by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and probably a bunch more besides. Aleta Sing 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support indef agree with Aunt Entropy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I increased to indefinite referencing this discussion. Not at all controversial, this one is not here to help build an encyclopaedia I think. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What a lovely person, and such well-written comments. I propose we offer the editor some nice cookies and milk and maybe he/she will cool down and become a useful and valuable editor. Support indef-block. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow... yeah, we don't need that around. Endorse the indef block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support indef, RBI. caknuck ° has a nasty slice in his golf swing 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support indef. GlassCobra 06:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Night of the living Dodona[edit]

Resolved: blocked by fut perf --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The notorious sockpuppeteer and troll from IP address 217.24.240.11, a.k.a PIRRO BURRI, a.k.a Burra, a.k.a. Dodona is back with a vengeance and threatens to "always be back" [[26]]. He has been editing from this IP since January of 08 and it STILL isn't indef blocked, which it really ought to be. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fut perf got him: [27] Thanks for the update, and if he comes back again, let us know! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with persistent vandalism[edit]

Democracy activist (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) This user has only done vandalism to International Republican Institute. User has not contibuted to anything else and have ignored all warnings. Please see user's contributions and also history of the article. The article was under attack from an announimose with an IP owned by International Republican Institute. Then the article was blocked from anon edit. THis username was created right after that and is used only to continue the vandalism made before as anon. I recommen a long time block of the user as looking to its past vandalism history, the user comes back every couple of weeks to perform the same vandalism. So a temp block of for example 2 weeks would have no effect on its vandalism. Farmanesh (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. In the future, please use WP:AIV for vandalism reports - they will be handled much more quickly there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe Farmanesh originally did post at AIV, and an admin moved the report here. Aleta Sing 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, nope it was Farmanesh who moved it it. Aleta Sing 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did move it here from my original post in AIV as admins adviced me to do so, they told me as this matter is a persistent one it should come here, so what is the correct way? Farmanesh (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That was my recommendation, as it looked to be more than simple vandalism. As noted above, there was vandalism from an IP as well, which would seem to move the case from AIV to Long term Abuse, this board, or elsewhere. Glad to see it was resolved. It's possible that I overthought it, but either way - the problem was handled. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anonymous" IP user making personal attacks on MOSNUM talk page[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

An "anonymous" IP user Special:Contributions/217.87.77.88 has started making personal attacks [28] [29] on WT:MOSNUM and has also started to write on User_talk:Greg_L. This IP block has been used before for attacks, please see the bottom of User:Fnagaton/SarenneSockPuppetReport for the most up to date entries. The last time I had to get my talk page semi-protected because the anonymous user was repeatedly vandalising. Because the IP user is known to hop IPs when one is blocked I'm asking for a temporary semi-protect of the MOSNUM talk and project page. Fnagaton 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur on the identity, its from the same dialup service used last time to evade blocks and vandalize pages. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:Merle Terlesky[edit]

Resolved

Merlet (talk · contribs). See this. There is a related discussion at WP:BLPN#Merle Terlesky picture. Nesodak (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for making legal threats and made sure the user had the OTRS contact to pursue their image copyright concerns. (1 == 2)Until 22:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Copyright if the image isn't in doubt. Terlesky just objects to any picture of him appearing on Wikipedia, regardless of who holds the copyright. Anyway, the image was removed by an OTRS volunteer at virtually the same time as you blocked him. The "legal situation" (the term is used loosely) being resolved, would an unblock now be appropriate? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If the user retracts the threats I suppose. But this has not happened to my knowledge. The user has been in contact with OTRS, but he has not retracted his threat there either. (1 == 2)Until 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nuvirgos[edit]

Nuvirgos (talk · contribs) is a likely COI editor who has repeatedly made inappropriate edits. Nuvirgos only edits have been to the article of the group Nu Virgos and the creation of article about the group's albums. Nuvirgos and their ip address 86.57.5.153 (talk · contribs), have removed to tags from Nu Virgos without addressing the issues [30][31] [32][33] [34][35]. Nuvirgos uploaded several copyrighted images (Image:Nuvirgos fhm.jpg,Image:Nuvirgos_idontwantamna.jpg, Image:Nuvirgos 2007.jpg, and Image:Nuvirgos gold.jpg), a bot tagged them as missing fair use rationales and Nuvirgos removed the tags without addressing the issues. I retagged the images and Nuvirgos removed the tags again. Nuvirgos most recent edits have been worse. In this edit Nuvirgos removed a section on the former members of the group without an explanation, and in this series of edits [36] [37] [38] they removed the article's only reference, several fact tags, a reflist, and a refimprove tag. Nuvirgos has received a warning about COI and multiple warnings about their inappropriate editing. Some sort of block seems to be in order. BlueAzure (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Username etc is inappropriate if he's using his account just for promotion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention report here, if it's truly as you say, he's here to represent a business and should go. "Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. ". There's also a COI noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard special, random, Merkinsmum 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A username block does not restrict someone from using another name, so that would not have any effect. I am familiar with COI noticeboard, the COI is secondary to general problem with their editing. BlueAzure (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

a wrongly named RfA[edit]

Resolved: fixed but RfA is declined

I can't move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/STORMTRACKER94 -it's mistakenly in upper case, plus this is at least the 2nd go for User:Stormtracker94 . I can't do it right and get it to move:) Unless someone's already done it? Help appreciated.:)special, random, Merkinsmum 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 4. I'll check the RfA page for correct transclusion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks fine, you need to transclude once User:Stormtracker94 has accepted the nom. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert but I'll have a go, I just came across this in Recent Changes. Thanks for sorting it.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the nominator should do it, I'll drop a note in his talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiderek1 acting up again[edit]

Just now blocked two of his socks, User:Amangadkeet and User:Byederek. Thought people should know. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly[edit]

Request the blocking of User:Littlebutterfly on all Tibetan related articles. this user has consistently shown an editing history of POV pushing in tebetan articles, this user also exclusively edits Tibetan articles only. other editors are aslo noticing a trend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibet#Littlebutterfly

"Alexwoods, my motivation is to make this article as encyclopedic as possible. I will only use material from creditable sources. Some editors here are editing with an anti-Chinese government attitude which makes this a soapbox. My position is not different from that of Dalai Lama’s regarding the sovereignty of Tibet. He said Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence. I would argue for the human rights of the Tibetans but not Tibet independence. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)"

(im somewhat new to wikipedia, if this is not the correct format for a compliant i apologize)

It seems a little early to block for an edit war; the article was protected only last night (btw it's 01:49 here), and this is better worked out on the Talk pages. Admins can do nothing if there is no breach of policy, and I don't see one yet. If you can't work it out, look at Dispute Resolution, but I see nothing to justify any action against any editor as yet. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox[edit]

Resolved

User:SqueakBox, on whose nature/character I won't make any comments (as many of you might know well about), is in my view disrupting User:Martijn Hoekstra's RfA (here), which is still in preparation and naturally hasn't been launched yet. SqueakBox, who was obviously either watchlisting this RfA (he's had previous disagreements with Martijn) or just wikistalking me, insists in adding his oppose !vote right away [39]. No reason provided for the latter. I would like to ask the community to comment on this behavior, and if a block would be in order if SqueakBox persists in adding his blatantly bad faith oppose to this still unborn RfA. Thank you. Húsönd 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Made a comment regarding the pre-live oppose, with a link to this thread. The closing admin for the RfA will take the comment into consideration regarding Squeakbox's oppose. seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What a simple but effective way to resolve this. Thank you. Húsönd 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to make a big deal of it. If he wants to oppose before it going live, no problem. There are better ways to disrupt an RfA ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no wish to disrupt the rfa. I watch Martin's user page and I had no idea it hadn't gone live, how would I know that? TYhis was a good faith edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You were informed both at your talk page and edit summary of reverting edit, that the RfA hadn't gone live. Yet, you reinstated your oppose twice afterwards. Húsönd 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
While I think this is an isolated incident which has already been accepted as being resolved as a good faith edit...aren't supports commonplace on RfA's before they "go live"? Would you also consider it disruptive for people to !vote in favor of a candidate before transclusion? Feel free to delete this comment entirely or move it into a new section for discussion if it's considered inappropriate as a discussion point related to this specific case. --OnoremDil 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Was there really a need for a AN thread? he opposed the RFA before it went live, so what? most people (including me) have accidentally !voted before a RFA goes live, its not like his opinion would have changed if the nomination was active. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you have had a positive experience with SqueakBox, and I don't think I'm that naïve to bring this here albeit similar to those enthusiastic support-before-launch !votes. It's a far more complex situation with deep background. But anyway, resolved. Húsönd 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been marked as resolved. Let's move onto more important matters. seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Altering of comments[edit]

User Abtract (talk · contribs · logs) keeps removing a part of my comments without my permission, see [40], [41], and [42], in spite of the warnings I gave him/her. I went as far as saying remove all of it, not some, but the user does otherwise, calling it "sarcasm", "personal attack", or what have you. Can someone revert and explain to the editor why changing part of a comment goes against WP:TALK? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be an all or nothing proposition when it comes to altering comments left by someone else, but is this really something that requires administrator assistance? Why not just remove the additional commentary, or the whole thing, yourself? It's obvious that they've seen and reacted to it. What is it that you are hoping to accomplish by forcing them to keep the entire comment on their talk page? --OnoremDil 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've left Abtract a note asking him to just remove a comment entirely if he doesn't like it on his talk page. In the future though, you really shouldn't edit war with a user on his own talk page. Not that you were doing anything wrong, but that nothing good usually comes of it. Better to seek help sooner. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. To answer Onorem's doubt, I was trying to prove a simple point, really, to the user in question. (S)he didn't quite understand (or perhaps ignored) what I was saying, however, I'm glad it was settled in this fashion. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Irn[edit]

I've unblocked the above user, Irn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. The reason I've unblocked is because I can't find any evidence of a WP:3RR violation, any attempt to warn Irn about 3RR beforehand, or any evidence to show that Irn was deliberately avoiding discussion (in fact, Irn started a discussion which wasn't responded to). Just double-checking I did the right thing here and I'm not missing anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out, the software beat me to the unblock, but I would have cleared it had I been in time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Did you ask the blocking admin why he was blocked? « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not, and as it turns out I wouldn't have had time anyway; however, he left a detailed explanation of the block on the user's talk page in response to another editor (non-admin) who felt the block was undeserved. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha, other than that I have no suggestions and support the unblock based solely on the fact that the user wasnt even warned. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

IP disruption[edit]

There has been sustained disruption at USS Liberty incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page by a dynamic set of ips: 65.30.76.58 (talk · contribs), 24.27.130.12 (talk · contribs), 65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs), 64.126.23.130 (talk · contribs), 64.126.34.118 (talk · contribs) (others?). Their modus operandi has primarily been to insert inflammatory comments on the talk page of the aforementioned article despite repeated warnings to desist. I've protected the talk page twice (it's currently protected), which has merely shifted them to the article space and other talk pages. Who knows whether these ips sincerely subscribe to such dogma - I'm actually skeptical about that despite their persistence. What is evident is the disruption it's causing and the blatancy of their efforts to provoke. Would anyone consider blocking them? To be candid, I haven't range blocked before and don't want to cause any problems with that when editing at well past 3:00am. SoLando (Talk) 03:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For the 24 IP and 65 IP's (belonging to Road Runner Kansas City Dynamic IP pool), rangeblock won't work as it's a /14. You would knock out 262,144 hosts which would present colleteral damage (/15 and under blocks can't be blocked anyway per Here Note that MediaWiki only supports blocking CIDR suffixes 16–32). 64.126.23.130 is a static IP belonging to Everest Connections LLC, 64.126.34.118 also belongs to Everest Connections LLC but that IP is dynamic but is in a /17 block. it may be possible to block 64.126.0.0/17, Colleteral damage for this range may be minimal. Anyone else got an opinion on this? Momusufan (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think a /17 block is a lot of collateral damage, ESPECIALLY considering that since we can't block his whole range, it is likely to have no positive net effect, since he can still edit under the other ranges, and will likely do so. Perhaps the best is to maintain longer and longer range semi-protections until they go away. Trolls like this usually find some other way to get their rocks off in a few weeks anyways... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Or alternately Whack-a-mole blocks, while not exactly fun, may be our only option, if they drift off of their main targets to random other targets... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

True, /17 would block out 32,768 hosts, you got a point there. I think page protection may do the trick. There are some other articles besides