Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431

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

Noticeboard archives




When are kids going to learn that posting personal info may well get them in trouble? Please blank this kid's vanity page and delete the edit history ASAP. He posted damned near everything but his address and phone number. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the article immediately. I think it's something of a losing battle to get kids to not give out information online. Online isn't real-life and they don't believe the two would ever coincide (cf the bomb, death and suicide threats we deal with - all kids not expecting the FBI/Scotland Yard at their front door). All we can do is delete on sight. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 07:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page forgery[edit]


Be advised that, following a recent block, has forged multiple comments from another user (i.e., User:CalendarWatcher), using that user's signature, on his (i.e., the anon. user's) own talk page. I removed the phony signature once and advised against this sort of behaviour, but that has not deterred him whatsoever. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and the page protected. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Stu8912 and repeated copyvio image uploads[edit]

Stu8912 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images (and has uploaded a certain few multiple times), and has not repsonded to his fellow editors' requests to stop doing so. His talk page shows his somewhat lengthy history of copyvio problems, as well as a prior 24-hour block for copyvio uploading. He seems to be fixated on topics relating to and including Angelo State University and San Angelo Stadium, and I honestly think he is unaware that what he is doing is wrong. I suggest another block of an even longer timespan as a way to get this point across to him, and a semi-protection of the Angelo State University article.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been online for about two weeks, so my inclination is that this is kind of stale. A block would likely expire before the editor comes back. Semi-protection won't do anything since he's a registered user. --Selket Talk 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You're gonna have to forgive my relative ignorance on this complaint process (I prefer doing smaller edits; I'm only doing bringing this up here because he's been a recurring annoyance). Stu8912 has a pattern of going offline for a while, then returning to upload many of the same copyvio images, before going back offline for another while, etc. This is why I suggest a substantially longer block (if possible) for the user, because when he DOES return, he'll likely resort to his same shenanigans all over again unless action is taken.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Dynamite XI makes a good point, so I have blocked the editor for one month (per this, with comments) so they will have their attention drawn to the communities concerns. While the tariff may appear harsh it seems to be the only way further disruption can be countered, and I would have no objection to it being reduced when the editor makes contact and realises the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: it's a dedicated IP, blocked a month --Rodhullandemu 12:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User is a persistent Date of Birth and infobox vandal, specifically on pages of Kellie Shirley and Matt Di Angelo. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. User has been warned constantly (and has only just been released from a block) but continues to vandalise and ignore the warnings. ~~ [Jam][talk] 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moulton is asking to be unblocked[edit]

Resolved: Temporary unblocked by Thatcher. Don't forget to lock the door behind you :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Last night, when I was creating a new login for myself on MetaWiki, the registration page invited me to avail myself of the new Global Account Management feature. That sounded sensible, especially if I was going to register also on WikiBooks and/or Wikiversity.
However, I ran into a small technical glitch...

Login unification status

From Meta

Your home wiki (listed below) is blocked from editing. Please contact a sysop in this wiki to unblock it. While it is blocked, you cannot merge your accounts.

Home wiki

The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account. You will be able to change which is your home wiki later.

    * (home wiki)

So I would request to be unblocked on the English Wikipedia for the express purpose of availing myself of the Unified Account Management feature so that I may ply my craft, under a unified WikiMedia Login ID, on more collegial and congenial projects (other than the English Wikipedia) sponsored by the WikiMedia Foundation.
Note, also, that I had previously asked you to remove the block which prevents me from creating or editing subpages in my user space here on the English Wikipedia.
Also, please see this item, which raises the issue of which party has the ethical responsibility to undo an unethical act, once it's raised to their attention.
Moulton (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted at User talk:Moulton#Civility As a Tool Against Academic Excellence. I am cross posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. I suggest the conversation take place there. I believe we should AGF and unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, everyone stay calm, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - temporarily' unblock Moulton, allow him to merge his accounts, then reblock his en.Wiki account. This will allow him to edit on other projects, and does not commit us to unblocking Moulton here. Neıl 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
He is allowed to edit on other projects, he can create an account there, he just can't do it through unified login. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure what harm it would do to allow a user to use SUL. Moulton, in particular, is an unusual case - he was never really a bad faith editor, more that he is unwilling/unable to work within the parameters of en.Wikipedia. Neıl 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict) I don't see what this has to do with AGF. He can still create those accounts the old-fashioned way, one by one, where needed. If he is blocked on en.wikipedia, he is not allowed to create or edit subpages here. When he has an account on Wikibooks or wherever else he prefers, he can probably create and edit user subpages over there. I don't see the need for us to undo his block for the specified reasons. Fram (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion please. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I refuse on principle to use AN subpages; they are stupid. If you wish to copy my comment to there, that would be okay.Neıl 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, if you don't discuss there, we're going to have conflicting resolutions to the problem. Possibly leading to wheel wars. So, just this once then, please give in to the evil and keep discussion in one place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done This is fairly routine and has been done for users much more annoying and troublesom than Moulton, so no reason to refuse, especially if he plans to contribute productively to other wikimedia projects. Thatcher 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you, Thatcher. Neıl 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WP:SOAPy user talk[edit]

Resolved: user indef blocked, talk page blanked and locked by Gwen Gale

Would User talk:Dzonatas be considered a little outside the bounds of the standard unblock requests, etc. that might be brought forward by an indefinitely-blocked user? I'm tempted to blank and lock myself, but thought I'd request some other thoughts first (besides, I'm kind of busy). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As much to help the indef blocked editor as anyone else, I have blanked and locked the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps creating hoaxes faking a game that either does not exist or a totally not popular fan game of the original Galaxy Angel[edit]

The user Galaxyangelnew is creating hoaxes in a few articles faking a game(Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version) that does not exist. The game is not sourced and on top of that got no google results. If the game can contain units from two Japanese company as well as a North America company and uses so many music from different series just because it is from the same composer(while it is not by the same composer as well like his/her claim), it must be extremely easy to find sources and does not have to keep reverting the pages without having one and ignoring the warnings. MythSearchertalk 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This user created a new account: User:Galaxyangelwork and uses the IP: for his/her vandalism acts. MythSearchertalk 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I watchlisted the article. And those accounts. We'll see what happens. Grandmasterka 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Confirmed as spam and indef blocked by Hu12

Meddevicefan (talk · contribs)is adding tons of external links to a particular set of websites. Second opinion wanted, is this spam? Corvus cornixtalk 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks problematic. Some form of advertising? Even if not advertising, the additions aren't improving the pages. It could likely be good faith additions, though, might want to first address with the user things like WP:EL. Gwynand | TalkContribs 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It sure looks like promotion for a manufacturer of (an admittedly cool) surgical device. There's no reason to have external links on every Wikipedia page for every condition that can be treated laparoscopically. They can have a couple of links on the page about the device itself (see Da Vinci Surgical System); the rest is overkill. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
These links have been removed in the past (first half of 2007) due to their being determined to be spam-related. See Dfiinter (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), and (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Spam Advert only account, blocked accordingly. persistant spamming--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinions. Corvus cornixtalk 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

G11 deletion[edit]

    • NOt exactly resolved, but nothing left to do or see here. Archiving. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been an admin for 90 minutes and I already am bringing stuff to you guys. To take my tools for a spin, I deleted some easy CSDs - no problem there - and Koingo Software this one keeps popping up. Certainly G11 when I deleted twice, its now back and I'm second guessing myself. Can I get another pair of eyes on this? Tan | 39 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Keeper76 deleted it already. Water under the bridge.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it too late to retract my nom? What have we done? Are you in CAT:AOR? Obvious, blatant adverting, and WP:COI to boot. Deleted again, if it comes back, then a strong usertalk warning may be in order. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not an admin but there's some claim to notability (featured in numerous Mac and technology magazines and web sites - including MacAddict) so ask the editor to provide third party references. If they can't, prod it. --NeilN talkcontribs 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(ECx4) (!) Welcome to Adminship. You'll see a lot of these. In this case, the author appears to be attempting to comply with policy (they removed links to products, for example). So, I'd recommend that they draft an article in their userspace, citing independent sources (Google news offers several), and focusing on what the company is and why they are notable, not necessarily why their products are awesome. Either they'll come up with a neutral piece (the company may be notable, after all), or they will not. Either way, giving them a Plan B (the draft in userspace) avoids WP:BITE. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
After three rapid recreations, salted for 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a usernameblock for the account that keeps creating the article.--Atlan (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Keeper User already indefblocked after a fourth recreation. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't indef block anybody, check the log. This user is getting railroaded at the moment, way overboard compared to his "crimes" of attempting to write an article. Like life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, really. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested usernameblock. No need to block indef just yet.--Atlan (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The user involved (Koingosw (talk · contribs)) continues to blank his talk page following the block. While I have no problem with blanking one's own talk page in general, I do believe that past discussions have said that messages such as block notices need to remain. Can an admin comment and/or take a look? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind - the page was protected while I was posting here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like that takes care of that, though I imagine we could have gotten by without taunting the block-ee. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, my bad. I get a little upset when people keep posting self-promotional stuff. I see this all the time on new-page patrol, though most aren't as stubborn as this one. Having said that, he should have been blocked much earlier on a username violation. OK, time for a brief Wikibreak - or as the little lady calls it, "Go mow the dang lawn before it starts raining!" Oh, well ... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to wheelwar over it, and I agree the article doesn't belong here in it's current state (I deleted it twice myself). But this user has just been railroaded out the door, and can't even edit his talkpage to make a plea. He's pissed off right now, likely rightfully, but perhaps he has a case/or could build an article? I'm recommending an unprotection of his usertalk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. He should at least be allowed to suggest a new username on his talk page. I don't even know why his talk page was protected really.--Atlan (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I just unprotected. Left him/her a message explaining why everyone reacted how they did(repeated recreation is generally frowned upon). We'll see if he/she is still around. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To Tanthalas - thanks for bringing this issue here. Admins new and old should bring things they're not sure about or are worried about straight to one of the admin boards for discussion. We're a collaborative editing environment, so it always helps to talk stuff over. In this case, yes, you're right to pause after repeated recreation of an article and ask yourself if you've done wrong, just in case. Then, as here, if you haven't, move the article to the creator's userspace, salt the original title and move-protect the copy and then contact the user on their talk page and, without using templates, explain where the article now lives, what is wrong with it and how they can improve it and how they can contact you. A spammer will detonate all over you, so can be ignored. A genuine fan of the subject will tell you more or ask for help. Either way, Wikipedia has won. We should always be ready to userfy and help, just in case, despite the extra work. And I'm aware I've got someone waiting for help in exactly these circumstances that I haven't yet provided, so don't point it out :o)ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Edit summary vandalism intervention?[edit]

An anonymous editor added a patently offensive edit summary to the Terry McAuliffe article. Is there anything that can be done about that? Please direct me elsewhere if appropriate -- I couldn't find any resources that explained what to do in the case of "edit summary vandalism". Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, maybe not. This guy has quite a few offensive edit summaries ([1]). I've deleted one from the history - the others? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
While WP:OVERSIGHT is typically a little heavy-handed for simple vandalism, I don't think we want this guy's racist and sexist tirades preserved for posterity any time someone opens up the page history. I'd be in favor of getting rid of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted all the offensive edit summaries except for the first two remaining on the contribution list, which are to articles that probably have over 5000 edits. Can someone with greater powers than I help with this? NawlinWiki (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)`

WP:UAA backlog[edit]

Resolved: Normal service has now been resumed - Alex Muller 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Usernames for Administrator Attention could, uh, use some administrator attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediate Full protect Warren G. Harding[edit]

Colbert on it, claims harding was a 'negro' based on Mclaughlin report, probably worth protecting all 43, after the litany of accusations he just made. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for protection should be made at WP:RFPP :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Generally, yes. In this case, WP:IAR prevails. Within a minute of a televised suggestion by Stephen Colbert to his audience that they check out a certain Wikipedia page and make alterations, we can pretty well count on significant vandalism without immediate full protection. It's one of those "find the first possible admin" cases, and this is the page most watched by admins so it's the right place to come. Risker (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, you're fighting for this man's honor, which is more than he ever did. Maybe we should go to the Stephen Colbert page, and vandalize it by calling him a journalist or something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And while we're handling this, Franklin Pierce is getting hit as well, let's lock it before his show hits the west coast.. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We've come a long ways since McLean Stevenson would be on the Carson show and ask everyone in Bloomington, Illinois to flush their toilets at the same time so that his pal at the city reservoir could watch for a sudden dip in the water pressure; or since Soupy Sales asked all the kiddies in the audience to mail him some of those pieces of paper with Presidents' pictures on them, that they could find in Dad's wallet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a town in Iowa that voted that way during the caucuses a few years ago? Can't remember which one. They measured the water levels to determine the winner. Oh, and I semiprotected Pierce for you. :) Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't know. But I know this: Harding and Pierce are one thing. But if they mess with my man, Millard Fillmore, there will be blood. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I copied Image:Warren G Harding portrait as senator June 1920.jpg from commons and protected it (just to be safe). So someone remember to delete it in a couple of days. --Selket Talk 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to board up the windows and move all canned food to the cellar too!!! Did someone get the cat?! Where's the cat?!!!! Did someone grab grandma's medication too? O lord... this storm is going to be a bigg'n! (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He didn't actually say anything about vandalizing wikipedia, but he did show on-screen a version of the wikipedia article on Harding asserting that his middle name is "Gangsta". --Random832 (contribs) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on dealing with the flood of vandalism, but do we have an extended long term plan on what to do about this? JeanLatore (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this specific incident, they will move on. If you mean what to do if Colbert keeps doing this sort of this then I intend to laugh each time. 1 != 2 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't think we need one, outside of the usual "keep eyes on it" method. Semi-protect if needed, full if things get heinous. Hot spots like this show up from time to time, from any number of outside sources. Rather than fighting it, we can turn it into an opportunity to recruit new or returning users. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've combined this from a new section below, to keep all this in one place. ThuranX (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Colbert would like having it pointed out that he's a modern-day answer to Soupy Sales. He might like it. Then again, he might not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

self promotion links[edit]

Hi. User Mikemaadogg (talk · contribs) has only added links to one website which leads me to believe this might be self-promotion. I originally removed the links because I felt much of the info on this website is incorrect or not necessary. I wrote on his userpage a few days ago but he has not replied and has undo my removal of the links. What do others think about this? Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a factual website relating to Chinese finance, and the "" reference is a bit of a giveaway. In what way is it promotional? This site does not sell products as far as I can see. And how do you judge the accuracy or relevance of the information on it? --Rodhullandemu 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rod. I'm not sure which edit you are referring to but most of them are to the SWF institute, which is a non-profit organization. Some of their information is incorrect or in some cases copyrighted materials. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Left a note requesting some response from Mikemaadogg; no particularly strong feeling on the site itself, as of yet, but the single-minded pursuit of links to it suggests a possible COI. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Luna. Let's see what he says. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

make it stop, please[edit]

Resolved: Bot is functioning perfectly according to its mandate, and the relevant policy has been explained to Ritzbitz. Issues with WP:NFCC and/or the bot's mandate should be handled elsewhere

it keeps removing sound clips from the page im editing. it isnt even in article space, it removed the photos too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What did? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a little checking, so let me try to rephrase Ritzbitz00's complaint so other's can understand it:
Ritzbitz is working on a draft article in userspace: User:Ritzbitz00/Maximum Bob (singer) (Not sure if this would pass WP:Notability, but let's remain agnostic about that for now, shall we?) He is adding non-free images and sound clips to the draft article (again, remaining agnostic for now as to whether the NFCC justification is valid or not). BJBot is removing them since non-free content is prohibited outside of article space -- BJBot does not realize this is a draft article.
Not sure what the policy is here...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this article was previously deleted here and endorsed at deletion review. However, judging by the discussions the problem was lack of content which appears to be fixed now. I suggest moving the article to mainspace and allowing Ritzbitz to continue working on it. BradV 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The policy is to make the images links rather than inline: [[:Image:Example.png]] instead of [[Image:Example.png]]. When the draft is moved to mainspace, convert them back to inline images. --Carnildo (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I had userfied this after a DRV and unless there are some sources it needs to be deleted again and am in contact with rizbtitz for this part. I advised him generically on fair use, and that the sound clips can't substitute for references. As far as i see licensing info is incorrect. If it can be fixed they might be usable in the Deli Creeps article, but I am not much into sound and images. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it correct to use a FUR to temporally "save" the sound sample until the draft is restored to mainspace? See my test addition of a userspace FUR. Or it's better to just delete it in order to disincentive non-free content, and let him re-upload the sample when he finds an article for it? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When drafting or storing an article in user space, one can use nowiki like this: <nowiki>whatever should not be in user space, like categories</nowiki>. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the oggs and other stuff, I don't find it appropriate to "save" stuff. Let it be deleted as orphaned (comment it out in the draft) and when moved back, simply ask an administrator to restore it. That would not be a controversial deletion and restoration, I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Block the bot This is, once again, an instance of copyright paranoia taken to the extreme. There is no reason whatsoever to ban fair-use from userspace. Do you honestly think someone can sue based on namespace?!? Of course not, Wikipedia is a project taken as corpus and as such it is immaterial what namespace an image is used in. The only possibly valid complaint is the context in which the image is being used. Since drafts are obviously intended to be articles, there is no substantiated argument for removal here. The bot should be stopped at once from further vandalism. Enough of the wiki-lawyering, let editors edit in peace without stupid bots making their lives harder. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a perfect good reason to ban fairuse from userspace: it's against policy. If you want to argue policy, argue it. Don't blame the bot for people not following it. --- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a violation of WP:AGF for a bot to remove it. Stop making extra work for editors attempting to contribute in good faith. I suggest this is an excellent reason to apply WP:IAR to WP:NFCC, since it is hampering the good-faith contributions of editors simply because a WP:FRINGE group of so-called "freedom" activists WP:OWN the WP:NFCC policy pages (what WP:IAR was made for). There is no benefit to the project by enforcing this ridiculous rule in such an absurd manner. I would submit it is simply policy for policy sake and not the rational application of such. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent evaluation of what is happening here:
It could be said that the same is happening here... --Dragon695 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't start another bot war please. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the operator of said bot. First, the WP:NFCC has community consensus, if you disagree take it there. Second, automated enforcement of WP:NFCC has community consensus. Third, my bot (and two others) have community consensus having passed a WP:BRFA with no objections. Sorry but this isn't how we operate, if you have a problem with the policy, the enforcement methods or the bot's approved method of action they're the appropriate venues for discussion. The bot is clearly not malfunctioning and calling for a block because you think the policy is flawed is baseless. BJTalk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree, this bot is operating 100% correctly and enforcing policy properly. MBisanz talk 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've objected to past issues with bots, but this one was fine and was performing correctly - we do not link fair use from userspace. That's not a new requirement. What I suggest doing is waiting till it is in mainspace before plugging in the images or media. Orderinchaos 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am marking this as resolved. If people have an issue with WP:NFCC and/or the bot's mandate, there are other venues to discuss this. However, that has nothing to do with the ANI report. The bot is in 100% compliance with its mandate, and I took the time personally to explain to the user what the bot was doing and why, and what he could do to continue his work in a way that was in compliance with WP:NFCC. Nothing more to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded Harassment by User:Odd nature (and endorsed by User:Filll)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: mostly - RFC deleted by Moreschi. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Odd nature has posted a bogus RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B on a whole range of users they disagree with. He's labelled me a "supporter" of the subjects of the RFC, among a few other editors, and insists that the entire group "steer clear of participating in discussions regarding members of the project occurring anywhere on Wikipedia". He's also labelled Cla68, LaraLove (LaraHate at WikipediaReview), Giggy, Dtobias (Dan T), The undertow, ThuranX, and Gnixon in the same manner.

I'm uninvolved and have participated as a third party in several disputes (whether it be here, or at WQA), and at ANI, I repeatedly requested him to stop making unfounded accusations against me as being involved in the several disputes I have commented on. This behavior has clearly not stopped and he continues making such unsupported accusations, now with a RFC in WP:POINT. This further seen by the unacceptable manner in which he tried to have it certified - as if it is one dispute, when in reality, all he's done is referred to several disputes with several different users.

This is atrocious.

I request

  • The users be informed of this discussion.
  • User:Odd nature is blocked for disruption, harassment/personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a battleground.
  • The RFC be deleted.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that unsupported accusations are a perennial problem with Odd nature et all, Ncmvocalist, I tend to think that A) This would best be served as evidence IN that Request for Comment (I would like to see it more neutrally named, mind you), rather then in a seperate ANI report. And B)As for the legalities of it, as long as it serves to focus on the issue, I think a bit of WP:IAR should be used here to let it run. ArbCom has stated they want an RfC on the issue, and everyone knows if the issues aren't resolved at the RfC level, it's probably time to bring it back in front of ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The reason this is here is because this conduct has not, and will not change until there is admin intervention against this user in particular. Unsupported unwarranted accusations against third parties is purely harassment, particularly when they're repeated as a smear campaign. An RFC is to make claims with evidence against parties of a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How fun. I come here to notify on another Colbert incident incipient on wikipedia, and find my name in the thread above it. I'm not sure why I'm included in this based on a few comments about bad behavior and the willing impotence of admins when confronted with it. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say it but I was also concerned about pages such as User:Filll/Abuse_of_Civil_Hall_of_Fame -such pages recording the abuses of others and commenting upon them are quite often deleted. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
MfD'd ViridaeTalk 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is not meant to insult or offend anyone. It is data about how we are applying policy like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Are we doing so consistently? Does our approach make sense? Are our standards for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the appropriate level? Should they be more stringent or more lenient? Are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ever used inappropriately as weapons against opponents in disputes? These are just examples I have come across in my travels, and not meant to be exhaustive or an appropriately random sample.
I do not pretend to know if Wikipedia is enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL appropriately at the moment or not. I do not pretend to know if the most commonly held assumptions about CIVIL are reasonable or not. However, these are interesting questions to consider as Wikipedia evolves as an enterprise.
If we are ever to move beyond our current "intuition-based management" of Wikipedia, based on gut feelings and on who can be the biggest bully or who can scream the loudest, to "evidence-based management" we need data, and we need to analyze it. We need to understand what our current stance on a given issue is, and what it was, and how it is changing and why. We need to frame our policies and enforcement in terms of our actual goals, and then try to determine the best means to reach these goals, and then implement these means if possible. And that is what the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is. It is a tiny step on the road towards "evidence-based management". --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The instructions for the RFC at the top of the page say, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Since it is unquestionably impossible for this RFC to be certified (there is not a single dispute with a single user for anyone to certify), the RFC should be deleted (or courtesy blanked, if it is needed for arbitration evidence). --B (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this would fall under ignoring all rules. People have good faith concerns, and should be allowed to address them. They should not be deleted on some technical wikilawyering. If the substance of the request for comment is the concern, then the evidence should show that, and it can be closed as unsubstantiated, but not on some small procedural rule. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes rules are there for a good reason and this is one of those cases. An RFC is not for launching complaints at a group of people and then seeing what sticks. Virtually all of the complaints in there have nothing whatsoever to do with me. Even where Odd Nature makes statements in his description of the dispute that all four of us did something, he provides no evidence of me doing it - it's just a false accusation. The one and only complaint that does have anything to do with me is that I have presented evidence of abuse of the administrative tools by Felonious Monk. This is nothing but retaliation for my daring to offer arbitration evidence. There is no campaign of harassment on my part, rather, it is the correct response to an abuse of the administrative tools. Unlike some of the other presentations at the arbitration case in question, mine was brief, contains only recent material (who cares if someone cursed 3 years ago), and contains only the clearest of examples. This is not harassment and if anyone considers the actions that I documented or this RFC as a response to be an acceptable behavior, there really isn't any point of agreement from which to have a discussion. --B (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment RfCs are for dispute resolution not for airing of grievances (as B puts it), not for compiling loosely connected evidence, and not for investigations of off-wiki activity. That type of RfC discredits the process and its use in future dispute resolution attempts--Cailil talk 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC nuked. First, the diffs that purported to show attempts to resolve the dispute were unbelievably tenuous, and secondly, we don't do RFCs on a random group of users. Individual RFCS on individual people would be fine, and a big RFC on the topic of intelligent design would also be great, as ArbCom requested. Maybe you could even model that on the RFCs we have now and again on RFA. But not this way. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design and would appreciate drafing help. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I second that, this looks like it will try to work towards a resolution of the dispute--Cailil talk 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I third.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't, I wish that the now deleted RfC had been merged to the THIRD RfC "Bite at the apple". Making the community post AGAIN seems problematic. SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Resolved: User blocked indef; all deproded articles have been dealt with

User SmartBoy222 (talk · contribs) has made no contributions other than to remove prod templates from articles. According to policy I'm not supposed to restore these, but is this sort of editing considered vandalism? BradV 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

His latest contribs though are a number of page move vandalisms, sent to WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked. Looks like some of his/her contributions got deleted, and then turned to vandalism. I would restore the prods as removed in bad faith. Pastordavid (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The prod removal was obviously just to get his edit count up and were not done in good faith, I've reverted them. Any good user can recheck them. This is the UK grawp groupie, no other open accounts on that IP. Thatcher 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I speedied a bunch of the prods as they were rubbish - a couple of the prods he removed were actually justifiably removed, though, so someone may want to go through them as Thatcher suggests. Neıl 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked the user's contribs and all the prods have either been restored or else the article is already deleted (or, in a couple cases, the prods were restored but then removed by others as contested or out of process). I have marked as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

AN/I semiprotected[edit]

I have indefinitely semiprotected this page, anyone may bump it back down to just move protection at their discretion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ehh I don't think it was really necessary for an indefinite coming from 2 apparent GRAWP socks. Maybe 24 hours :). Just my input =D<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree, I just left the expiration as "indefinite" so the move protection wouldn't be accidentally removed. I don't expect semiprotection to be necessary for more than a few hours. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd've blocked the IPs AO ACB three months apiece. These aren't Grawp; these are 4channers, and I wouldn't be surprised if these guys are just "following orders" left by Grawp on /b/. Here's a hint: Grawp registers and signs in. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ehh I don't understand the whole story about Grawp, I just presume stretched anus' are him. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Grawp has imitators, but even his imitators register/sign in. 4channers do not because of their preference for "anonymity". -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 07:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Any idea how he's did the stuff up at the allegations of israeli apartheid above? I've looked at the diffs but I can't find an easy way to fix it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Template vandalism: {{u}}. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 07:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just found it. Could someone please protect that like the other user templates are? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I will; I just blocked the IP. I'll also remove that revision; this looks like 4chan vandalism again as it all appears to be the same damn edit, with the PAGENAME parameter added. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 07:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done Edit deleted, IP blocked for a quarter, page protected as high-risk. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Not everyone who visits 4chan is like this... Sigh. :( Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I know; I have two channers as friends RL. As a side note, we need admins at User talk:Persian Poet Gal; she's been under attack, and I've blocked a few 4channer IPs for three months there because the wethers are following the shepherd off a cliff overlooking the Columbia River. Likewise, I would like some eyes on my talk page; I'm also a frequent target. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Archilles last stand and related IP's[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for a month by Neil. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Master account:

IP's he uses to avoid 3RR & other conduct policies:

Related articles:

Other relevant pages:

Since joining the community less than a month ago, this account has caused nothing but trouble (see contributions, edit summaries, and his talk page. He's consistently inserted POV, and in some cases outright libelous statements, on several biographies of living persons. Seems to have no understanding of (or desire to understand) some very important concepts, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and what constitutes vandalism. They've hurled several bogus sounding "warnings", and have continued to behave disruptively after being warned multiple times (and reversions being explained on associated talk pages). Not sure where to go from here... any advice or help would be appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to do the same; he's back to his original behaviour; including POV pushing and using Scott Stevens (weatherman) as a discussion page, after I asked him to stop). Previous discussion was archived Incident archive 425 --Blowdart | talk 10:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for a month. It would have been shorter, but he was already using the IPs to edit-war and avoid 3RR (obvious, as he had been caught up in autoblocks). Neıl 12:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin in breach of 3RR and abusing admin privileges[edit]

Resolved: Edokter admitted he probably shouldn't have protected the page, but no harm was done and there is really nothing else to see here

USer:Edokter is in the process of edit warring over the images Image:TARDIS-trans.png and Image:TARDIS.jpg he has now breached the WP:3RR, and used his admin powers to protect his prefered version of the page. I would appreciate if someone would look into the appropriateness of his behaviour Fasach Nua (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Complainant seems not to understand the issue of tagging on Commons; perhaps someone should explain it more clearly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Oh look—you're both edit warring. Perhaps you should give us a bit more context to work with here, including an explanation of why you (Fasach Nua) shouldn't also be blocked for edit warring. (3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement, blah blah blah.) For some reason I get the sense that this is a small part of a larger dispute; I do hope that no one is trying to game the system here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh. It turns out that you've explicitly admitted to trying to game the system: [2]. Gloating about reaching 3RR – "...You have reached you three reversions in the 24 hours, so I will expect the image to be left as is!" – isn't cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Edokter looks to be in the right here, but probably still shouldn't have used his admin tools like this, and neither user has particularly covered themselves in glory. I have unprotected the articles given that this conversation should probably prevent any more edit-warring. Black Kite 13:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I shouldn't have protected the local pages. On the other hand, I did tag the images on Commons as Fasach has been told to do numorous times, so he should be happy. EdokterTalk 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You cruel, abusive, inhumane bastard! Not only did you make the edit that Fasach was trying to make, you went and made it in the correct place, and you did it twelve minutes before he filed the complaint about you. Apparently, the most serious defect in your conduct was that you protected the image page here in an – apparently futile – attempt to keep Fasach from continuing to shoot himself in the foot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You sir, are out of order. I am not, I repeat, not inhumane! EdokterTalk 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Since Edokter has implicitly admitted to being a cruel, abusive (but not inhumane!) bastard, I am being bold and marking this as resolved ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked indef by R. Baley

Adminstrative attention would be helpful. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more. Wiki-stalking another editor's edits is unhelpful. - Fawn Lake (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Poupon, what specific concern do you have? My assumption is that you removed those two items because they lacked sources, but - as I don't see a message to Fawn Lake explaining that - Could you confirm? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Fawn Lake is MyWikiBiz. Comcast + wikipedia internals + poker. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Poupon, you have some proof? Is this meant as a joke? You reverted his edits without an edit summary explaining why. Bstone (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I stand behind my statement. A cursory review of the users editing history by individuals familiar with the MO would be more than enough. Edits by banned users are revertable on sight. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is either Kohs, or someone trying to impersonate him, look at the first edit to his user page. Clearly warrants following his edits around and reverting at whim. R. Baley (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Update, I've indef'd the account, so unless new info come to light. . . R. Baley (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid[edit]

Strongbrow (talk · contribs) moved this article to Israeli and the apartheid analogy which is a controversial page move particularly since the original article is under AfD and a page move is being discussed as a possible option but the option does not yet have consensus. The move was made entirely without discussion and should have been a requested page move rather than made by her/his self. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Strongbrow (talk · contribs), not Strongbow made the move. --OnoremDil 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading over the discussion and it looked like there was general agreement that the old title sucked and I thought this new title was more neutral. I'm still new at this so I'm sorry if I acted incorrectly but let's see what people think of the new title. I'm not going to edit war over it but I really do think it'll be acceptable to both sides. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I just posted on the article talk page, renaming just for the sake of renaming was a poor choice to make in this case. Discussion about what to move it to, if anywhere at all, should precede a rename. Not the other way around. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, I would suggest that you take controversial page moves to WP:RM next time. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry for getting it wrong - just trying to help. I tried to move it back and can't - hopefully there will be a consensus to keep the change. Strongbrow (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Placed a CSD G6 tag on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please move it back without messing up the edit history? There's enough move history on this article (it started as Israeli apartheid years ago) that cleaning this up is hard. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, somebody did that. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, looks like the article page was moved back but the talk page wasn't. Now the article and talk are out of sync, and there's a double redirect on the talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
ok, I moved the talk page back. Please post if I screwed up somehow. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

user:AvantVenger will need a close eye and/or a longer block[edit]

AvantVenger (talk · contribs)

See user's response to being blocked for gross incivility. (And I'm talking gross incivility, e.g. after having a relatively polite Wikiquette alert filed regarding him, his first comment at the WQA ended with "you can all go to HELL!") Maybe he just needs to cool down, but either this block needs extended, or somebody needs to be waiting tomorrow at 08:34 to make sure he is actually calmed down. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of laying on more heat, I left a friendly note with some links. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If it comes down to a re-block, we can cross that bridge when we get there; for the time being, I believe de-escalation seems more appropriate. It's difficult for some users to quickly get into the "wiki way," but we should do what we can to nudge those users along. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no de-escalation will be helpful here. I now believe that AvantVenger is the real-world person Charles Collins <[email removed -LS]> - who appears to be the indefinitely-banned User:Fraberj. My evidence is here User_talk:AvantVenger#Is_AvantVenger_really_Charles_Collins.3F. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

His/her response to Gwen Gale's helpful note... It starts off promising enough, but the last several K do not exactly demonstrate a desire to contribute constructively ;) This was after several hours to cool down.
Not for nothing, but if a person is responding to multiple warnings in a row with capital letter obscenities, as AvantVenger did yesterday prior to his/her block, I think the problems are a little more serious than just "nudging" them towards the "wiki way" ;) I'm fine with close monitoring with no prejudice for or against a future block purely as a matter of principle, but realistically we have to recognize that de-escalation is incredibly unlikely to succeed. In my mind, the main reason not to block now is because the user might just go away on their own, on then we avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia is ruled with an iron fist. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As you say, there's only so far we can "nudge" someone. ;) I noticed they seemed to calm down significantly, last night, after I made a brief attempt at listening rather than chiding... but then I see we're back at full blast, today. I had previously wondered if the user might be a sockpuppet or somehow personally involved in the off-wiki dispute; Steve's post lends credence to both possibilities. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Geez, when someone gets blocked for breaking a policy then they keep doing the same thing then we extend the block. This whole idea that extending a block when someone is uncivil in reaction to a block is somehow unhelpful makes the unreasonable assumption that the point of the block is to help the person. It is not, it is to prevent them from continuing the disruptive behavior.
If someone gets nasty when blocked, then warn then, if they get nastier, then extend the block. If that makes them even nastier("YOU ARE THIEVES! YOU ARE PIGS!(repeat 20x)") then perhaps they should not be here. We coddle people who act nasty around here, thinking if we hold their hands they will suddenly reform. More often than they reform they just make life harder on people. I have seen more people give up chronic incivility in the face of ever increasing blocks than I ever had with hand holding and putting up with violations. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to give behavioral therapy. 1 != 2 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I believe their block is expired now, so maybe they just want away.
For the record, I am pretty sure that in my time on Wikipedia, I have still never asked for a block or extension of a block on a user where it didn't eventually happen (on a few rare occasions, such as this one, a "let's-wait-and-see" approach was taken, but it still resulted in a block). Let's see if I keep my perfect track record! ;) ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a good point. The let's wait and see approach most often yields "more of the same". 1 != 2 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, he's back. From today:

I mean, it could be worse, he at least seems to be making some attempt at dialog, at least most of the time (despite edit summaries like [this]). Normally I would try to address this at WP:WQA, but his response there was "GO TO HELL", so I am not optimistic. If that's what people feel should be done, though, I'll volunteer to do it. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More of the same, who could have guessed. Oh and you missed "nefarious cowards!". I think you should just go ahead Jay, clearly not blocking this person isn't solving the problem, so blocking is really all that is left. 1 != 2 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1 == 2, me != admin :) Anyway, EyeSerene (talk · contribs) appears to be on the case, so I am inclined to let him/her deal with it as he/she sees fit. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were. 1 != 2 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's really clear that the more you look into the past posts and behavior of User:Fraberj that he and User:AvantVenger are the same person. Fraberj has an indefinite ban - AvantVenger is simply a sock and should get the exact same treatment. I've filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd). Can we please just stick an indefinite ban on AvantVenger and get on with writing an encyclopedia? SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, between the incivility, the soap boxing, and sock puppetry to push a point of view, and the fact that he is evading a block all points to the need to block this fellow again. 1 != 2 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just got online for today, reviewed the happenings I missed, and took a longer few moments to review the evidence presented at Steve's SSP case; currently I've blocked AvantVenger indefinitely. Any objection? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Only that you are a putrid liberal, a nefarious coward, and a patent thief. ;p But no, I cannot imagine any positive contributions coming from this user in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon[edit]

Clarification : primary problem is at The Mickey Mouse Club, not Zachary Jaydon itself.Kww (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to seek input about what steps are appropriate. User:TragedyStriker (whose signature reads "Skyler Morgan", so don't get confused by that) has a pretty single-minded contribution history: the inclusion of every detail of Zachary Jaydon's career in Wikipedia. He has been accused more than once of including details of Jaydon's career that are counter-factual, specifically the claim that Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, a claim he has been making for nearly a year. Editors of the article have consulted two works that claim to provide a complete list, The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History, by Bill Cotter. New York: Hyperion (1997) and Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia, Dave Smith, Hyperion, ISBN 0-7868-6391-9, and have found no Zachary Jaydon. Editors have scanned the credits of the YouTube copyright violations, and found no trace of Jaydon in the credits. The only sources that list Jaydon on the MMC are IMDB and another "edited by user contribution" site.
After a lull of several weeks, TragedyStriker included the following:

  • [[Zachary Jaydon]] (Seasons 1-7)<ref>Stevens, K: "The ALL-NEW Mickey Mouse Club!", pages 33-36. The Disney Channel Magazine, April, 1989</ref><ref>Venable, B: "MMC Rocks The Planet", pages 16-17. The Disney Channel Magazine, June-July, 1992</ref><ref>Stanza, M: "MMC, The Album", pages 14-19. The Disney Channel Magazine, May, 1993</ref>

A nice set of paper references, but, unfortunately, nearly impossible to verify. I live on a Dutch-speaking island in South America, so our local library hasn't been eager to stock house magazines from American cable children's networks. I've put out requests for people to look it up via e-mails to editors on the article, postings on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the talk-page for the article. So far, no one has been able to physically obtain a copy of this information to validate it. Accordingly, User:Saratoga Sam,User:C.Fred, and myself have been reverting this information, until someone can physically validate this source or TragedyStriker can pony up some credible scans. TragedyStriker has been blocked once for 3RR for this, and socks seem to be involved as well (sadly enough, on both sides of the debate: this, this and this seem suspicious, but here we have an editor with one edit created two minutes before that one edit, and he is removing Zachary).
So, my real question ... what's appropriate behaviour in a situation like this? If Tragedy never comes up with the scans, and no one ever finds a copy of this magazine, can we just keep blocking the addition of the information? Or do others think that our supply of good faith should come in larger bottles?
Kww (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a blog post out there that I won't link to with a lot of allegations about Mr. Jaydon which indicates that he also goes by the name of Skyler Morgan (you can find the blog posting if you Google Mr. Jaydon's name). I am not making any claims one way or the other, but the blog posting is worth reading if anyone wants to delve into this. Corvus cornixtalk 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It's also worthing noting that there was already a consensus deletion of this article: [[3]]. Corvus cornixtalk 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That was overridden in the second deletion review. Most people don't deny the existence of Zachary Jaydon, and his verifiable accomplishments can be seen as sufficient to warrant an article.Kww (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a problem - I don't find a single mention of a "Zachary Jaydon" in any of the references provided ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is created by submission (and this ref uses the IMDB list as its source, and still only lists Z Jaydon as an "uncredited extra"). The only references on the entire list of article references that actually mention Zachary Jaydon are his own MySpace site, and IMDB (which is unreferenced). And not even these mention his puprorted "writing of songs that have sold over 30 million copies worldwide". I have a very strong feeling we have being BS'd by a hoaxer/self-publicist/fraud, and a bunch of people at AFD have fallen for it. Nominated for AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) Neıl 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the fence as to whether we are discussing existence fraud or resume inflation, but the listed birth name in the article is "Jaydon D. Paull", and the ASCAP source does validate work being done under that name.
Kww (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, this - of the three songs on that list that were "recorded" by notable artists, we'll pick one as an example. "Be There", as an example, is listed as being released by NSync. I can't find any song they ever released entitled "Be There". The reference given in the article for this has no mention of such a song. They did have a B-side on called "Are You Gonna Be There" on No Strings Attached ('N Sync album), but this Google search is telling: [11]. Neıl 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Following a lot of hunting around by various people, it's looking like a blatant hoax, and the AFD is fast snowballing towards a delete. Neıl 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven Greer's page[edit]


The admins have just closed an AFD( as keep on his( Wikipedia page. Ignoring this decision (talk)- who is a known vandal - deleted and redirected the page. Would you please undo this edit and restore the original version after the afd? Thanks in advance. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. There was no consensus for a redirect on either the talk page of the article or the AfD discussion. BradV 18:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved further discussion to editor's talk page --Jaysweet (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oversight needed[edit]


This (link redacted) edit seems to contain a person's real name, location and phone number. Somehow this has slipped by for almost 2 years. Request this edit be oversighted. Angrymansr (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I have sent the link in question to the e-mail address specified at Requests for Oversight, and I redacted the link above.
In the future, for links that need oversight, it is better to send them directly to WP:RFO rather than post here, because posting the diff here has the unfortunate effect of increasing the visibility of the edit in question :)
Why do I know this? Because I made the same damn mistake a couple weeks ago :D Thanks again for the good catch! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the talk page as it was the single edit on the page (other than your blanking) and not constructive to encyclopedia building. Not sure if oversight is necessary in this case, but we've already emailed for it, so... (Was it?) xenocidic (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they got back to me in under 3 minutes -- and I know my company's e-mail is laggy, so it was probably even less than that. That's service!
Marking as resolved. Thanks againg Angrymansr! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action and the advice on where to send oversight requests. Angrymansr (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


As another user has previously removed my personal attack warning on his talkpage, can someone please chat with User:Radiolbx regarding comments such as these [12] & [13]. Thanks JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Radiolbx is within their right to remove the warnings off their talk page Interesting to see that another editor removed the warnings butI don't know if they can remove warnings on another editor's talkpage but still Radiolbx has no right to attack you for what ever reason. Bidgee (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of his right to remove the warnings on their talk page... but they weren't the one to do so. I would appreciate some admin intervention as I worry that any future warnings I may post will just be once again removed by the other user (User:Milonica).
The issue here was that they were being removed by a different editor. I've left notes for both of them, and suggested that if they feel it's important to pursue this issue, they take it to dispute resolution. I'll take a longer look when I have the opportunity. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you comment by Milonica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) could be assuming bad faith to JPG-GR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to say that they have them on a hitlist and also threatening to report if they (JPG-GR) post another personal attack warning. Bidgee (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not assuming bad faith with JPG-GR. I didn't know that the comment in question existed above. When I said I'm with you, I was referring to another issue, which has nothing to do with this one. I apologize for removing the warning, I sincerely thought it was for another issue, which is between JPG-GR and I, not radio. Milonica (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders[edit]

Just FYI, I wanted to mention that based on this discussion some users have been deleting placeholder images eventhough there was no consensus. I have already noticed 2 and I am sure there are plenty more.--Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it the school holidays?[edit]

There has been some disruptive, childish, and possibly libellous editing by a group of users who would appear to be either friends at the same school or sockpuppets to articles such as Horsforth School, St Margarets Primary School, Limbo (dance). The users are primarily: Canpop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Hardguy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), McSaucePaste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Coolguy911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and Farsleyceltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The users leedsunited325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and farsleyceltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) also appear to be associated but have vandalised less. Could someone keep an eye on these and revert/block as appropriate? Thanks, DWaterson (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, summertime. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[edit]

This user has persistently engaged in fair use violations together with the good image uploads. His response has been to blank his talk page. Importantly, I gave this user a last warning at his sockpuppet username (User talk:12345blake, though the diff is obnoxiously deleted, and which username was blocked indefinitely for vandalism). I ask and beg to community to enforce the standards of policy, which he has flouted ever since creating an account. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing on my userpage[edit]


I wanted to listen fully to a user who was critical of Baggini. This editor seems to now have more against SlimVirgin that the subject of the article. I assumed good faith and was kind to this editor, but he is now postings about speculations about SV's real life identity. I was aware of these speculations before, but I don't want them on my talk page.

I'm asking admin actions, and perhaps these things to be over-sighted from my userpage, if possible. I feel little inclined to continue discuss the topic with this editor now. I would appreciate if someone not involved with SlimVirgin took care of this as there are accusations of cabalism, etc.

Thank you, Merzul (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I EC'd with SlimVirgin in deleting the talk page to remove the revision. The user in question, Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), was indefblocked by SlimVirgin. While I concur wholeheartedly with the block, it may have been better for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin to handle it. That said, I agree with and second her actions in this matter. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume someone has requested oversight; if no, I'll handle it in a bit. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
While not a fan of involved blockers or indef's, the user in question seemed to have earned this the old fashioned way (repeated poor behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no need for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin - wholly appropriate to indef block Wikigiraffes for that. Neıl 09:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This was an obviously appropriate block, no waiting necessary. GlassCobra 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Georgian article vandal[edit]


A vandal with the IP is daily vandalizing articles having to do with Georgia. He or she is changes mostly speaker counts or inhabitant numbers, sometimes only slightly, without giving a source. I've had quite an edit&revert war with him, as I thought after some time he'd stop anyway. He didn't. That person is getting very annoying, so I hope someone can block him now. Thanks! — N-true (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He has not edited past your final warning (at 23:17 UTC on 10 June). Let us know if he does so. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed he did now, as expected. He vandalized again the Georgian language article and also messed up another article about a Brasilian football player or something like that. I reverted both. Enough to block him now? — N-true (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, he is now blocked for one week, since he is deliberately introducing subtle errors to articles, and he won't respond on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please block User talk: for page blanking[edit]

Resolved: user blocked Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins, I kindly request the long-term block of IP This IP is registered to NCO Group, a US collection agency. The IP has been blanking large parts of the article. 3 years of warnings have done nothing to curtail this vandalism/page blanking. Thus, I turn to the administrators for further assistance. Bstone (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy action, Toddst1!!!! Bstone (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Network" vandalism[edit]

Has anyone else come across this rubbish? Vandalism from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS</