Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive47

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

Noticeboard archives

Wiktionary user[edit]

Note: wikt:User:Primetime came here as Primetime after being blocked indefinitely from Wiktionary for persistent and flagrant copyright violations and sockpuppetry. He continued his antics here and was eventually banned by Jimbo Wales, but he still lurks through the use of sockpuppets and open proxies. For more details see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime.

The Wiktionary:User:Primetime (apparently corresponding to User:Primetime here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for massive, systemic copyright violations. His primary sources were Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged, by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)

The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)

For over a month now, he has used many sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on meta:. Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page. He has become our single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated block of some 6,000+ IP addresses used by the Tor anonymity network.

His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.

His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Wikipedia entry for J, where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Wikipedia just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.

I hereby request assistance from all Wikipedia sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Wikipedia, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.

--Connel MacKenzie 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page there.)

Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Wikipedia?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some content disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to Wiktionary, all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on Wiktionary which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though Wiktionary is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Wikipedia at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about 1172 edits) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Wikipedia, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--Primetime 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Primetime! I could not have asked for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --Connel MacKenzie 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "List of ethnic slurs" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of WP:NOT [not a slang dictionary]. Primetime argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. Primetime had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -Will Beback 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie [1]. Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary by the community, for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of proven copyright violations. Vildricianus 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).
First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:

Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Wikipedia users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.

Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See Wiktionary:WT:RFD#nigger_baby.) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. Delete all. These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at nigger." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus Sisyrinchium), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: wiktionary:WT:RFV#shit_stabber. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: Wiktionary:WT:RFV#give me fin on the soul side. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See this entry that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for 3 quotes and 5 citations. Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.

As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: wrap link, wrap link2 even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.

In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Wikipedia, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have 3759 edits on Wikipedia under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use Show preview and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Wikipedia policies, such as the Three Revert Rule and No Personal Attacks are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Wikipedia, this makes the site seem like it is anarchic, and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or really bad enemies.--Primetime 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, that last bit and this sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also recognizable. Same old tricks, Primetime. Vildricianus 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: [2]--I listed my user name in the comment column.--Primetime 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?
A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take John Abbey, which you created with:
(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local joiner, he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell... [3]
We have the idiosyncratic, non-Wikipedia style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as this because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--Primetime 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Wikipedia Manual of Style? --Calton | Talk 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Wikipedia guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,[4] as well as links.[5]--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -Will Beback 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --Calton | Talk 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This article, Reinhard Sorge [6], also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of WP:NOT as it includes extensive literary criticism. -Will Beback 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's strange: that list of articles on on User:Primetime's page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them [7]. Why would that be? --Calton | Talk 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--Primetime 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the Dictionary of Literary Biography -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up Reinhard Sorge...Hmm, do these look familiar?

Reinhard Johannes Sorge (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. (from Primetime's version
Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. From the BookRags site

Busted. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I admit that it's from the DLB. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Another quick check: N. Scott Momaday (here versus here)...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--Primetime 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of Britannica, Grove's, DLB, Current Biography, etc. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
A message on my talk page: ...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Wikipedia isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this! This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we are aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Update[edit]

Primetime (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself (see here). Note also that Primetime has resorted to sockpuppets to add back what's been deleted (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Primetime) and has gone admin-shopping (see here) seeking to reverse deletions of his additions. --Calton | Talk 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the category here on Wikipedia is redlinked. Today's latest English Wiktionary "Primetime" sockpuppet: wikt:User:Yurejkf (kindly self-identified in this comment.) I hope Wikipedia is better at staying on top of these than we are at Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a name change - I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads up. -Will Beback 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There also is Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Primetime, resulting from today's slander from Primetime? --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Primetime. -- ADNghiem501 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Increasing (desperate) personal attacks. Does WP have a more appropriate place for ongoing, long-term vandalism of this sort? --Connel MacKenzie 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Long term abuse Ashibaka tock 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. In the meantime: Jhyt50 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). --Connel MacKenzie 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. --Connel MacKenzie 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Primetime used to be called Rickyboy (talk · contribs), and was blocked indefinitely in July 2005.[8][9] -Will Beback 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

From his talk page Besides, even if they were violations of copyright law, they would still be justified because people shouldn't have to pay to learn things [10] -- huh, exactly the nonsensical reasoning Primetime employs. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Richardr443, of Letter writing fame. In retrospect, that article was clearly plagiarized, and perhaps a copyright violation. -Will Beback 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Now confirmed- copied verbatim from World Book. -Will Beback 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Ooh, lovely, I remember him very well. I blocked the Ricky accounts indefinitely, in case he had any designs on reusing them. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Colorado State Univeristy would like to know that they seem to be harboring a prolific plagarist? --Connel MacKenzie 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And in case it merits mentioning, Primetime has added my email address to a dozen or more spam sites, and has ordered junk mail to the home address of another editor. This fellow seems to believe in unrestricted combat. -Will Beback 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm suddenly glad I didn't respond to him through e-mail. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a "Be On the Lookout" warning on Talk:Oxford English Dictionary, where his latest sockpuppet -- Ftym67 (talk · contribs) -- was trying to convince the editors there that the OED is public-domain and A-Okay to copy from. Not that anyone there seemed to be buying it, but I thought a warning was in order. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if Wikipedia admins would review/copyedit wikt:Wiktionary:Blocking policy#2006/06/08 (the letter I will soon send to abuse@CSU) to verify I've not overstepped any inter-project boundaries. --Connel MacKenzie 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I did send this, about two hours ago. They seem to have begun their own investigation now. On another note: Give seem to have retained the copyvio material from the OED still, perhaps after a page move? --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have sufficient Spanish-language skills to pursue this matter on Es.Wikipedia? He's known there as "Principal Tiempo". I found one instance of plagiarism/copying (from Grolier's Spanish edition). However a user named "Mahadeva" is reverting - he may be a sock or just a clueless editor. Any help would be apprecieted. Gracias, -Will Beback 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a Sock, Principal Tiempo means Primetime in english. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 07:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The spanish wikipedia is dealing with it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So many people that I have bad feelings about turn out to be trolls, strange...maybe all the hours spend here are making me hyper-perceptive :).Voice-of-All 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked in the spanish wikipedia indef by User:Taichi who discovered two copyvios. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 07:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently using Scaurus (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). --Rory096 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rory096 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sock blocked -- Tawker 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This is worth noting:
  • It doesn't matter, though, because you cannot win. I have learned how to automate much of my copying and formatting of text. Soon, I will make Wikipedia larger than your wildest imaginations.--Primetime 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[11]
It sounds like he has plans for more mischief. -Will Beback 09:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can get Daniel Brandt to reveal the guy causing this trouble, then (possily even legal) action can be taken appropriately.

Unsigned comment 03:13, June 14, 2006

J is unprotected now, but nothing in the past 2 days... Maybe the range blocks are working. --Rory096 14:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps this Tyrn5 (talkcontribscount) is him back ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked indef. Hmm, wasn't there another section here before? --Rory096 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There still is. (The section before this one.) Just that it's now refactored into one paragraph. Kimchi.sg 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Why is this material being removed?[edit]

I was wondering why half of the article "j" is being blanked? There are pictures on the talk page showing that the material is from a publication in the public domain and it was cited. Further, the material was added before any block was imposed on the author. The people removing the content have refused to explain why they are doing so. They just say, "reverting probable Primetime sockpuppet," or "reverting edits . . ." as if that makes it OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plant2j (talkcontribs) 01:28, 21 June 21 2006

The above was posted by a Primetime sockpuppet... Sasquatch t|c 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Add Djf2006 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to the list. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
And Tyrn5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) --Rory096 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, someone already said that. I need sleep. --Rory096 05:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently he's now using open-proxies. I discovered America (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). -Will Beback 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


User:CoolKatt number 99999[edit]

This user has long been a problem user, causing trouble all across Wikipedia, getting in fights with people, and going against the consensus on WP:TVS on many issues. Recently, he opened a frivolous RfC against a user, and has also made legal threats against me in the past. I think you admins need to take a serious look at this member and his actions. Also, he has ridiculous subpages that waste Wikipedia's space and some are even misleading and completely fictional. Note: He has also had an RfC filed against himself. Obvious problem user. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am actually unsure about a consensus for a community ban. Making legal threats will not be tolerated on Wikipedia, but, even although they make Wikipedia a horrible place to be with them, the user has recently been making positive contributions. Iolakana|(talk) 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've worked with User:CoolKatt number 99999, and he has made some valuable contributions. No need to block a user over some simple edit conflicts.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Simple? A lot of his edits are farce, and his subpages are wayyy more than ridiculous, how can anyone defend those awful, rotten subpages? --CFIF (talk to me) 00:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The consensus of the community on CoolKatt's subpages was default keep. I don't agree with some of his edits, but others have been just fine, and I feel if this user had been spoken to in a polite manner from the very beginning, he would never have reacted poorly. Unfortunately, that did not happen. --Firsfron of Ronchester 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That's because he plays the victim and gets sympathy points from people. Tell me Firsfron, what gave him, the assumed right to make legal threats against me? I think it's pretty hard to speak in a polite manner to someone like CoolKatt. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No one has a right to make legal threats on Wikipedia.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So then why hasn't this person been banned? besides the fact that no admin has bothered to stop by and address this yet. There is never a good reason to make legal threats and no amount of positive contribution off-sets that, especially when coupled with the fact that they continue to make personal attacks against users who disagree with them. --Crossmr 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with CFIF, legal threats are an automatic ban last time I checked, they were not to be tolerated. This person is still here why? Its a very obvious legal threat. --Crossmr 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I consider this a personal attack, especially considering proper procedure wasn't followed and this was done simply as retaliation for agreeing with an AFD. Special:Contributions/CoolKatt_number_99999 contributions here, you can see she claims I'm a sock puppet of apostrophe, but doesn't doesn't bother to label him a puppet master, and her evidence is non-existent. [12] she also does the same to Opabinia [13]. She's obviously trying to get an article reinstated that was deleted by concensus (and on which a concensus still seems to exist to keep it deleted) Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_23 she presents no evidence and just goes out and defaces user pages in what I consider a personal attack. --Crossmr 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What really got me was this edit. So Apostrophe has been saving up sockpuppets that he finally chose to deploy just to delete a Pokemon article? Opabinia regalis 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that you also feel this is a personal attack? Just so we can spell it out for all involved.--Crossmr 02:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh, more amusing than anything, but since accusations in bad faith are considered personal attacks, then this sounds like it qualifies. Opabinia regalis 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time CK#9999 has made spurious accusations of sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon for a past example. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

wow. I'd never actually been back to that discussion after leaving my comment until now. That is absolutely ridiculous. I insist an admin tell us why this user hasn't been banned before now. --Crossmr 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This guy is hilarious. "Everyone who disagrees with me is part of an evil collective with nothing better to do than to delete Pokemon cruft!" Opabinia regalis 04:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder too why this user hasn't been banned already, or even blocked before yesterday. disruption/harrassment, personal attacks, legal threats. We've permbanned for less than that. Circeus 04:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have any right posting here, as I'm not an admin, but I thought I'd point out that CK9^5 does have an unfortunate history of ignoring consensus -- the long list of musical artists on his page was fallout from a somewhat nasty debate on classic rock over who should be considered to be on a list of classic rock artists, and whether such a list was even necessary in the first place (the list was ultimately removed as unnecessary, and would probably be removed again as hopelessly POV if it was ever added back in); his general attitude through the entire incident was that those who disagreed with his classifications (which stretched the definition of "classic rock" into utter meaninglessness, in my opinion) should just leave the article alone. CK9^5's labyrinth of counterfactual subpages (which IMHO is more appropriate for GeoCities than Wikipedia, but I didn't make the rules) is evidence of someone unwilling to concede to consensus under any circumstances. I don't think CK9^5 is a malicious user, but he is definitely unwilling to accept differences of opinion. Just a few highly biased thoughts from Haikupoet 05:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This has actually been here for 5 days (the firs tcomplaint) and the admin haven't given any input into this situation. Is there another place to put this where it will get actual attention?--Crossmr 20:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to speak, as someone CK#9999 has repeatedly accused of all sorts of wrongdoing, as well as the subject of the frivilous RFC above.

CK makes good edits, and I feel that, with the proper mentoring from an experienced user, can get past the paranoia and obnoxiousness. I also feel that punitive measures would be counterproductive (and I would certainly be the wrong one to be implementing them).

Failing that, I oppose, for the reasons above, any punitive measure that isn't in specific response to a specific issue (a particular revert war, a particular spurious accusation, etc.) Let's not turn AN into a Quickpoll-style witch burning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't kindergarten. We expect to a certain degree that people behave maturely and act like adults. While I'm all for letting someone make a mistake or two and improve upon it, the pattern of behaviour I see here isn't one of someone who's interested in bettering themselves and participating in a meaningful way in a community. Someone who acts inappropriately or makes mistakes and is genuinely interested in growing with the community and contributingly positively will seek that out when it becomes apparent that they're not going about things the right way. They've shown a clear disregard for the community and those in it. They seem more interested in slandering people and making threats to push their opinion than realize there is probably a better way to go about it. Does that mean we cut people off on the first mistake they make? no. Do we coddle someone endlessly on the hopes they turn around? No. I've been in communities where they've tried to do that with trouble makers and it turns into a gong show. I say give them a week or two to cool their heels, make it very clear their continued behaviour won't be tolerated and put them on probation when they return. If they can behave properly, so be it, but ensure its very clear whats expected of them if they're to continue as such here, but letting them get away with the behaviour they've exhibited unpunished is ridiculous. --Crossmr 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CoolKatt number 99999/What CoolKatt number 99999 is not. He talks about himself in the third person here. He is getting crazy. --CFIF (talk to me) 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I need you to stop talking trash about me. I know many of you people don't like me, now stop this insolence. I will also nominate this section of the article for deletion, but not add a template. Anyone who feels this section be removed, comment here. CoolKatt number 99999 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a he by the way. CoolKatt number 99999 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Insolence? You're the one making personal attacks and legal threats. As it stands now, I won't support anything less than a permanent ban unless I start seeing full apologies and reparations for your behaviour. --Crossmr 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So again, I'm going to ask: Where is the admin input on this issue? The trainwreck that is CK continues as he denies any wrong-doing and spins conspirecy theories about users who've never associated getting together to delete an article, all the while permitted to make endless personal attacks and legal threats unchecked. If necessary I'll continue to ask that question everyday until the time that someone shows up here and does their job. --Crossmr 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hear, Hear! The admins seem to not be doing anything about BenH either. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that subpage CFIF posted. So CoolKatt number 99999 isn't the one who contributes "poorly wrote sentences"? This guy is the master of unintentional irony. Opabinia regalis 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


I feel I must add something recently stated by this user that is most troubling. Visit User talk:Amnewsboy in the AETN section. Mr. Kat has basically stated that if something he makes up makes sense to him, it is "not speculation."

First of all, this throws into question every single "Callsign meaning" on every local TV station page (and really, they should be deleted, because the only ones that are clearly true are... well, obvious, like WTWO referring to channel 2)... but mainly, this is a dangerous position for a WikiEditor to take - just because something makes sense to him, it should be taken as fact? No. No. No. Lambertman 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


BenH...again[edit]

BenH is back to screwing up "contributing" to TV station articles. The 24-hour block didn't do anything, so I think we need a harsher block so this tool "misguided contributor" doesn't "contribute" to any more TV station articles. He's testing the patience of everyone at WP:TVS. Block him, for the love of God. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with adding dates in place of years to articles, as a matter of interest? Just zis Guy you know? 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Because they are unsourced and likely complete farce. We are also tired of some of the other things he does. Tell me which revision is better. He consistently degrades articles. It's bad. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that his changes need to be sourced, but I don't agree that anything he's done rises to the level of a block. Also, it looks like the work that he's doing to the categories is correct. And, if the information he's providing can be shown as correct, I actually prefer his diff on the article link you provided. Sue Anne 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well the station doesn't brand as "upn9" and didn't at the time of the revert. I'm sure if you asked every member of WP:TVS, they'd tell you the same thing, his edits take good articles and lower the quality, also, the "Television stations in *state*" wasn't supposed to be added to articles at the time, but it appears that new "*Network* affiliates by state" templates have the stations included in the category. He is a major pain, but obviously the admins can't see it. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that he stubs articles that are way past stubs. Explain how that's constructive. This policy makes all this a sufficient reason to block him. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
BenH should be blocked for good. I myself have fixed some of his "edits" so that they read better or were more accurate. If BenH can prove he can constructively contribute, then this won't be a problem anymore, but right now it is. So just block BenH for good, and everything will be better. CoolKatt number 99999 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I am so tired of BenH! PLEASE BAN HIM! Thank You! --CFIF (talk to me) 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why are the admins ignoring the community's requests to block him. I have yet to see a positive contribution from this user. We keep telling him to go away but he will not. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, for the love of God, ban him! --CFIF (talk to me) 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Because "the community" in this case seems to amount to you. Tedious though he may be, I don't see a pressing reason to block at this point - please go through the steps in WP:DR. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Now how am I able to talk to this dolt if he NEVER responds to messages. I have had it with the admins ignoring our concerns, and I started an RfC. And look, there is more than one signature, so it does appear that this is a community affair like I said, and not something that seems to amount to me. --CFIF (talk to me) 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the community wants this guy permablocked. Not ONE bit of support for this guy. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Holywarrior (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

This user has recently nominated the page Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit for deletion, claiming that it has "spawned users such as VandalPatrol and PandalPetrol" and "acts as an interacting platform for organised vandalism". By "organised vandalism", he means warning or blocking him for his own acts of vandalism or policy violations. According to Frymaster, he has created several POV-pushing pages related to the caste system and removed db-attack templates from them and labeling them as vandalism. He has also labeled several users who have warned or blocked him as vandals or sockpuppets of other users and created a userpage on a certain IP stating that it is a sockpuppet of VandalPatrol. Due to this user's history of trolling, this nomination is obviouly in bad faith and in my opinion it should be speedily closed and this user should recieve a block.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Frymaster is a liar where he found "he has created several POV-pushing pages'" I challenge him to name a few.Holywarrior 05:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
removed db-attack templates from them and labeling them as vandalism---Mr Frymaster what else do you call when an anonymous not involved in any kind of talk or contribution deletes the whole page and tags attack, and why should it not be reverted.Holywarrior 05:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
For further explanation of allegations plz see [14].But will these ppl face any trial for having put up bad faith discussion on me. Holywarrior 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
By "organised vandalism", he means warning or blocking him for his own acts of vandalism or policy violations.----No by organised vandalism I mean instigating vandalism and then backing him,Actions of user:Mike Rosoft is suspect in this case.He even had talk with vandal before and after the event.Can you tell when was I warned or blocked by any credible person.Pasting block message on someones page for no cause or warning are itself vandalism do you want to differ.Holywarrior 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the user should receive an indefinite block. "Holywarrior" is not really an appropriate name in most contexts, let alone trying to build a neutral encyclopedia. So I say we make him pick a new username. --Cyde↔Weys 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

either block him for trolling, or politely ask him to pick a new username so he can keep his edits if he likes. Blocking him for his username in response to trolling seems a bit arbitrary. dab () 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not in response to trolling, this is simply the first time I've seen the name. Bad usernames are blocked regardless of whether or not they are trolling; are you implying that if they are trolling then we shouldn't username block them?! --Cyde↔Weys 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a block for the username would not be misplaced, nor would action for trollery/disruption. Ian¹³/t 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no respect for lazy,arrogant admins.I need explanation from both these admins where did I vandalize and where did I troll.I do blv CVU need to change itself,it was just unfortunate they discuss "holywarrior" only during discussion and sweeped all the dirt under the carpet.Never ever think of bullying someone,at least I am not the guy to be bullied by these ........ admins.Holywarrior 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
See here how these ppl shamelessly protected themselves.CVU deletion may be revived again.[15].plz check history because these ppl keep on erasing my comments to suit their vandal interest.Holywarrior 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC).I think I have answered all the questions raised against me.But what about Devonshire and company.They need to proove themselves and their organisation in question.Your Bad manners are furthered by your Bad manners alone.Holywarrior 05:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If ever blocked for username,I want answer for these questions[16].Holywarrior 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

mboverload@ teaches Holy Warrior how to use spellcheck.

if ppl involved in discussion don't have answers but have conscience,I propose to them to put warning tag on their page by themselves. sometimes satan misleads even wisest of individuals.Holywarrior 08:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
FOR RECORD:All of them failed to show they have either of the two.Holywarrior 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes PPl who have habit of hunting lame ducks catches a wounded tiger by mistake .Wmnnzzr 12:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved user, I gave Holywarrior (talk · contribs) a WP:NPA warning over his calling another user "third rate liar". Since then, he has been harrassing me calling me an admin-bully, and to "gang up against" him, and finally he issued a threat against me saying "Do you know what you deserve .". I believe such disruptive behavior (and a look at his contribution, which mostly contains similar threats/comments/bad-faith edits)[citation needed]deserve a block for disruption. Thanks. --Ragib 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Plz look here for true story [17] ,Rajib has deleberately presented in the manner which may be misleading .Holywarrior 15:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, please take a look at his User:Holywarrior user page being used as an attack page. I'd request such personal attacks to be removed. Thanks. --Ragib 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Rajib Plz don't pretend to be non-involved in this case.Infact you were one who were waiting for the opportunity to post a block on me.Your warnings were one sided being an admin why you failed to take similar action against others engaged in more heinous act even when you were shown who were these.You were retending to be on wikibreak.My userpage is not attack page ,It contains true story of how I was attacked by reckless admins one of whom are you.Holywarrior 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I suggest you remove your attack page, this is against wikipedia's policy. As I referred above, you deserved a WP:NPA for calling another editor "a 3rd grade liar". Please refrain from making funny remarks about me "pretending to be non-involved". Nobody's "waiting for an opportunity". Find some other target for harrassment. --Ragib 14:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you feeling harrassed,I have made no such remarks on you which may harass you.Infact it is me who has been unduly harrased by many ppl and reason was not given and they have disrupted my work plz try to be honest with your comments.And it is you who sounds funny---You are trying to present facts in slanted manner.By voting against me you have just shown your bad temperament ,I think you should along with others review your ability as admin if you ppl have any conscience.By the way are you a voting admin only ,I have found you voting on many ocassions.Anyway Majority rules and you are fortunate to be along that side but Knowledge gets the other side.I am afraid ppl like you will kill the wiki mission.Holywarrior 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If my user page looks like an attack page I am sorry but I have not written most part of it.They are all true stories written by many ppl.One of them is you too.If it sounds Horrific let us face it because they are merely records of wikipedia---which conforms to wiki policy.Do you disagree????Holywarrior 15:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


So much effort in response to a justifiable WP:NPA warning (further evidence of my "ganging up against you" as part of a vast world conspiracy??) !! I request you to remove your attack page, which is against wikipedia's policy. Thank you. --Ragib 15:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you could not justify it.If warning were to be issued in this manner then bots will do a better work.My contention is it was one sided. Holywarrior 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry they are all just hyperlinked pages.Can you remove those original pages.If wikipedia allows one person to be abused and takes no action against any other what is the use of any of its policy and admins likes of you.Holywarrior 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
And the manner in which you put up "Request" abuses the word itself.I hope some gas must have blown out of baloon.Holywarrior 15:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Third rate-liar" is a personal attack and any editor (admin or not) would be in the right to place an NPA warning on the talk page of the issuant. User:Holywarrior's user page is also inappropriate in my opinion by listing diffs with spurious added commentary by him (e.g. "CVU deletion trial" as opposed to an MfD that failed) and ("Admin who tried to bully me"). The entire commentary above is suggestive of trolling. I've blocked him for 48 hours for trolling, and submit the block for review on WP:AN#Holywarrior block. -- Samir धर्म 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Charges made by Samir looks dubious,he himself is not sure of why he is blocking him.Infact I had been co-editer of Holywarrior and also one of his admirers (POV may be expected),he is not known for what he has been accused of.Why people who had been counter questioned does not come up with answers,I think that would better clarify the situation.Samir summarises the charges including those which has been well refuted by holywarrior with solid proofs.Is he not shooting in the dark.Regarding Rajib's behavior I will say yes he issued warning like a bot (subject to rv by wikipedia policy).Wmnnzzr 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, it's pretty clear why the block was made. Personal attacks, attack user page and trolling. Diffs above. WP:RFCU coming next -- Samir धर्म 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow you are really great man .Would yu like to know more.It is me who had created his id we know each other for a long time.He is my chat frnd(earlier roommate too) and very poor in computer applications.Holywarrior does horrific typing mistakes and wanna know why he visited encyclopedia.I had asked him to comment on Buddha's birth mystery.See Talk:Kshatriya.Any clue of his existence on wikipedia before that??? I had made his id because I was afraid he will never make it and all his work would go unnoticed.Regarding your other apprehensions,Yah I contribute very casually most of the time read only what others have done.Wmnnzzr 09:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
After going through entire commentary above HolyWarriors nomination as Vandal by User:Conrad Devonshire is in retaliation of CVU afd,nothing more than that.Much of his accusations are based on what Vandal/Pandal patrol says.I also found he has misled the board by misrepresenting Frymasters comments(I have checked the original version).The Accusation session must stop as soon as possible.Wmnnzzr 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


User:RJII[edit]

This "user" admits to being a shared account used by multiple people. While I cannot find the exact policy, I am certain this is prohibited, and have blocked the "project" accordingly. Unblock if I was incorrect. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I have absolutely no love for RJII, I do think you should have probably asked here before blocking if you can't find any policy. I don't see what's so wrong with sharing an account, as long as all people sharing take responsibility for the actions of the others using it. That's how I see it anyway. The Ungovernable Force 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
m:Role account is the page you might've been looking for, Jeffrey. ~ PseudoSudo 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There's definitely a page on enwiki about that, but I can't remember. The term used is "public account," though. --Rory096 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Here we go, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Public" accounts. The block was valid. --Rory096 21:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, WP:SOCK#.27Role.27_accounts. --ajn (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If different users posted from a same IP, doing same kind of edits, wouldn't you block them as sockpuppets? -- Vision Thing -- 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the self-admitted aim solely to push their POV into Wikipedia is more than enough reason to block. --Rory096 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So then why weren't they banned a long time ago? It's been pretty obvious they were pov pushing for quite a while, yet they were allowed to complete their little project anyway. What's the point of blocking now, just 6 days before they voluntarily leave? The Ungovernable Force 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Did they ever come out and say that they were doing nothing but inserting their POV into Wikipedia? If not, we'd have to assume that he's (they're) acting in good faith. --Rory096 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
They often admitted to considering Wikipedia a battleground. Besides, AGF only goes so far, and this has been pretty obvious. Anyways, RJII doesn't care about assuming good faith (they have said it themself), so why should we assume good faith with them? The Ungovernable Force 21:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, so maybe he should have been blocked earlier. That doesn't mean this block is invalid. --Rory096 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
True, I just wish it would have happened much earlier. The Ungovernable Force 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
RJII's edits go way beyond the realm of good faith. I myself have abandoned articles because fighting RJII's relentless POV-pushing was just too time-consuming. In fact, RJII is a major reason why I have more or less stopped editing Wikipedia at all. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Endorse. - FrancisTyers · 21:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Blanked soapboxing on user page. Concur with block, this is a self-admitted POV push and using WP as their playground. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a bigger problem here: The editors behind RJII were being paid to engage in POV-pushing on wikipedia 24/7, and they managed to slip by the checks and balances currently in place. They have fooled the wikipedia community for a year and a half. By any measure, this is a collossal blunder on our part. I believe a review of existing rules and procedures must be launched to ensure this does not happen again. -- Nikodemos 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know this, and, even if it were true, how is it significant;y different than any unpaid POV-pushing? Jkelly 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree; the motivations behind POV-pushing are irrelevant. I have no problem with people being paid to edit. I wouldn't mind a little kickback. --Golbez 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem, actually: People being paid to POV-push have much more time on their hands than the rest of us. RJII could routinely impose his POV against large teams of other editors. He created entire POV forks that are still largely POV to this day. Simply put, 1 paid POV-pusher = 10 unpaid ones. -- Nikodemos 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
1 paid = just as easy to block as 10 unpaid. --Golbez 05:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Not as bad as you think, the account of the users in question would probably not have lasted much longer. Furthermore, anything too egregious is likely to just get diluted in the normal process of editing. Besides, how many articles of the million or so we have can they really have hoped to have "fixed up". Honestly, a more interesting statistic would be how long before their contribution is effectively reduced to nil. - FrancisTyers · 22:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting question, especially since they claimed that measures were in place to ensure their contributions would remain, with details to be provided. Without those details, it's hard to say. Perhaps it's something as simple as having their contributions in the edit history where like-minded editors can find it. Still, their little screed seemed like just so much masturbatory self-congratulations without those details of how they did what they claimed to have done. Powers 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more a matter of including the same information in numerous articles. -- Nikodemos 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You all are assuming this is true, as well. rjii.com remains but a placeholder. --Golbez 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
A casual look through RJII's contributions (dated May 2006 and earlier) will show you that no one could possibly have time to edit that much and go to work - or, for that matter, do anything else during the day other than eat and sleep. No one person could keep up that pace for a year and a half. -- Nikodemos 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you're looking at, but I just scrolled their last 5000 edits and it is decidedly not 24/7 like they would like to claim and like you seem to see, and follows a pattern of activity and inactivity (analguous to any other busy user). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have had a number of dealings with RJII, and there was nothing unusual about the extent of his editing, and he was considerably less active than hundreds of other contributors over the same period. I would be particularly shocked to learn he had a research assistant, as his sources never seemed to go beyond what one could easy to find with a Google search. In this case, I feel that Occam's Razor makes RJII being a single user with a penchant for self-aggrandizing fiction a considerably more likely scenario to him being a team of covert and well-funded operators. - SimonP 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I too have dealt with RJII, and fully agree with SimonP. Enough already of the conspiracy - it's a single user jerking the chain. It's a wind up, and you're taking the bait spectacularly. ElectricRay 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur. - FrancisTyers · 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
RJII's actions didn't "slip by" -- the root of the problem is that Wikipedia does not have a responsible editorial policy. It's no surprise that RJII was able to use Wikipedia as his/her/their personal soapbox. What is surprising is that it doesn't mappen more often than it does. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking to me, than you should know I'm personally not taking any bait, thank you (it was obvious from the get-go he was spewing hot air), and I personally don't give two fucks if he is not a they, as he/they say they are a they then they were blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey, I'm mot talking about you specifically, but this discussion generally. Also, what's with the attitude? Have you recently given up coffee or something? Lighten up. ElectricRay 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Burningbuddha[edit]

Would this user need a username block? --GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, as a user with the name "Burningjesus" would probably get a block. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
We need another username block on User:Retardtv --GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
A mentally retarded transvestite? <cough> (There is, btw, a possibility with some religions and philosophies that "burning" would not be an insult, but rather X in purification/divinity. I doubt that's the case here.) Geogre 14:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the username in question is actually a drug reference, although it could easily be misinterpreted. If I'm correct, that's still a block, so no big deal. (The Buddha one, not the other.)-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Retard TV. Iolakana|t 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
About the Burningbuddah block, I was in email communication with the user. He used the name before when he did artwork for many years, so not surprisingly, he asked for the name to be unblocked. I said no, due to the reasons yall cited above. He is still welcome to create another account with another name, but I am not inclined to unblock Burningbuddah. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Perpetual hoaxer?[edit]

What do you do with a user who actively works on adding hoaxes to Wikipedia? It can't be speedied -- {{db-nonsense}} specifically excludes hoaxes. How do you keep bumping them down the disciplinary road to eventually get them off Wikipedia? — Mike • 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, hoaxes are a trouble spot on CSD. Some of us (many of us, actually) consider them vandalism. Vandalism is always a CSD. They're not nonsense (lj;lkjl;kjlkj), but they're clearly malicious edits designed to deface: vandalism. Geogre 20:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If the user is unambiguously a hoaxer then tagging as vandalism is fine. I'll happily speedy multiple hoaxes. It's one-offs which may just be obscure which are the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. If anyone wants to help with the monitoring, here's the link. The Crocodile stuff, however, is legit. — Mike • 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen multiple articles that look like hoaxes at a first glance, but turn out to be real after a bit of research. Of course, they should be citing sources, but I guess CSD is made to protect such articles that are legit, despite not looking the part. - Mgm|(talk) 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I have to be sure that it's a hoax before I consider it vandalism. When a kiddie writes an article saying that "Bobby won the Grand Prix at Monaco in 2007 and thats real good for a ten yearold," I put it into the same category as a vandal. Indeed, the clever hoaxes are harder, but they also demonstrate more of a desire to deceive and are, therefore, worse. Geogre 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above. If an article is entirely one obvious hoax, it can be speedied as silly vandalism; and if a user constantly adds hoaxes, then they can be reported, warned, and (if necessary) blocked as a vandal. And if you're ever having trouble figuring out what to do with an article that obviously should be deleted, remember {{prod}}; it's quick and easy, and five days of just sitting there generally isn't going to do too much damage. --Aquillion 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(Uninvolved dude, who just dealt with another hoaxer): You may find the template {{hoaxer}} usefull. 68.39.174.238 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Administrative comment on WP for the Seattle Times?[edit]

Like the headline says. I have a reporter who has contacted me looking for an administrator to comment on Wikipedia's issues in the public eye. To quote, "I'd like to be able to include a Wikipedia administrator's response is to some people's claims of inaccuracy, and especially about schools/teachers prohibiting its use as a resource for school papers." [sic]

To protect that address from spamming, any interested administrator should edit my talk page, or contact me through Special:Emailuser/CorbinSimpson, or use AIM and message "Corbin Simpson". Timely replies appreciated. - Corbin Be excellent 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refer the reporter to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Press_inquiries. TruthbringerToronto 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you might also want to make sure that the journalist in question understands the nature of adminship on Wikipedia, and gets the fact that admins are just ordinary users who have been around for a while and passed an RFA, not employees or representitives of the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, that might be what they're looking for. --Aquillion 00:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Trigger Happy[edit]

Dear Administrator(s): I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With-Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

(If I don't cop flack for this one, I will climb the Reichtag Bulding in a Spiderman outfit). Dfrg.msc 11:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a photo of your climbing the Reichstag in a Spiderman outfit. Proto///type 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
When will you be climbing the Reichstag? I'll try to be around :)) (and could provide the photo then) Lectonar 12:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We are the rouge admin cabal and will block you indefinitely for violating the Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Also, we will extend this block to everybody you have ever met because you violated Wikipedia:Don't post incidents without giving people the faintest clue what the f**k you're on about, which is definitely policy. Just zis Guy you know? 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, but you forced me into this. Scaling a major landmark is harder than it looks.


You also fell foul of Godwin's Law pretty quickly. --james // bornhj (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I may be a trigger happy administrator drunk with power, but I am not a Nazi! I'm a commie bastard, thank you very much (not really). But seriously, if we don't get an example of what you are talking about, we can't determine where (or if) the system broke down or if someone acted improperly. -- Kjkolb 13:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You have less than 100 contributions to main space. Do you care to tell us which of your contributions were carefully researched and planned? I don't know if this edit to Einstein or this edit to Exodus were carefully researched and planned. Could you provide some enlightenment? --User:Elkman 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

why are you inserting this image (Image:Superche.jpg at random talk pages? --Ragib 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Image nuked, since it had no copyright tag or source for over 7 days. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


What you mean this picture? Dfrg.msc 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


User:CrnaGora 2[edit]

Similar to the complaint above, I have another thing to report. User CrnaGora is constantly harrasing me and attacking me personally. He has called me many offensive words in Serbian and English, like "kurva" which means "whore" (proof), "you damn Serb", "budala" which is something like "numskull" (proof), "I spit on you", "Are you that stupid...", and the list goes on. I have politely asked him to stop contacting me, because I do not want conflict with him, I just want to be left alone, but he keeps leaving me messages, personal attacks and provocations. He even admitted that he has "anger issues on Wikipedia". All of the quotes can be found on my and his talk pages. He has been warned before, several times, I leave it to you, the admins, to decide what to do with him. --GrbSrbije.PNG serbiana - talk 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? This looks to me like something which is spilling over from the Serbian Wikipedia, where as I understand it you are an admin - and this doesn't fill me with confidence that it's a legitimate complaint as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned. The only occurrences of the word "kurva" on either talk page are on yours - where's the original edit where you claim he called you this? --ajn (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Boris's description of CrnaGora doesn't sound like the CrnaGora I know. What I do know however is that Boris blocked him on the Serbian Wikipedia [18], under the same pretext as here, and as far as I know, such a thing would be viewed as an unacceptable abuse of admin privileges at enwiki. See the explanation for yourselves [19], and I do find it interesting that CrnaGora has remarkable few edits on srwiki [20], so where is the personal attack (unless he was blocked on srwiki for something he did on enwiki)? --Tēlex 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This has little to do with Serbian Wikipedia. I blocked him for persistent personal attacks there, and here he continued the personal attacks. Since the rules of sr wiki don't allow personal attacks (and I'm hoping there are such rules on en wiki as well), he was blocked. Here, he continued making personal attacks, by calling me stupid, a numskull and confirming that he spits on me, and not just Serbs. I didn't think there would be a need to provide diffs since the entire conversation can be found on my talk page, as well as his (which I noted above). Now, he HAS personally attacked people before, there was a similar complaint a few days ago, and a little warning block wouldn't hurt, it would give him the time to calm down, after all, he did admit to having "anger issues on Wikipedia". --serbiana - talk 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Blocking is fine, but telling people to fuck off is uncalled-for, and a violation of NPA. It's unnecessarily confrontational, and if you're an admin you should really know better. When you've got The Button, you need to set a good example because all the new users are going to take their cues from you. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Brutal language there Tony Sidaway, block aside. Such language is sooner "feeding the troll". Netscott 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No surprise, I'm sure, that I object to Tony's language and actions. If you're furious, hand it off. Egoism is the morality of trolls and children. Geogre 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fuck the trolls. Oops. --mboverload@ 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment on the block, as it's probably deserved, more in civility. Most importantly, calling someone a troll is now the most common form of trolling. Secondly, Tony, I am sure you are upset, but saying things like "I have blocked this editor because he's stupid" here is bad because the words are saved and can get you quoted and made fun -- for example DyslexicEditor 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

God bless Encyclopædia damatica; what would we do without them? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, a perfectly good report of admin action by Tony Sidaway turns into a Tony-bashing session. For the record, I support the ban. Prometheuspan has made less than 40 main article edits, almost all on his first day of editing. Since then he has done nothing but troll in article talk, user talk, and wikipedia talk spaces. It is my belief that the account is a stalking horse for someone else; certainly this account, whoever is operating it, has no useful contributions and a net negative effect. Thatcher131 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't interpret my "God bless ED" as Tony-bashing. I think Encyclopedia damatica and Tony Sidaway are both fantastic, mmmkay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GTBacchus (talkcontribs) 18:14, June 28, 2006.
As you may notice Thatcher, not many people here are "bashing" Tony's ban, but instead are commenting on how "fuck off" and "this user is stupid" is grossely inappropriate. For the record, if it was any other user, they would have gotten a block, and you can't deny that. How can you possibly defend one's use of "fuck off". If he can do that without a block, you can expect many other users to use this as an example of being able to get away with attacking someone. Chuck(contrib) 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's like if a school teacher told a kid who was misbehaving that (s)he was stupid and then the teacher cussed at him/her. DyslexicEditor 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The ban is fine, the comments about "fuck off" and "stupid" are out of order. Not the first time, sadly, that I have had to note Tony's behaviour being out of order. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If Tony isn't blocked for this, how can this site ever block anyone ever again for incivility or personal attacks. Chuck(contrib) 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CoolKatt number 99999 part 2[edit]

A new incident occurred regarding CoolKatt number 99999 but the discussion was placed in his previous WP:AN report, which has scrolled up the page far enough that it's not getting much love. Briefly, he placed sockpuppet notices on my userpage and Crossmr's userpage claiming that we were somehow sockpuppets of Apostrophe on the basis of this Pokemon-related AfD. Reactions have started to splatter into other places that are less sensible than this one, and this guy does appear to have a history of, err, lapses in judgment. Opabinia regalis 04:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey a new day and I'll ask again: Whats it take to get an admin in this place? It speaks volumes that there has been an RFC open for over a month on this person, and a message on this place for a week and not a single shred of input.--Crossmr 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Not a single shred"? User:A Man In Black and User:RadioKirk both left comments on this page. The first one's been archived, but AMIB's is still above. --Firsfron of Ronchester 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To which AMIB has stated that he won't do anything admin-like because he's involved in the situation. To me that doesn't count as admin-input. I'm also looking and I don't see a comment from Radiokirk up there. I also don't see any comments by Radiokirk on their talk page, nor any comment on the RFC from radiokirk either. and if you knwo where this archived comment is, maybe you can link to it. I find no mention in the last two archives, and if its that old, we need new input on the new issues that have occured. The fact of the matter is since a legal threat and a torrent of personal attacks, the only admin to stop by has said "I'm involved in it and can't do anything with it"--Crossmr 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Crossmr, it was posted on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, and actually concerned a different user that CFIF is having problems with (other than the two he has reported and wants blocked over on this page). It's so easy to get confused when there are quite a few. As far a AMIB, he did say more than that: he said he felt this user could be salvaged, and someone else said "this isn't kindergarten". Seemed like you didn't want the input.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I said it wasn't kindergarten, which this isn't. I was making a point that when users behave poorly beyond a certain point and show no indication of actually changing their ways, there is no point in coddling them because it damages the community. I didn't feel AMIB was making any kind of admin decision with that statement because he'd already indicated he wasn't going to do so, I felt he was only giving his opinion on a possible course of action. The fact of the matter is the user made legal threats, and personally attacked several users and we haven't heard boo from an admin who can actually do something here. --Crossmr 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
and as further proof of CKs inability to behave appropriately they just tagged their RFC with an AFD. I don't understand your defense of this person, or the abscence of the admins in this situation. This isn't a spat between two users. This is a user who is consistently attacking and irritating everyone around them. --Crossmr 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree it can be difficult to try to build an encyclopedia with someone who appears to be paranoid and accusing other users of sockpuppetry. CK apologised, and Rollosmokes recommended you not accept it, and you haven't. Beware of hyperbole: earlier you stated you'd received "not a shred" of input, but there has been input. You state he's "attacking and irritating everyone around [him]", but I've worked with him and he hasn't irritated me. You state There have been "endless personal attacks and legal threats", but I only saw one legal threat, made a full month ago, and the majority of personal attacks listed on his RfC page were not unprovoked. Check the histories yourself. And two of the "personal attacks" listed on the RfC are no such thing.
This user was treated poorly, and has not responded well. He's lashing out. If the users around him had been civil to him from the very beginning, I very much doubt this situation would ever have escalated. The people who could have helped to guide CK#99999 to better edits chose instead to treat him poorly: "Crap", "worthless", "tool", lots of other "mean" words. When they were asked to tone it down, they refused outright. That is why I defended this user on his RfC, and why I think everyone should just take it down a notch.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
He accused 9 people of being sock puppets on the Pokemon AFD and went so far as to put sock puppet tags on two of their user pages. The legal threat has only been sitting for a month because no one has bothered to address it. And if you bothered: User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999#Sockpuppetry You would see after he made that apology, I went to his page and reached out to him explaining what would be seen as a turn around in this case. He's not done that, he's apologized to no one else that I've seen, and he went and tossed an AFD link on his RFC, which again indicates that he's not interested in being reached out to. I was only explaining to rollosmokes that I wasn't going to simply drop it because he gave a half-hearted apology. I stated there hasn't been a shred of input by admin. AMIB said hes' not assuming an admin role in this, so as I stated, his input is not from an admin. No other admin has bothered to try and deal with this. I was never uncivil to him. I had never even spoken with him until I logged on and found the sockpuppet tag on my user page. So no, his behaviour isn't appropriate he's shown no interest in changing it, and I see no reason he shouldn't be banned for his behaviour. He's responsible for his own actions, regardless of how others treated him. I put an article up for AFD and was personally attacked numerous times, called several things and hounded for asking an honest question on the article prior to putting it up for deletion. Did I lash out at anyone? no. I discussed situations like an adult. i expect no less of the other people here. If he can't do that, I see no reason to be lenient. --Crossmr 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop this madness now! I was only angry! Leave me alone!
Remember, we all get mad sometime, we should just end this discussion. CoolKatt number 99999 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
so you putting the AFD on the RfC was just a continuation of your anger from the pokemon AfD? how long should we expect you to continue? --Crossmr 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
He's trying to get sympathy points again ("Leave me alone!"). CoolKatt, Get real! --CFIF (talk to me) 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
With over 8000 edits, it looks like CK's bitten newbie card is expired. (As a general comment, there are enough good editors around that investing time and effort "guiding" consistently poor ones seems... misguided?) At any rate, I imagine we'll hear about another shot to the foot before long. Opabinia regalis 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Allegedly I'm uncivil for suggesting someone who irritates numerous people, personally attacks several individuals, and makes legal threats should get a permanent ban. [User_talk:Crossmr#Sorry]. I think I'll make note of this in case I ever feel like having a bad day. --Crossmr 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If you still feel like the half-hearted apology wasn't enough, you could lodge a complaint at the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard, I guess. They're really very good over there, IMO. I hope something helps; clearly, you feel wronged, and no editor should have to feel like he or she has been wronged and then ignored by the admins. I hope the link I provide helps in some way. I really do sympathise, even if I feel this situation was handled badly from the very beginning. --Firsfron of Ronchester 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well its not just the half-hearted apology. Its the continued behaviour on his part after the personal attacks launched against myself and others. This is what I meant about how certain people are more trouble than worth. I've seen it in other communities, and I can see it snowballing here. Users have to want to help themselves when the community reaches out, and if they're not, there is nothing you can do. He'd have to be blind not to realize that what he's doing is not working here, but he's shown no indication he's interested in changing his behaviour and only continues the downward spiral unfettered even when reached out to. To me its not so much the initial behaviour, its the reaction to that behaviour. Did he learn from it and try to better himself? no. He just continually lashes out at everyone who disagrees with him and continues to do so. --Crossmr 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you have some valid points, and I hope there ends up being some solution you'll be happy with, Crossmr.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone would closely monitor CK#9999's conduct on project pages. I'm ready to block it indefinitely to get it out of my hair, which would probably not be a good decision, but something needs to be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to worry about that, AMIB. Judging from the dialogue on various talk pages, there are plenty of users monitoring his every move.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


I feel I must add something recently stated by this user that is most troubling. Visit User talk:Amnewsboy in the AETN section. Mr. Kat has basically stated that if something he makes up makes sense to him, it is "not speculation."

First of all, this throws into question every single "Callsign meaning" on every local TV station page (and really, they should be deleted, because the only ones that are clearly true are... well, obvious, like WTWO referring to channel 2)... but mainly, this is a dangerous position for a WikiEditor to take - just because something makes sense to him, it should be taken as fact? No. No. No. Lambertman 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And to expand on that "callsign meaning" point, Lambertman, he assumes every "W" in a callsign means "We're". (here's a prime example: User:CoolKatt number 99999/Callsigns) That is simply false and not true. If the admins could take some intervention here, it would be really nice. CFIF (talk to me) 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
And looking at those worthless and unneeded subpages, it brings me back where he assumed a station would become My Network TV just because they were sister station to a Fox affiliate, which was completely false [21]. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This user plays the victim all the time also, and I'm tired of it. He constantly says "Leave me alone." to make it appear as if we are "bullying" him for telling him that his edits are primarily speculation. Ban him please. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Jesus On Wheels (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Username violates both the policy of no usernames that contain names of religious figures and the policy of no names that resemble those of prolific vandals. The user states on his page that he has used the name for some time and is known by it, but unfortunately it goes against WP:Username policy and his account needs to either have its name changed or be blocked.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to sanction personal choices on WP ex post facto, then go ahead, but you will be embarking down a SCARY road. This contributor is hurting no one. You must assume good faith with regard to this user - it has demonstrated its desire not to offend or vandalize. Pre-emptive blocks are useless against it, since there is nothing to preempt.

I think he needs to also change his internet account as well, and thus his IP adress, along other contact details such and the locks on his doors and his phone number, pgk (talkcontribsblocksprotectsdeletionsmoves) is quote as commenting (on Jesus On Wheel's talkpage) that it is "Because no doubt the user ceases to function or be able to contribute to wikipedia under an alternate name less likely to cause religious offense?" Myrtone -- 07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a username change would render anyone functionless on Wikipedia, and regardless, the username still goes against policy.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess Myrtone86 doesn't understand sarcasm --pgk(talk) 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We don't have a policy on which ISP someone uses, nor their contact deails, nor the locks they user nor their telephone details. We do however have a policy on what constitues an acceptable username. --pgk(talk) 08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a long-standing user. Leave it be. Just zis Guy you know? 08:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A long standing user who never edits, apart from reappearing to accept an RFA nom from Myrtone86. The username policy doesn't contain exceptions for long standing editors, the question really is about if people believe there to be a problem with the name. I do, maybe not as dire as some which get created, but still outside what I believe is accetable. Since account renaming is available then why not? --pgk(talk) 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, a name change should be in order. Most of the discussion on his talk page also has the cry for a username change. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Jesús is a popular personal name, and Jesus is an acceptable alternative spelling. As for the wheelie bit, if this user does indeed hardly edit, his name can hardly cause any problem. But anyone who's worked up about it might suggest a name-change to him. (How about Jesús on Skates?) -- Hoary 09:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will only agree with Horay if Jesus On Wheels can prove that this popular Spanish name is actually his "real" name (his name as a person, i.e. the name of the person who occupies te account). Myrtone -- 09:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not request any internet user (let alone any Wikipedia editor) to provide any personally identifiable information they do not wish to, ever, particularly in a public forum. Proto///type 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'm assuming that Jesús/Jesus is not his real name, not least because people tend not to use their real names. (Stunning revelation: My real name is not "Hoary"!) As far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to call himself Diego, Pablo, Raul, Fidel, Jesús, whatever. And he can be on skates, rollerblades, a pogo-stick, or even (since he's already firmly mounted on them, with little or no irritation other than to himself) wheels. -- Hoary 11:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I'd never dream of using my real name as part of my username. Oh, wait... Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time his name has been noticed this month. That is in itself reason enough for him to get a username change. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is (possibly by coinsidance) another wikipedian in South Australia that has also been largely inactive, albeit for a longer time, Immanuel Goldstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) – although a registered user – has only ever made one edit on wikipedia, way back in 2004, to my knowledge, there are no admins at all in the category. Myrtone 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No real reason to force him to change; strongly encourage perhaps, but not force. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Rachel Cakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has also been inactive, albeit since the 13th of this month, she is also from Adelaide, South Australia. Myrtone -- 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a close and unhealthy relationship between Myrtone and Jesus on Wheels. Myrtone nominated JoW for adminship, when it was clearly a completely hopeless case. JoW had less than 100 edits and did not even answer the standard questions. Myrtone has recently nominated JustPhil which was equally futile, with question answers that read like a send-up, not unlike Myrtone's comments above. Myrtone has recently been blocked, as "continuing nonsensical comments and votes on various RFAs show that you are purposefully trying to disrupt Wikipedia." I suggest an inquiry into sockpuppetry would be in order. Tyrenius 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

HEY! It is not our place to judge a relationship between consenting adults! :-) --mboverload@ 02:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is if they're purposefully trying to disrupt Wikipedia.:-( I note your previous inappropriate comments and Splash's advice, which does not seem to have been taken. Tyrenius 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this ignorant critism of me, my views are (at least in theory) as valid as those of other wikipedians, who says I have no right to nominate someone else for adminship when other wikipedians do, just becuase my views are different/unusual, does not mean they are inferior, Nathan has emailed Robchurch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on this subject. Myrtone 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you have the right to unorthodox views, but its not unreasonable for people to ask you to explain them. You have consistently ignored such polite requests for several months now. Eventually it becomes reasonable to assume you are more interested in making a point than in making constructive improvements to Wikipedia. If you continue to act like a dick, don't be surprised when people's patience runs out and they start to treat you like one. Gwernol 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he could have it changed to "JoW" or something that would be easy for his friends to recognise, but is not a blatant violation of the username policy.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


User uploading own image under fair use[edit]

I've posted a problem like this before, but I can't remember what we did :/ Image:Fac2577.jpg was admittedly created by the uploader but he only licenses it as fair use {{albumcover}}. How is this handled? Stifle (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete the image, because any editor's own contributions must be under a free license. Or so I recall. Kimchi.sg 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It says so on the image upload page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it absolutely clear that the user is actually the designer? Even if they are, they may be nevertheless behaving responsibly. They may not be able to relicense their work under a free, reusable license depending on the contract with Virgin records. Jkelly 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic "licenses it as fair use" is contradictory. Fair use images are images which aren't licensed for us to use. The fair use doctrine allows use without a license in certain circumstances (and our own rules restrict us a bit further). When you say "created" by the uploader, do you mean he did the physical scanning or he composed the artwork in it's original form and retains copyright to it? I would guess it not be the latter in which case he isn't the creator and so can't license it to us, so fair use is probably the best we can do anyway. --pgk(talk) 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

wait, if I publish a CD and upload my own CD cover as a fair use image, it will be deleted, but if I have my little sister upload it, it will be kept? That doesn't make much sense, does it. dab () 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a good chance you won't own the copyright on the CD cover anyway... But in principle yes, cd covers are a pretty odd example in that they are one of few items where there isn't an alternative but to use a fair use image. Most other images we should be using a free image if one is available, and allowing creators to not license but "allow fair use", detracts from our goal of using free images wherever possible. --pgk(talk) 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the right action is actually to change the tag to {{GFDL}}. If they own the copyright, by uploading they agreed to license under GFDL. This is no different from the "your contribution will be GFDL" notice for text. Deco 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
But the user isn't claim to own the copyright, but merely to be the author of the work. It appears that the user is the author of the cover, but does not own copyright, yet is asserting that Wikipedia can make use of it under fair use provisions. That sounds reasonable to me. Snottygobble 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, right you are then. Deco 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The artwork is for an Electronic single, and the designer was Peter Saville [22], so the user is not the author of the cover (it's further complicated by the fact that Saville used a credited image from a photographic library, rather than original artwork). I think what we have here is a reasonably common confusion, with someone thinking that if they scan or photograph someone else's artwork, they somehow are the "author" in copyright terms of the image they have made. It's currently tagged as fair use, which is right. --ajn (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, I have to say that Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images doesn't make much sense to me. If I'm interpreting policy correctly, an image with a valid fair-use defense uploaded without any permission from the copyright holder will be kept; but the same image, with the same fair-use defense, uploaded by the copyright holder with permission for use in Wikipedia will be deleted on sight as having a non-free license. I have to say, I don't understand the reasoning behind this at all; if the goal of the policy is to ensure that Wikipedia stays as free as possible, surely it makes sense to keep images used with permission over those without permission, all else being equal? —David Wahler (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. If it's fair use, it's fair use, whether we have permission to reproduce it or not. But if it is marked only "with permission" and is not marked to indicate that it is fair use on the article it is being used for, yes, it will be deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. —David Wahler (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Richb1111[edit]

I have indef-blocked Richb1111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), since his sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to push a single conspiracy theory. All contribs are tendentious edits to American Airlines Flight 77 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and have been speedily reverted by editors on that article. If we decide to undo this then he needs at least a 24 hour block for 3RR violations. Just zis Guy you know? 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Content isn't really legitimate, even if his additions are totally nuts. It would be better if you were the one to reduce it to 24 hr and then escalate if he keeps it up. Better yet would, of course, be a prohibition from editing that content, but I don't think we can institute those by fiat. Geogre 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I support the block. See also WP:PAIN, and the user's block log. Tom Harrison Talk 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. There is no history to this account other than tendentious edits to that one article - not even the related articles on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The nasty suspicious bastard in me suspects a role account. Just zis Guy you know? 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
FYI...Richb1111 also uses 139.222.100.226 (talk · contribs) [23]--MONGO 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
He's been doing this since April 10. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
According to his email:
do you believe that the wings of an airliner can vaporise and/or be folded into the fueselage of the plane upon impact with concrete wall? If you do then you are just stupid, and its not your fault. if you do not, or you do not care, then god forgive you, you fucking coward.
I have explained that it is the behaviour, not the content, which is the major problem. He seems uninterested. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That is par for the course as far as his emails to me were as well...not that we can punish him here for what he does in emails, but he has also made similar comments in this website...[24], [25]. I had long chats with him via email..he reminds me of Beckjord and I didn't mind him but there is nothing constructive about his efforts here.--MONGO 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, he's being a disrupter in that case and unable to control his passions, so that's different. Geogre 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


The Best Page in the Universe[edit]

Floyddoorz (talk · contribs · count) keeps adding a "Related sites" to this article since June 8. They have been reverted six times. One of those times the related sites were added under 24.147.174.105 (talk · contribs · count), removing the comment not to add any knock-offs and adding the same exact list that Floyddoorz added [26]. I reverted it and added a notice to the talk page. Today 209.6.194.240 (talk · contribs · count) added the same exact list [27], even down to making some of the same corrections that 24.147.174.105 did. I believe that sockpuppetry is going on here, even more so because Floyddoorz was blocked for 3RR on "The Best Page" back in March. I honestly don't want to revert because I'm afraid of being implicated for 3RR s well. Hbdragon88 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just revert it on site. I'll warn him if it continues further. Sasquatch t|c 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Warned for disruption anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 209.6.194.240 just readded the links...I removed them again. Hbdragon88 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Anon and Floyddoorz both blocked for 24h. Floyddoorz had blanked his talk page of warnings (also not the first time), this has also been reverted. Just zis Guy you know? 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Confusion over deleted category "Gay icons"[edit]

I'm perplexed; Beatrice Arthur lists Category:Gay icons, which was deleted and salted some time ago. However when I check Whatlinkshere, I get no mention of that article. Is that possibly because of the salting? If so, how many other bad category links might we have out there? I haven't deleted it yet because I don't want to destroy the evidence of whatever's going on with the software here (the edit has been there since at least July 2005, so I don't think it's a caching issue). Please advise. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm perplexed: I don't see that category on the page, and it appears to have been removed on 5 May. It's eminently possible that I'm nuts, though. Joe 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Crazy times. I don't see it anymore either, and that 5/5 edit wasn't in the logs when I went through. I'm pretty sure I've never viewed that article before today, so it wasn't cached AFAIK... maybe my work proxy is a closet homosexual. Nevermind? -- nae'blis (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Persistent vandalism to Philip J. Kaplan entry[edit]

Can you please block the entry for Philip J. Kaplan from editing by the public? He's just a person and not much changes quickly in his life that would make his page need to be edited frequently. Random strangers are not likely to add much to the neutral bio that is already in the entry. And it is vandalized daily by obsessed internet stalkers of his. I am getting really tired of reverting the vandalism every day. Please help.

71.198.37.231 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RFPP to formally request page propection. Ironically, if it does get protected youw won't be able to edit it... Hbdragon88 02:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


SuperSTO[edit]

SuperSTO's (talk) edits (see also deleted contributions), with few exceptions, have fallen into two categories:

A) Promoting his website Chao Universe; the article has been twice deleted - once by AFD, a second time speedied as recreation of deleted material. He has also spammed the link in a few articles.

B) Vandalising articles on Skulltag or creating articles on it's creator, Brad Carney. Often this is just simple vandalism. Other times, it is the insertion of claims regarding users of skulltag being "hacked" (see edits to skulltag from May 28 and prior). Admins should see the contents of some of his deleted articles for more. This user has claimed that they are trying to warn people about the danger of skulltag, and should be allowed to make those claims under free speech. The user has been asked numerous times to provide a source. Thus far, the only source this user has provided was the name of an AIM user "Marcus101RR". A little searching I did on the Skulltag forums shows that some individual called Marcus has some sort of vendetta against skulltag. Granted that was about a month ago, and I forgot about the details. In fact, it was only just now when I saw the summary of this edit that was reverting vandalism in the skulltag article (I will contact that user for more info), and re-read SuperSTO's message regarding the AIM user that I even payed attention to the Marcus in the name. This confirms to my mind that this AIM user is SuperSTO himself.

Judging from SuperSTO's comments, it seems he believes the article on his website was deleted simply for advertising a website, and that is therefor grounds for the Skulltag article to be deleted (Talk:Skulltag), as (to paraphrase) "all articles should be treated the same" and we are very obviously "hosting/advertising Skulltag". This user has ignored the reasons I gave them for their article being deleted. Yet he has not once tried to submit it to AFD (instead he blanks the article). Today when I opened my watchlist, I checked the edit history of Skulltag to see that it had been repeatedly vandalised by three different IPs, one in particular replacing the content with "Advertisement Removed - Treat Members FAIRLY!", another with "NO ADVERTISEMENT! TREAT ALL MEMBERS FAIR! OR DON\"T HOST SKULLTAG!". It is my belief that SuperSTO/Marcus (especially in light of this Skulltag forum topic) recruited some others to attack the page. One IP has previously attacked the page, and I believe it to be SuperSTO, as the first attack by this IP user was a few days ago, and they have previously added an external link to Chao Universe to other pages.

It is my suggestion that SuperSTO and the IP he uses (can someone checkuser it to be sure?) be blocked for a period deemed warranted.--Drat (Talk) 05:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First, let me say that there should not be any doubt that SuperSTO is Marcus, and that I believe that one of the random IPs, 24.92.160.125 (talkcontribs), is also him. Some incidents I observed to believe this are:
  • As for 24.92.160.125, the IP edited the ZDoom page to add a link which was also posted by a user named Marcus on the ZDoom Forums. It was actually the second one he had added - the first was removed from the forum thread due to being potentially illegal. The exact same IP also demonstrated a edit at the Doom Wiki on an article about the creator of the port. It is similar to that of SuperSTO's behavior and occurred more than two months ago.
Truthfully, I do not have any evidence that either the anon I reverted or the other two IP's that vandalized the article were actually Marcus. If not, there is a good chance they were forum members recruited by him, as Drat suggested (especially after seeing this thread on his forum).
As Drat, I feel that SuperSTO should be blocked as it appears he has simply come here to spam his website and deface Skulltag, not to help out the encyclopedia in any way. DomRem | Yeah? 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Large number of articles to be deleted[edit]

Please take a look at my comments at the village pump and this AfD page for more information. --Stellis 06:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you to provide a list of what to delete. Kimchi.sg 06:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Natashasalve's "renovations"[edit]

Natashasalve (contributions) keeps on creating pages whose sole purpose is to give advice about home renovation and most edits she has made so far seems to fail Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in content and style as well as making one inappropriate spam link on ServiceMagic. Having already reverted some of her edits twice, I don't want to break the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, but Natashasalve seems to be quite persistent in agenda (which I can't figure out) and she has not once acknowledged any messages left by me or User:SM247 on her talk page. Though she has stopped for now, what should we do if she resumes her edits? -- Netsnipe 09:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it was only about an hour ago. Perhaps this user has not seen them yet. If the edits persist, something else could be done, but wait for a response (for a reasonable time). SM247 09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the user may be in good faith and if she resumes flustered she should be handed with velvet gloves to make sure she knows we are not attacking her and that we appreciate her attempt at helping us out. --mboverload@ 06:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


IP blocks[edit]

I seem to be running into an increasing amount of IP blocks that extend beyond 31 hours...and these are cases where there is 0 evidence that the IP is static, i.e. that it's the same user as before. Most IPs are NOT static, which means that if you block them for longer than 31 hours (sometimes less), you are going to cause collateral damage. So please be more careful folks. Here is a short writeup I did on the difference between the 3 types of IPs. We can't assume that an IP is static. We have to assume it isn't or else we are blocking innocent users. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Geogre 13:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should assume IPs are dynamic unless proven otherwise. With the obvious exception of AOL, most IPs are at least semi-static. I have an ostensively dynamic IP address here with Shaw but it changes less than once a year. The majority of providers in Canada work the same way. Is this not the case elsewhere? Of course, it is a different matter if the IP is specifically marked as shared. --Yamla 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Most cable companies use a semi-dymanic, IP changes once a month or every so months. Same with DSL in Canada. Woohookitty's definition of static IPs is flawed IMO because of this. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.... but then that would mean that we would have to keep on watching their contributions and see if they are static or dynamic et al. Iolakana|T 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


FOTW pictures[edit]

Bkell has recently taken it upon himself to tag a large portion of Category:FOTW images for speedy deletion under CSD:I3. Most of these can probably qualify under fair use (at the very least), and many of them are probably {{PD-flag}} or uncopyrightable as faithful reproductions of public domain material. However, I do not have time to deal with this right now so I am passing it off onto someone who can. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I tagged most of the images in the category with the template {{FOTWpic}}, however the systematic deletion of this scale should be stopped or slowed down for now. I tagged some of those images too in that category with a redundant type tag, so some will be on their way for speedy deletion and some will have to sit on the servers for a while before we will sort this out. And as an editor and member of FOTW, I am partially responsible for this, so I encourage Bkell and others to talk to me.
As for the PD-flag template, that template has been redirected into a general fair use template for flags by me. Some flags are PD by law, such as national flags, but some others have copyrights to them. Some nations, like Germany and the US, attach a "creativity" element for copyrights while some nations, like the UK, might have tougher standards. This is a debate that is currently going on right now, but most of the flags in that category will be replaced by me or others under a free license, so I hopefully believe this issue could become moot once we get the SVG flags drawn. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Fair use[edit]

Since I am not confident with copyright law I thought I would queation this here. The image used in Sovereign Hill is tagged as promotional material (which it is - I found the source). The tag states that a copyrighted image such as this may be used to illustrate the product in question when a free alternitive is not availiable. There is a free alternitive availiable, it was replaced when User:Ansett added that image. I am requesting assistance because 1. I want to make 100% sure - the image replaced was pretty terrible, but it was still free. 2. I feel like I am hounding this user - I have recently pulled them up a number of times for blanking pages, inserting links to their own page into articles where they did little to illustrate the subject matter and because I nominated an article created by them for deletion. ViridaeTalk 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a practical matter. Our objective is producing a free encyclopaedia, fair use images are not free, so if a free alternative exists we use that. --pgk(talk) 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I was aware of that, just wanted to makre sure/not further pressure the user.ViridaeTalk 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


case for an IP check?[edit]

I am blocking about two "suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh" a day now; not much work, but all the same just clutter in the database. Could we look into the IPs of this account to see if there is a range that could blocked for longer periods without too much collateral damage? Or how should we handle such cases of extremely persistent trolling? dab