Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive114

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

Noticeboard archives


General Tojo[edit]

I was called to assist on Talk:Parkinson's disease. There have been serial reverts and a possible 3RR. I left a message on the talkpage of General Tojo (talk · contribs), one of the disputants, cautioning him that abrasive rhetoric and personal attacks were not contributory.

In response this editor has now been performing random reverts on articles I have edited recently. Evidence on his talkpage.

A simple warning may be enough, but I suspect short blocks may be necessary if this behaviour persists. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lasted for 9 minutes, now refactored[1]. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A user is entitled to blank anything that's not a legitimately issued warning, even if archiving is preferred; it's still in the history. If the user edits in a disruptive fashion, however, that's another matter. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As a clarification: users in good standing are afforded the privilege of blanking stuff on their talk page. Users with, shall we say, "issues", are not afforded that same privilege. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL well, let's just say the good General does not have a monopoly on issues ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, User:PaulWicks has offered an explanation for the above edit. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
On Paul Wicks' talk page, Dan reveals what he believes to be RL information about Tojo.--Anchoress 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo simply carried on messing about, doing a "half-revert" on Parkinson's disease to subvert the 3RR and threatening on the talk page to finish the job tomorrow. I have blocked him for 24h for NPA, gaming the system and general WP:DICK. He seems to be a well-known troll from Braintalk. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring aside, why has he been permitted to keep this username? Tojo was a convicted war criminal and such, after all. Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is an utterly unacceptable username. It must be changed. I dropped the user a note informing him that he must apply for a WP:CHU. As for the people who knew of this username and said nothing, I need to calm down before I'm going to say something I'll regret. Shameful. El_C 10:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See Hideki Tojo for details. The response to El C's request has been more trolling. I sense civility burnout. JFW | T@lk 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely and protected the talk page. His responses were totally unacceptable. El_C 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has a name that nobody has ever previously objected to. They are notified that their user name must be changed. Before the warning period even expires that person is banned permanently. It is obvious from the above, that ElC personally disliked the name and banned as soon as possible based on ElC's personal dislike of the name (*This is an utterly unacceptable username. It must be changed). Is that actually in the Wikipedia rules, because it appears that ElC is abusing them based on ElC's own personal likes and dislikes rather than properly implemeted procedure. It also appears to be in breach of the requirement to give proper notice of banning and the reasons. Is it right some Administrators exceed regulations based on their own personal bias.

Much of this discussion is based on what JFW has written. He himself was criticised by an Administrator for the excesses and inconsistencies of his actions. So why have decisions taken notice of what he has written when he himself was shown to be at fault ? Why also is he allowed to get away with personal attacks ("a well-known troll from Braintalk"), especially when discussions elsewhere of this personal attack showed that the personal attack had no factual basis ?

Are Administrators allowed to abuse or disregard the regulations as ElC and JFW have done ? --Jonee G. Ralto 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonee G. Ralto (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) blocked indefinitely for serving as a proxy for User:General Tojo . El_C 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, didn't you tell that user to get a new name? Jkelly 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I did, but that was before the "racism" and "arrogance" diatribes. El_C 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Jkelly 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. A quick scan of WP:U shows several rules which would forbid the use of username "General Tojo". The username was, as El C said, utterly unacceptable. Kasreyn 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ElC has just proven his intolerance and inability to rebut his abuse of power. If he can't answer somebody he tries to shut them up. He has also just proven that he is a liar. Nowhere during the discussions was General Tojo racist as he has deceitfully claimed in order to try to justify his misconduct. This can be fully verified in the correspondence. So the excuses for his misconduct do not stand up to scrutiny. Also, General Tojo, who I know very very well, is actually a member of an anti racist organistation, thereby making a mockery of what constitutes libel. Is libel allowed on Wikipedia ? Arrogance is such a vague term - deliberately vague on his part so that it cannot be properly assessed. He himself has shown that he is remarkably arrogant. He was completely unable to rebut any of the criticisms of his abuses of power and instead rushed to a permanent banning. Do what he says - he won't and can't explain himself - or he'll ban you even if his actions are in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. He is an Administrator of the worst kind. --El Corrupt 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, indefinitely blocked. El_C 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Another "abuse of power" El_C threatened me with a final warning not to revert comments that he erased on my own talk page. User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Somewhat_involving_Norman_Coleman_.3B.29 Its like a dog, El_C does it cause he can. Travb (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I take exception to that personal attack and distrotion. I removed Jonee G. Ralto's very first —stalking— edit. Travb does not bother to review the facts and is too quick to assume bad faith. El_C 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Travb, you need to tone down your language and take an AGF pill. If you have a problem with another editor's actions or judgment, fine, talk it out calmly: communication and collaboration are key here on Wikipedia. You don't seem to be getting it. Your confrontational and accusatory tone is the exact opposite of resolving disputes. Dmcdevit·t 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
TELL THE WIKITRUTH! Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I gotta admitt, the fact he was allowed to keep that username for so long is really getting to me. El_C 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

El_C has here blatantly lied by claiming that he banned a member for racism (a member, who incidentally is a member of an anti-racist organisation). He has been completely unable to rebut that fact. He instead dispensed with all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures by banning a member solely because of his personal interests. He now admits above that it was because the name annoyed him. This is because El_C is a lecturer in Japanese history, and it was a Japanese military name that he objected to. Somebody who abuses Wikipedia, blatantly lies about his reasons in order to cover them up, and bases his own actions solely on his own needs and prejudices is not fit to be an administrator. As can be seen above, when faced with criticism he tries to deflect the criticism by arrogantly criticisng the critic. He himself should be banned. ... added in two edits on 23 June by

If you think he should be banned, then note that banning is a step beyond de-sysopping, so follow the advice conspicuously given at the top of this very page. Wherever you write your complaint, note that putting the whole thing in boldface won't make it more persuasive; it will just make you look like a blowhard and also remarkably like the late "General Tojo". But if that's the impression you want to make, fine. Hoary 10:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, User:General Tojo only writes in bold text (see his talk page). El_C 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a request for checkuser ongoing on this user, who has now resurfaced under various usernames. I have blocked Emperor Hirohito (talk · contribs) indefinitely for violations of the username policy, and Parkinsons (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry using the former. Modus operandi is identical. The Parkinson's disease article is now protected as a result of this troll's activities. JFW | T@lk 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

El_C must have something seriously wrong with him. The name General Tojo was only on the editing page of one Wikipedia page. Yet to him the mere mention of the name is intolerable even though in such an obscure place. However, General Tojo gets an entire article on Wikipedia yet he says nothing. Such illogic shows how emotionally iunadequate and irrational he is. Ironically I have added more as General Tojo since then making a complete mockery of his banning. he is so powerless. Jfdwollf, you're a pathetic keyboard coward. Insults and criticism when you think you are behind the protection of the Internet. Yet in the real world you wouldn't dare say the same things. A pathetic coward of the worst kind. I am far bigger than you intellectually, emotionally and physically. I now know where you are. You have given enough information about yourself in order to make that easy to find out. So why don't we meet up to see if you actually have any courage face to face. If you don't take up my invitation we can all assume that you are the COWARD I know you to be. --General Tojo...... 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Apparently, Scribe85 (talk · contribs) doesn't like to communicate. His edits get reverted on a regular basis (For example, he changes dates [2] and generally doesn't conform to any MOS guidelines - but he's done more). First he repeatedly blanked a talk page filled with warnings and when he finally archived as instructed, he put it on a page called "Useless Crap". I know stubborness or newbie-ness isn't a blockable offense, but it doesn't look like this user is going to conform to Wikipedia policy or even try to remain civil. What should I/we do? - Mgm|(talk) 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for incivility, and have renamed his archive to something less obnoxious. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have now reblocked him indefinitely, for his demands to be blocked and his absolute lack of civility and interest in communications. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Given his failure to respond to this, I endorse. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Could we get this image added to the image blacklist? Johnny the Vandal is using over and over again. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it have any legitimate usages? if it does then it shouldn't be added, if it doesn't then we should see if it really needs to be added. Only the most severe image vandalism images should be added to prevent the list from filling up with erroneous listings. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is primarily used on Finger (gesture) to illustrate the subject of that article. Therefore, I am not sure if it should be on any image blacklist. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So is Image:Autofellatio, but it isn't allowed on the Autofellatio page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, the page you want to look into is MediaWiki:Bad image list. You might want to read the talk page before you do anything though. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Has been doing a lot of disrupting of Wikipedia lately to make a WP:POINT. On Talk:Asperger syndrome, bottom of the page, he admitted to forking arguments he personally disagrees with and "hiding" them in obscure locations to make his point that Asperger syndrome is not a medical condition, that it can be self-diagnosed by a layperson, and that it is a blessing. On deletion review under my proposal for undeleting Gilles Tréhin, he has made a snide remark about User:JzG's reasonable actions to prevent Rdos from spamming Wikipedia with his "Aspie-quiz" website link instead of addressing whether Trehin should be undeleted or not. On my talk page, he made another snide remark about me and JzG being "pals" when he shouldn't be communicating with me at all after I gravely insulted him and was blocked for three days for it. He has been clogging this notice board, the Asperger syndrome talk page, his talk page, JzG's talk page, and any other forum he can find with his protestations that he should be allowed to make his point that people with Asperger's are part Neanderthal. I realize that WP:POINT is only a guideline, not a policy, but Rdos has been doing a lot of disrupting to try to make people listen to his ideas. He has disrupted deletion review further by trying to get his "Neanderthal theory of autism" undeleted when it has been posted and deleted many, many times, which is a disruption in itself. I don't know what to do about him, and I can't go off on him again, so I'm leaving a message here so I don't get angry and say something inappropriate. Brian G. Crawford 08:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you got this wrong, Brian. I suggest you provide some diffs to prove your point. I've not talked much, if anything, about the Neanderthal theory at Wikipedia before I saw its deletion and was demanded to remove it from my user page. This is clearly when these discussions arised. As for moving content out of the Aspergers syndrome article, this was done by consensus and the need to reduce size of the article. You are trying to make the Aspergers syndrome article a WP:POV article again. Not everybody shares your view that autism is a disorder or disease, and Wikipedia should be neutral. As for the reincarnations, I'm not responsible for any of them. I listed the last deletion for WP:DRV, which I'm AFAIK I'm allowed to do --Rdos 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course you think I'm wrong. You think anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Brian G. Crawford 08:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Provide the diffs. --Rdos 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This statement is redundant per your talk, and the current debates on WP:AN and here. Stop baiting other users. Just zis Guy you know? 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Any way you want it, but the above comment that "I'm always right and others wrong" doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. --Rdos 09:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you clearly believe this is symptomatic of the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
How is that a fact? I won't you ask for diffs, because you will not provide them as of above --Rdos 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, dude. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG an imposter![edit]

User:John_Bradshaw_Layfield and John Layfield. Lapinmies 10:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Could be a coincidence. The first username is the name of a pro-wrestler. --InShaneee 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be a coincidence? The user mostly edits pro wrestling articles. He has even claimed to be the real person [3]. Lapinmies 05:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I have an idea, lets talk about it and not do anything! Killer! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (Collective and proper nouns)[edit]

Please help. This user is edit warring with me on pages such as 12 Stones, The Doors, Rival Schools and The All-American Rejects when I was trying to correct the nouns. Later, he continues to change them back as well. He's trying to be like RJN, the person who continues to change nouns on the same pages. Please ban the user in a way to stop this edit war. Anything you could provide would be most helpful. 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a two-sided edit war, and WP:3RR may be applied to a lot of editors if it doesn't stop. If the users cannot decide between what sounds correct ("The Doors were a band...") and what is correct ("The Doors was a band..."), take it to dispute resolution. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what's correct here may depend on dialect of English too -- American and British English have different rules for what is treated as plural on these issues. --Improv 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on several talk pages to use "is" and "was" for American bands, not "are" and "were". See Guns N' Roses are vs. is, Talk:Angels_and_Airwaves/Are_vs_Is, and The Smashing Pumpkins are vs is. 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may point those interested to the discussion here, two manuals are cited which agree with the way I'd learned it a— well, a few decades ago (grin). I have noticed that Americans tend to go with what sounds right, to the point that misuses are eventually validated by dictionaries (I, for one, will never use "presently" when I mean "currently" [grin]). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but read that first paragraph in full, where it notes how sentences are rewritten to avoid what is clearly controversial in treatment of "the people constituting the team, rather than with the team as an entity." "Walt Disney Pictures presents" is perhaps the preeminent example of the treatment of a singular entity with a "plural" name. I will maintain to the end of my days that The Doors is a band, and its members are people. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I still find that completely counterintuitive, and wrong, and other stuff (possibly evil), but have long since given up on trying to make sense of it, as too many people honestly believe 'The Doors is a band' is even remotely decent English. People is strange. Proto///type 08:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! A group of people is strange, people are strange! *ducks under barrage of rotten tomatoes* :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, RadioKirk definitely gets an A for grammar, he knows his stuff. I too have gotten involved in this silly dispute (and quickly got uninvolved). It's amazing how few people actually learn grammar anymore. Then you have these ridiculous arguments of people arguing that something that "sounds right" should be used, even though it sounds wrong to people who actually know what sounds right. --Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I, as a non-native speaker, even know this.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Fowler (Gowers edition) says that there are no hard and fast rules (Number, 6). The normal British practice is to treat collectives as plural (especially in cases such as The Doors or The Beatles where the name is itself a plural). Gowers gives the example of "the cabinet is" and "the cabinet are" both being appropriate in different circumstances. I think this is one of those cases where the rule about using the correct variety of English for the particular topic has to apply. --ajn (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why doncha ya'll shove yer socks in eet befur I get muy shotgon out my pick-em-up truck. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"If your date has ever had her hairdo ruined by a ceiling fan..." (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tourism in Slovakia[edit]

I am reporting a flagrant misuse of admin powers by Husnock. Firstly, I have replaced a terrible mess he has written in Tourism in Slovakia by a normal long text (I was forced to do that, although I certainly have more important things to do), secondly I have removed completely irrelevant information about a movie Husnock obviously likes and Husnock's FACTUALLY WRONG and ridiculous introduction text (tourism is not defined like promotion). As a compromise, I have left a link to the article on the movie in the See also section, but even this was – rightly – removed by another user – HywkerTyphoon. I have told Husnock repeatedly that his text is wrong and this information is irrelevant. Husnock's reaction to all this that I have allegedly violated the "4 reverts rule", although in fact it his him, who has violated it – he just keeps reintroducing his original text how ever stupid it might be and how ever the article changes. As a result: I request that I be immediately unblocked and that user Husnock be immediately blocked for the "reasons" he gave for blocking my account. Finally, I do not understand how a user like Husnock, who is unable to write normal content and is able to write what he originally wrote Tourism in Slovakia article, can be an administrator, and if I had the power to do that I would deprive him of admin powers, because admin must exhibit at least an elementary level of intelligence and non-personal attitude. User:Juro

Note that the above has been added by the new user Pete55 (talk · contribs) [4], not by Juro. Lupo 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Pete55 is Juro (i.e. me), because - interestingly - blocked users are unable to edit even this page (someone should change that). Pete55 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Steam (band)[edit]

Can we semi-protect a talk page? Blocked User:Musicknight is anonymously deleting comments from Talk:Steam (band). Ideogram 12:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, can you semi-protect User talk:Ideogram as well? Ideogram 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Could somebody please look after User:Nietecza's contributions? Thanks. --Thorsten1 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Nateirma, over 6 days, keeps changing statistics in the infobox in the Canada page; changing the source from Statistics Canada to CIA. See [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Multiple editors have reverted him, and asked him on his talk page to discuss why he believe the CIA source should be used instead. He, however, does not discuss why he wants to change the source, and keeps removing those statements on his talk page (see [13], [14], [15], [16]) even after being warned that removing warnings on his talk page constitute vandalism. I would recommend a block so that the user knows that he must start discussing his changes. -- Jeff3000 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He has reverted the Canada page [17] and blanked his talk page [18] again. -- Jeff3000 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for disruption/edit warring for 24 hours. Hopefully this editor will learn what talk pages are for. Petros471 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anne Milton[edit]

Another case of possible political whitewashing: [19] [20] David | Talk 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of KraMuc[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked KraMuc (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). The immediate cause was this egregious personal attack, after I gave him this warning. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved in editing articles he's worked on, largely in regard to trying to explain/enforcec WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, whic he habitually ignores. In the past he has been blocked for a week for abusive sockpuppetry, and further back he made threats to take action against a user in real life. (Because the user in question was me, I elected to explain the rule in this regard and not to take further action at the time; however, he continues to allude to legal action in an effort to intimidate other users.) For more detail, read my warning.

Although the particular offense he just committed is not deserving of an indefinite block, on the heels of the warning I gave him it indicates to me that the user has no interest in following Wikipedia's rules and policies, either regarding basic civility or regarding our core rules like NPOV and NOR. He has been warned and reminded of these things an extraordinary number of times, with no result, so I no longer believe he has any potential to be an asset to the project.

If anyone has concerns about this blocking or is tempted to reduce it, I urge you to review the case in more detail. I am happy to provide more diffs and to discuss at length if requested. However, as his recent edit all by itself (his second block for personal attacks in the last few days) merits an extentended block anyway, I do request that time be allowed for discussion before the block is reduced. -- SCZenz 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the NOR issue is disputable, it seems to be in part a lack of providing references in time (and he excused himself of being temporarily unable to do so). However, WP:NPOV and WP:CIV are sufficient for an extended block IMHO. Harald88 12:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would add WP:SOCK and WP:NPA as additional grounds, but on the other hand, I wish he could come back at some future point a changed man and learn to play by the WP rules. If Krause's work is verifiable and notable, regardless of its possible fringe position, WP would want it properly described, with appropriate due weighting alongside other views. It seems that KraMuc is eager to present this theory, but needs to learn a collaborative and civil WP style to do so. If he ever does come back, I would support a "one strike you're out" probation for civility. Crum375 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Your points are both good. However, I think I gave him many extra chances to learn NPOV and NOR (and would never block for those alone anyway), and many extra chances on CIV and NPA as well. In the end, I gave him a "one strike and you're out" ultimatum on the civility, and he responded by making a scathing and deliberate personal attack on another user. I believed for a long time he might become a good contributor once he learned the rules, but at this point he's had every opportunity. -- SCZenz 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw some of his (and his puppets') vitriol and profanities in the meanwhile, and 'scathing' may be an understatement. I would say at least a year before any consideration for rehabilitation. Crum375 15:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If he's threatening legal action, you should point out "no legal threats". If he fails to adhere to that, he can be blocked until he does. - 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, now he's threatening real-life harassment [21]. — Laura Scudder 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Too bad we can't do more than revert and block his socks on sight, which we were already doing. I recommend paying him as little attention as possible, and eventually he'll get bored. -- SCZenz 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammer - Geraldine123[edit]

User:Geraldine123 is currently spamming many articles with links to interviews on Imroy 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked . I could do with some help reverting. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
All done. Thanks everyone. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If that wasn't a bot, she was a very dedicated spammer. --GraemeL (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We could simply have the site blacklisted... - Mgm|(talk) 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow that's alot of spamming, I do see no need for the site, so I agree with the blacklist Jaranda wat's sup 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be the minority view, but I don't see anything wrong with what she was doing. It's not like she was spamming one link over and over; she was adding a different link to each article, and the links in question seem relevant to the article content. User:Erck made similar edits to a bunch of articles last week, and I only noticed because the link he added to Amber Benson was potentially helpful in resolving a content dispute. Where's the beef? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All this proves is that it is an ongoing spam attack. I've removed all of the links added by the above user. I was reluctant to ask for the site to be added to the global spam list as I've heard of them before. However, it is a commercial site and somebody seems to be bent on spamming links to them. Any meta admins care to comment? --GraemeL (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that'd be a bit sharp, since we aren't sure that it's being done at the behest of the site, and up until now nobody's actually told the involved party to stop. Particularly in light of the fact that this isn't overtly commercial spam, like a guy selling penis pills, I think a less confrontational approach would be better. Give them a warning, maybe copy it to the SG site admin via e-mail, and if the behavior persists then add them to the blacklist. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User Netwriter[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum to raise this issue, however I am having a recurring problem with User:Netwriter. I have a long history of being harassed by this user in various internet venues, and he is currently posting my name (and those of several others) on his user page. I have removed mine and one other three times now, and have posted requests that he not put our names on his page. He continually reposts them and removes our requests from his talk page. He is also accusing us of vandalising his entries and conducting a vendetta against him, which is odd since the edit history proves we have done no such thing. I have made a concerted effort to avoid this guy, but I refuse to let him use my name without my permission. Could someone please look into this. Mine is not the only name he has been told to remove and has reposted. Thanks in advance. Nick Cook 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of the name isn't a violation of policy at all; The personal attack is. Someone already removed the full section; I watchlisted the page and will add a NPA warning if someone else hasn't by the time I finish typing this. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I too have added it to my watchlist. I'm on A LOT. --mboverload@ 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I was tempted to toastify the entire page per WP:USER -- he's pretty blatantly just treating Wikipedia as a web host. He even refers to it as his "home page" on User talk:Netwriter. JDoorjam Talk 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Left this note. We'll see where it goes... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks nfor the help. Nick Cook 06:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series per WP:NBD (user's article on the subject was Afd'ed) and deleted the user page per WP:USER. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Please delete this account, the bot spams user pages, doesn't identify correctly tagged images (apparently looking at templates instead of categories), and it doesn't wait to let users fix their errors. The owner is unresponsive to complaints on the bot's talk page. -- Omniplex 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Bots, the procedure proposed on this talk page is apparently wrong. -- Omniplex 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. The bot is a disgrace of Wikipedia. For instance, it's not clear why the bot targets the images uploaded to Sabantuy, yet it doesn't care about similarly tagged images from Angela Merkel, Lech Kaczyński and most articles on world leaders. At first I thought it was Carnildo's personal revenge for our dissent in the past, but now I see that he uses the bot to target other wikipedians as well. I would welcome a vote as to whether this bot should be deleted. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried leaving a message at User talk:Carnildo? Martin 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I did see a message demanding certain changes be made to OrphanBot, but given the tone, and that the author ignored the yellow box with the inch-high letters at the top of the talk page, I didn't feel a need to respond. --Carnildo 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot orphans images that have been tagged as having no source or no license information for five days, because these images will be deleted after seven days. If OrphanBot is orphaning your images, it means you need to add a source for the image and correct license information to the image's page, so that Wikipedia can continue to use your images. In doing this, OrphanBot is providing a useful service, and I'll bet if you ask Carnildo nicely, he can help you out with any problems you're having with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with OrphanBot; it contacted me once I forgot to put a license on an image and it was pretty quick too. As the others said, just talk to Carnildo and see if he can help you out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't talk with Carnildo after he permabanned a bunch of precious wikipedians and a couple of admins. After that he promised to leave Wikipedia for good, yet he is back again and targeting me as usual. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please point out where I promised to leave Wikipedia? Or any evidence that I'm targeting you for anything? --Carnildo 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has been had before here; OrphanBot is most certainly not a spambot or anything similar, and is most definatly performing a useful service. Any issues there may be with it are most likely minor, and do not require admin attention. --InShaneee 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/[edit]

In the process of mucking up a request of checkuser rather badly, I inadvertently created the page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/. since this isn't an article page I don't think tagging it CSD is necessarily the right way to handle it, but regardless could someone delete the page since it was an accidental creation that serves no purpose?--Isotope23 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, "author requests deletion" is CSD G7 and applies to all namespaces, not just articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I actually didn't know you could CSD/AfD namespaces that were not articles. Learn something new every day.--Isotope23 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Technically, most non-CSD, non-article pages that you want deleted go to Templates for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, Redirects for Deletion, or Miscellany for Deletion. (And I think there's a Stubs for Deletion, too) -- nae'blis (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As a checkuser clerk, I often find CU pages created with botched names (the subpage system seems to mess things up for some people). I tag them db and list the reason as CSD G6 (general maintanence). Seems to work every time. Thatcher131 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins User:SlimVirgin and User:CommanderKeane in defense of User:IronDuke[edit]

User:BlindVenetian (me) was just blocked by User:SlimVirgin for being a sockpuppet (not true, and not listed on the sockpuppets page), and for "harassment of IronDuke", though the only interaction I have had has been trying to remove a personal attack he has made on me -- that I am a sockpuppet. User:CommanderKeane previously told me not to edit pages on which IronDuke had ever edited, again simply because IronDuke doesn't like opposing views. I have promised that if the personal attacks are removed, I will stay away from IronDuke, but I don't see why he isn't being warned for continually reposting personal attacks. -- 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your first two edits on Wikipedia were to jump into discussion of this issue [22] [23]. This behavior is transparent sockpuppetry. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Several accounts have been hounding IronDuke for months. We've had enough and you're going to be blocked from now on at the first sign of it, so if you want to edit Wikipedia, stay away from IronDuke. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You guys are incredible. You say: "stop being an anon, get an account", and when I get an account, you say "transparent sockpuppet". And if people are harassing IronDuke, I can see why, since he seems to call everyone who disagrees with him a sockpuppet or something. What a bunch of head-up-orifice echo-chamber bozos. -- 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I guess it's back to being an anon, since you make it untenable to have an account: no rights, no protections. Block away.)
Y'know, I just happened to wander by here, and I have no clue who IronDuke even is, or what drama has transpired here before, but I certainly hope User:SlimVirgin is making completely 100 percent sure that everyone accused of being a sockpuppet is, in fact, a sockpuppet. I just checked User:IronDuke's contributions, and it certainly seems that anyone who disagrees with him indeed gets labeled a "wikistalker" or a "sock", including User:Anomicene, User:BlindVenetian, User:Nyanyoka, and others. I have been told repeatedly in the past by other Admins that we must withhold such bad-faith accusations until absolutely proven by CheckUser, even if it's totally obvious. An ultimatum like "if you want to edit Wikipedia, stay away from IronDuke" sounds very inappropriate and one with a chilling effect on discourse here. wikipediatrix 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wikipediatrix, it's been going on for some time as I said, involves numerous accounts, and a check-user was indeed requested. I've also been in e-mail correspondence with some of those involved in an effort to stop it without using blocks. It didn't work, so here we are. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Wikipediatrix. Just a quick clarification. I did not call User:Nyanyoka a sock, and I apologize to that user if it appeared that way. As for the rest, well, as Slim says, there's a long history. As some of it is by necessity off-wiki, things might look more opaque to other editors than would be ideal. IronDuke 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The why don't you put it on-wiki and make it clear? -- User:BlindVenetian 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, in this edit that reverted User:Nyanyoka's changes, your edit summary was "rv wikistalking sock". But nonetheless, yeah, I fully admit I have no clue what the context of any of this is about - I just wanted to stick my 2 cents and remind folks that puppethunts should be done by the book. wikipediatrix 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this person has ten thousand various accounts or one, and one's stance on this issue, it's painfully apparent that blocking won't dissuade this person. WP:DR is a very good idea. That caveat aside; How does this and this violate any policy we have at all? They are civil, non-confrontational questions. WP:AGF, for the love of god. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add this: I know nothing of IronDuke's history, and don't really care. I have tried to do what I think I've been told: get an account, edit within the rules, etc, and I think I have been treated unfairly. I have been told by CommanderKean that there is no appeals process except to him, and now SlimVirgin swoops in out of (apparently) nowhere, with no history with me, and bans me from Wikipedia. I am NOT out to create a problem on Wikipedia, or with IronDuke as an individual. I just have an issue with this cadre of admins protecting one user, and who isn't satisfied with my voluntary banning from articles, and insists on personal attacks. Perhaps this is the venue to ask: what is the appeals process for this treatment?? (User:BlindVenetian forced to edit as 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Well I'll tell you this much, I'm sick of people evading blocks. I don't care whether the block is unfair or not. Evading a block is against policy, and is a basis for a block. I blocked this IP. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BlindVenetian is claiming that he is not a sock or stalker and is requesting to be unblocked on his talk page. I have to go to bed now but i promised I'd bring this to your attention here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This happened to show right at the top of my watchlist and piqued my curiosity, if only because I have recently realized the importance of editing by anons in the light of what might be termed Wikipedia's philosophy. I've briefly reviewed the situation and think there is only one user involved. The pattern looks suspicious but the explanation is plausible. I have not looked into this user's actual edits and can imagine there may be other problems but socket puppetry does not seem to compute. The subsequent block evasion looks like a genuine mistake. I suppose this all looks rather Kafkaesque to this user. I suggest that the BlindVenetian account be unblocked (or that the user sits out a 24-hour block to think this over). The user has already been asked to stay away from the "problem area" for a while. When reinstated, hopefully s/he will get some more experience editing Wikipedia, read up on policy, and generally stay out of trouble from now on. If not, regular procedure will suffice. We can't do much about changing IP numbers but this user who could so easily have become a REAL sock puppet insists on being treated as one person (the exact opposite of sock puppetry) so I believe this would be the end of it. Or am I being naive? AvB ÷ talk 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue is complex and involves personal identities that can't be posted. I've posted a query to BlindVenetian. I'm hoping he'll e-mail me so we can work out what's going on, and if we do, he'll be unblocked. I'll post the result here either way, though it may take a day or two. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin says, there's more to this than meets the eye, and much of it involved revealing personal information. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What a complete smokescreen. Involves personal information - fe. There's either evidence or not. Put it up or let it be. -- 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wholescale name changes causing disruption[edit]

Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) is using AWB to change as many links to Roman Catholic Church to be [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]] as he can find. I said to him that if he dislikes the way the article is named, he should follow the proper procedure to get it changed. It appears he has tried this and failed, and now is trying to make the name change in articles by stealth. This seems to me to be an obvious rejection of consensus. This user keeps complaining that there is a great anti-Catholic campaign that he is fighting about — it looks like paranoia. Please could other admins keep an eye on this issue. — Gareth Hughes 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100's removal of all messages requesting for him (or her) to slow down with the replacements is not a good sign. At the very least his AWB privileges ought to revoked. joturner 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Could anyone explain to me with could possibly be so problematic with the title Roman Catholic Church? IIRC, it refers to its Roman origins as opposed to other forms of catholic churches. Makes perfect sense to me. Catholic Church would be a title that's not specific enough to the subejct at hand. Am I missing something? - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it is felt that the word Roman is meant to diminish the sense of catholicity of the church (the universality of its jurisdiction). Many documents of the Roman Catholic Church do refer to it simply as the Catholic Church. However, there are plenty of occassions where Catholics do add the word Roman. This is especially so in ecumenical contexts. Of course, there are other churches that use Catholic as part of their official title, and many churches that describe themselves as being catholic though without using the word as part of their official titles. The Roman Catholic Church has given us a long history of disambiguation — it is the Catholic Church in union with the see of Rome. — Gareth Hughes 10:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Vaquero100 from the AWB approval list for now. Ral315 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

urgent: I'm being outed - completion of name change[edit]

I asked to have my real name nick changed to my present user name, both on en: and de: However, my real name still appears on the history of my en:user page and the en:talk page. Additionally, I had links to my homepage on earlier versions of these pages. Some de:user is outing me at the moment, pointing to these pages. Please delete their history and all archived versions. Ideally, any link between my former and my present user name should be deleted. I refrain from getting a new identity because I'm "Tickle me" in about a dozen wikis: en/de/sp/it/fr/commons/mediawiki, different wikiquotes, wikisources and unrelated armeniapedia. I'd prefer questions by email to avoid outing myself even more when providing information, thx. --tickle me 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with at EN; a DE admin will have to tackle the problem over there. JDoorjam Talk 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian Summarily Closes Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi[edit]

I opened an AFD for the Dhimmi article which is hopelessly POV biased. The talk page dialogues reflect a deadlock with all sides totally devout to their POV. On the AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi I documented the justification of the move, while on talk:dhimmi you can see the details that justify the view that NPOV is unattainable. After roughly 1 hour of opening the AFD, CrazyRussian closed the AFD while votes were coming in. His statement on the top of the page suggests his own judgement that the 'article was not completely POV' was his reason for stopping the process. I would like the process to be opened again, and for appropriate communications to be made to the admin who, in my view, is abusing his powers to push ongoings on Wikipedia. His Excellency... 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If an article is POV, it doesn't need to be deleted, just edited to make it neutral. The article seems to be on an important subject, and notability is the primary criterion on which inclusion in Wikipedia is based. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase 'article is POV' is itself suggestive of a failure to understand what POV is (see WP:POV). If a violation (and this is the most blatant violation I've seen) of NPOV were never to be justifications for an AFD, WP:ADF wouldn't mention NPOV as the first of the standards articles must abide by. Obviously a user is obligated to go through other avenues before filing an AFD. I've tried correcting the Dhimmi article, even bending backward and allowing the flagrant vioation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to go on, albeit with opinions being described as opinions and misleadingly portrayed as undisputed fact (see Talk:Dhimmi). It is clear that there is no possibility of Dhimmi reflecting a NPOV. I've fulfilled my obligation in taking other avenues, and used the last option that's justified under WP:AFD. His Excellency... 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Lefty, an additional point: if the article deserves to stay in its present condition ( I think it shouldn't), the AFD process is what should be used to make that judgement. For the process to be ended in 1 hour and 10 minutes because an admin has a strong view on the 'POV' isn't a fair move. If a solid arguement for not having the AFD at all could be made, it should have been voiced by CrazyRussian before killing the vote. The reasons he's given so far aren't cogent ones for the action he'd taken.He voiced his own view of things without giving a credible basis for his view, acting like a judge who has no regard for the jury. Admins were never meant to do this. His Excellency... 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I refer everyone to my closing note, and continue to stand by it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
With the exception of User:His excellency, there appears to have formed a rapid, unanimous consensus to keep. The article's topic seems appropriate for Wikipedia. A speedy keep seems reasonable. Deletion review can revisit these decisions, but I would strongly discourage User:His excellency from going that route because it would be a waste of his – and everyone else's – time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule, AFDs last for 5 days unless I'm mistaken. This AFD lasted for 1 hour and 7 mins due to Crzrussian's interruption. His reason for stopping it seemed to be his own judgement on the matter. He followed up with the following note on my talk page: I'd like to ask you to AfD Judaism because everything within is written from a Jewish POV. Ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC). Meaningless rhetoric like that is difficult to even respond to at first. However, it seems the point he's trying to make is that a POV-bias is to be expected in articles, and that my demand for a Dhimmi article that reflects a NPOV is 'ridiculous'. I would question his credibility as an editor with comments such as those, and more so as an editor with such sweeping powers. His Excellency... 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
With the statement 'As a general rule...' you've hit the nail on the head. In some situations we expedite processes when the outcome is obvious. (See WP:IAR and WP:SNOWBALL.) We're not slaves to process here. The unanimous opposition to the proposed deletion should tell you that deletion isn't going to happen, and you'll need to find another way to resolve any problems you perceive with the article. Neutrality issues related to otherwise-valid article topics are dealt with through editing and not deletion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not only was deletion not going to happen, "continu[ing] th[at] discussion would [have] be[en] counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals". - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Or your encyclopedic goals? Explain the "I'd like to ask you to AfD Judaism because everything within is written from a Jewish POV" comment.The votes that came in the first 50 or so minutes were made because of the notability of the topic. "Dhimmi" is a popular word these days. However, notability is not the ONLY criteria that determines whether an article should exist. The AFD should have gone on longer. In time, there would surely been responses from users who'd take the time to read the article and observe the disputes, rather than instinctively respond to the topic name. His Excellency... 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ten, et al., that WP:SNOWBALL and WP:IAR suggest that this close was altogether appropriate (and, to be sure, the nomination stated no legitimate reason for deletion). Even as I think this one fine, though, I wonder whether permitting an AfD to run for a few days in situations where it is obvious that the article will be kept is disruptive or counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals. An AfD such as this might generate much less-than-helpful discussion and consume the time of users who might be otherwise inclined to more encyclopedic purposes, but so too might it bear out the idea that deletion is not the proper means (in general) by which to remedy article bias, in order that User:His excellency and others might appreciate that they ought to collaborate with other editors on the article's talk page to produce an NPOV article. I think the benefits of our keeping the AfD open to be altogether marginal, but I see no concomitant harms. Joe 18:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you bothered to read the Dhimmi article and its talk page? There is no scope for collaboration. The article is in totality built as an indictment of the Dhimmi practices. His Excellency... 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Joe, how did I become an admin?? This AfD was GUARANTEED to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks. One of the functions of the sysops here is to make peace between users, and preëmptive peace sure beats having to warn and block people. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If indeed the discussion was sure to degenerate as you observe, then the harms of keeping the AfD open would outweigh the benefits, such that closure is appropriate. I intended only to express a view similar to that of Netscott, namely that, where there is no harm to come from running an AfD for a good period of time, the AfD should run, if only because some good often comes. I trust Crz's judgment enough to know that if he says the AfD was going to degenerate, it likely was; my notes was, I suppose, more to the meta-question of snowballing AfDs after just a few hours. Joe 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Funny enough I've seen on a couple occasions a lot of good in terms of improving an article's quality (NPOV, etc.) come from AfDs. Still this particular closure was probably correct. Netscott 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure. I agree, this was either a bad faith or simply unknowing nomination, and was clearly not going to be deleted (nor did it belong on AfD in the first place). --InShaneee 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the closure was correct, but shouldn't this be on WP:DRV instead? Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is just one more in a series of examples by H.E. that he is taking Wikipedia and its processes in general in bad faith. He has said that "The people on Wikipedia are deaf and blind to reason and logic" [24], that "Wikipedia has become a soapbox for the Islamophobes, with the consent of the larger Wikipedia community" [25], and has personally attacked editors: "Mostly the show's being run by people like Pecher and Timothy Usher who are basically forwarding the orientalist propaganda drivel spewed by the Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'ors."[26]. - Merzbow 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles have been deleted as unfixably PoV; it was decided that it was easier to start over than fix. On the other hand, this wasn't going to be one. Speedy Keep exists to answer obvious landslides. Septentrionalis 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Dhimmi, speficically the section "This article has no regard for NPOV", Merzbow offered a maliciously deceptive analysis of my contribution to the article. I responded with a correction of his analysis, and pointed out how his work on the article has been in bad faith. WP:AGF does not require one to assume good faith when there's overwhelmingly reliable evidence to suggest an editor works in bad faith. I have made solid observations on Merzbow's work, as I have of Timothy Usher's works and Pecher. Their work is effectively POV-driven vandalism that is aimed at turning Wikipedia Islam-related articles into indictments against Muslims and Islamic history. If you're bothering to read this, please take the time to look at Dhimmi and its talk page. I've noted on the talk page that out of 114 cited sources, 40 of them are from Bat Ye'or, an author who has been labeled as a polemic and an Islamophobe by many and has been critisized repeatedly for her lack of education in the subject she often talks about. Other sources include Stillman, Bernard Lewis, etc. Virtually all the sources represent a single rigid and critical POV, with no significant representation of any view that does'nt host a condemning tone. The flooding of Islam-related articles with less-than-credible and POV-driven (I'd say hate driven) content is a problem in all the Islam-related articles.

On the AFD, I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks the votes that flooded in within the first 1 hour and 10 minutes can be assumed as representative of what the product would have been in 5 days. Many of those who voted did so instantaneously, without actually looking at the articles or the WP policies that were the basis of the complaint. It's entirely plausible that other voters chose to take the time to research the reasons for what I proposed. It's plausible that they didn't expect the procedure would have been shut down in 1 hour and 10 minutes. The AFD was entirely justified, even if the result wouldn't have been to delete the article. His Excellency... 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means, I encourage everyone to compare my recent edits to article space with H.E.'s, and judge for themselves who is editing in good faith. - Merzbow 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Block attack account User:Brianleiter ?[edit]

Brian Leiter is a professor at UT Austin, best known for his rankings of Law Schools. He is also a controversial political blogger. In March, someone created an account named Brianleiter (talk · contribs) and used it to vandalise the Brian Leiter article and its talk page. The account has only 2 edits. I suggest permablocking this account:

  • WP:U forbids "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people".
  • It is (or was) a vandalism-only account.

(I had forgotten all about this account until I read an old to-do list. There's a good chance the vandal has forgotten the password by now, but I would prefer to play it safe.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it indef. Sasquatch t|c 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock stuck[edit]

I have a user User:Phat Bastard that was indefblocked for his username. Linuxbeak then renamed it to User:PhatB. I have repeatedly undone all the autoblocks, and unblocked his IP, but it still autoblocks every time he tries to edit with the message "your IP has been blocked becuase it was recenlty used by User:PhatB. I suspect this is happening because there is still a block associated with the original username, but Linuxbeak erased that account during the renaming, so I can't get to it to remove the original block. I have asked in #wikimedia-tech and gotten no response. Is there anyone who can help to fix this? The poor user hasn't been able to edit for five days now and I don't know what else to try. Thanks. pschemp | talk 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Create a new user called PhatBastard, one second block him, one second block PhatB? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Was originally User:Phat Bastard, no need to create the user again, I've unblocked it and we'll see if that helps. --pgk(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No luck. Anyone else have an idea?pschemp | talk 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Contact a developer? --Carnildo 06:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried that twice on #wikimedia-tech with no response. Hence my posting here. pschemp | talk 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Unblock}} abuse[edit]

Ipclog (talk · contribs) is persistently spamming the {{unblock}} template with a summary of SOCKPUPPETS!!!!!!! I recommend his talk page be protected. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted Block Warning by InShaneee[edit]

The issue is evident on my talk page. Another user called an AFD I filed 'ridiculous', and sarcastically suggested I should file an AFD against the judaism article because it exibits a pro-Judaism POV. In response, I called his rhetoric 'ridiculous'. InShaneee then placed a 'final warning' for this 'personal attack'. I've posted responses in his talk page which he has not responded to. Though the 'personal attack' I made was preceded by the usage of the same word against me, the other user was not served with a warning, or so much as a comment. I pointed all this out to him, he merely responded saying the warning stays, and that further 'incivility' will result in a block. He did not do the fair thing and offer a comment directed to the other user on his same offense. If you ask me, I think this is harassment. I request that the threat be removed, and that Inshaneee distance himself from this harassment. His Excellency... 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The warning did strike me a bit as "jumping the gun", from what I saw comments were flying back and forth relative to commentary and not actual persons. Netscott 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it should be taken up on WP:PAIN. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Entertaining entry in my honor there, Tom. I'll discuss that later. This particular issue involves a comment that couldn't have been understood as a personal attack under any circumstance. The justification for the warning was a single comment directed at some other guy's telling me to file an AFD on Judaism. Funny how he saw a personal attack in my usage of the word, but not when used by the person who first used it. His Excellency... 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Either way, filing an AFD on Judaism is pretty much trolling. InShaneee is overreacting a bit (or posted the wrong warning) but don't file frivolous AFDs again. Sasquatch t|c 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i need to read more carefully. Nevermind that... It's not harassment... and IMO the warning is a bit harsh. Sasquatch t|c 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

HE makes a cogent argument IMO, and the (few) people who have responded here seem to pretty much agree. Note also this post, where the victim of the supposed PA states that he disagrees with the warnings and thinks neither of the disputants has been incivil. I'm removing the warnings per HE's request. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Inappropriate username[edit]

Can someone take a look at Taigkiller (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)? (Taig is an ethnic slur for Catholic, so the name means "killer of Catholics"). From their three contributions (including posting loyalist paramilitary slogans on another user's talk page [27]) I don't think they're here to make any sort of useful contribution. Demiurge 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture beat me to it. Endorse indef. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Argh, I thought I'd done it. Never mind. Well spotted. Proto///type 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User: AFD Waiting to Happen[edit]

AFD Waiting to Happen (talk · contribs) is a recent member whose name may be inappropriate. Also, the user has created a TON of new pages. Based on the user name, I would like nothing more than to assume good faith, but ... well ...Typed too fast, since doing a bit of research merits the ones I checked were real. I apologize -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for username. --Cyde↔Weys 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we normally have articles for minor league players? I thought we didn't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor League players are a hot topic in AFD recently, easily WP:POINT creations. Jaranda wat's sup 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Some we do, and some we don't. Generally, a player doesn't get an article just for being a minor-league ballplayer, but there are a lot of minor-league players who qualify under other grounds: notable amateur achievements, membership on a national team/international competion, presence on a major-league 40-man roster, etc. There's currently some discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), which suggests extending it to a few other categories (players in the All-Star Futures Game, minor-league All-Stars, etc.), and if you have an opinion on the matter we could use some more feedback. As things currently stand, a lot of these player stubs seem to be the sort that'd be deleted with the current precedents in mind. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Being on a minor league team simply can't be sufficient for a biography. First, the athlete's career isn't established yet. Second, the numbers are staggering. Third, the athlete doesn't rise to fame/notability beyond the very local area or the very devoted interest group of scouts. I'd want to know that the other notability is pretty danged huge. Otherwise, the person would just be a name on a "List of players in the all star minor league game" or something like that. A break out article suggests a biography rather than a fact, IMO. Geogre 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I should also note that some of these can be deleted as reposts of deleted content: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd think that normally minor league sports players aren't really notable enough to get their own articles unless there's some other fact that makes them notable. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible return under AFD WtH (talk · contribs), fyi. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. — Laura Scudder 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In case these keep getting re-posted, I'd advise against a {{deletedpage}} on one of the articles, specifically the one for Stephen Head. He's by far the best prospect in that batch, and you could make a case for keeping a good article on him, if there were one. He was a three-time All American in college, conference player of the year for the SEC in 2004, part of the 2003 US National Team that competed in the Pan American Games, one of five finalists for the Golden Spikes Award (the baseball equivalent of the Heisman Trophy), etc. The one-liner that got speedied is no loss, but I'd hate to see this mess end up blocking the one guy who really does deserve an article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When he comes up to the Majors, then you or somebody else can go to DRV and request that it be unprotected. Until then, let's just keep things simple. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right. With any luck, it'll all be a moot point anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would hope, though, that this isn't a general "minor leaguers don't get their own pages" suggestion. Certainly, clubs regularly engage in the hyperbolic "he's the next (insert superstar's name here)" but, if the article satisfies WP:N, I would hope it would stay. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I have a "new" Wikipedia editor, [Pete Peters] vandalizing my talk pages and edits. Arthur Ellis 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I warned him. He should stop adding suspected sock tags after RFCU was declined. Please post back on this page if he continues with unwanted edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A question: Pete Peeters, is a famous NHL goalie; is Pete Peters (talk · contribs) username in question? -- Samir धर्म 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be coincidental, being a common name, but combined with his behavior, I'd suggest going ahead and blocking. — Jun. 27, '06 [23:11] <freak|talk>
Working with this one... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Move war[edit]

User:Lysy started a move request at Act of Kreva on 26 June, and just before submitting it, he moved the page to the location Union of Krewo where he, concluded from his vote, supports it to be. This no doubt was because he wanted to put the burden for getting a clear majority to burden his opponents, and not his own camp. This is why we generally frown upon and regard bad form, if a requester of move makes a move to his location just before the request. However, now the situation has escalated: some other users moved the page back where it was before Lysy's combined "move and request" antics. And Lysy has now at least three (Four?) times countered it. His last move was just a bit over 24 hours had passed from the previous. So his conduct seems to be circumventing barely the restrictions upon 3RR. We call it gaming the system. Situation seems to be that two or three others counter his moves, and on his side, he acts alone. Clear move war, and clear case where Lysy dos not want to respect a majority, but regards himself alone having the right to act. Of course he may be able to fill pages and pages with explanations why he is materially right and how everyone other is wrong and that all previous doings are in his opinion of course procedurally wrong. But that all should not matter much, in face of clear move warring when his own move request is ongoing. Lysy had been requested not to move the page to the location he votes for. So, warnings were sufficiently given, I think. Requests and warnings do not hnder his disruptive warring. I hope you mandate a longer block upon Lysy. Marrtel 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr sean chronic RSX (talk · contribs)[edit]

He's leaving a semi-legal threat at Talk:Canadian Federation of Students saying he's afraid Wikipedia will get sued over content in the main article. Ardenn 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

racist attack[edit]

Hi. Could an admin please have a look at this edit and editor and take whatever action is appropriate? Thanks. IronDuke 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, but I would recommend a block, as he's a repeat vandal. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. -- Kjkolb 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. IronDuke 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark[edit]

I have blocked Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for violating the terms of his temporary injunction while his ArbCom case was still proceeding. The terms of the injunction were that he could only edit his user talk page and the arbitration case pages. I caught him editing a variety of articles as well as his user page. --Cyde↔Weys 02:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, it was RC patrol. Perhaps he should recieve a strong slap on the wrist, but it's no POV pushing of sorts. People have done worse. I was curious about it, but I figured someone on ArbCom had given him the go-ahead via email or something.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree. It doesn't get any clearer than "any Wikipedia pages". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not our job to interpret ArbCom's sanctions. Not that there was anything ambiguous whatsoever about those sanctions, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The link provided shows an injunction that has failed to achieve majority, and the actual Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark page says "Temporary injunction (none)." Is there something I am missing? - brenneman {L} 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't on the main case page, but he should have been aware of it if he had read his unblock message: [28]. I'm not that familar with arbcom policy, but it appears that it should only be a 24 hour block: Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Injunctions, not indefinate. Not that it matters much, considering he claims he'll leave wikipedia if he gets a ban out of arbcom which is currently one close vote away from banning him for a year anyways. Kevin_b_er 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And the log also says "(Unblocked to participate in arbitration)" so, yeah, the message was there. Taking into account (+) that it was new page patrol, (--) that he should have known better, (+) that there was no term specified, I lean towards reducing to 24 hours for forms' sake. - brenneman {L} 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
He said that he knew about it and ignored it. I see no reason why he should be unblocked at all. Let him e-mail arbitrators if he needs to weigh in on his case- we've done this before. Ral315 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, here, both in content and in edit summary, invoking WP:IAR. Problem is, there is a massive difference between ignoring the rules and ignoring specific instructions by ArbCom. I fully agree that he should now deal only with them for any further action. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nah, it shouldn't just be a 24 hour block. The penalty for violating an ArbCom injunction is "stay blocked until an ArbCom member deals with it", not "stay blocked, but just for 24 hours". Hence the indefinite. In all likelihood Blu Aardvark is going to stay blocked for at least a year. --Cyde↔Weys 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course he should be re-blocked, what I meant was that he could have done something much more malicious. The ikiroid 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Charter of Rights content removal[edit]

This was a really tough call. I blocked User: for repeatedly removing content from Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms- an important note in an FA- even after it was referenced, after warnings and after one last attempt at discussion. His last few edit summaries included interesting anti-Wikipedia sentiment and personal attacks as well. Please review. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the anti-Wikipedia sentiment and personal attacks aren't interesting at all. Good block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

External Link Spam[edit]

I am requesting that the external link [29] be blacklisted (or whatever it takes to block the whole domain) because it is being spammed on a number of cases by a number of IPs and forums are not appropriate external links according to manual of style. This is clearly just a case of trying to advertise. I am including some links to the IPs that are spamming them and every single edit done by these users (check user contribs) is to spam these forums. (talk · contribs · logs), (talk · contribs · logs), (talk · contribs · logs), Carlatf (talk · contribs · logs)SirGrant 04:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator by User:Seabhcan[edit]

Moved to User talk:Seabhcan - brenneman {L} 05:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I consider this ANI notice as a bad faith personal attack by those same Admin-trolls that I had been complaining about. Something needs to be done about this abusive and bullying cabal - Mongo, Jersey Devil and others. I am considering quitting Wikipedia altogether if their disgraceful behaviour continues uncorrected. A wikipedia which allows this to continue does not deserve my time. Seabhcán 09:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Jersey Devil is not an admin...I am not a troll.--MONGO 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of article maggot[edit]

What looks like one user (possibly two) has been repeatedly adding things like "Mysogynists" to the article maggot, using multiple IP addresses and one account (user:Sweet Pinkette). Mo-Al 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhat long term addition of nonsense. I'm not sure it's vandalism, per se, but it's repeatedly adding unsupported private usage. (Misogynists do not turn into houseflies.) Geogre 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the page now, and no wonder the user keeps inserting it: the article is a wiki-mess! People are just adding every "maggot-" to it. Our dab pages tend to be undisciplined, but this one's just a dump. We really ought to disambiguate things known only as "maggot." Everything else is "me too." Further, the page hasn't a single reason for anything lexical, and yet a lot of lexical stuff is on there. Blug. Someone needs to come down like Thor from the mountain, kick out most of the stuff (not just the misogyny ref), put some hierarchy on the disambiguations, and then, on the talk page, explain to people what should and should not be disambiguated. Aren't there dab-warriors out there? (I ask honestly. There were some people who were attacking dabs rigorously and trying to make them have some sense.) I hope one sees this need and steps in. I just tried to organize Inspiration so that it moves logically from concept to specific item to artwork. Geogre 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel Shamir editing despite indefinite block[edit]

Although Israel Shamir was placed on an indefinite block on 18 June 2006, by 28 June he was again editing and reverting the article "Israel Shamir".RolandR 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked him. His block log does not show that he was unblocked so I don't know what happened there. Homey 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impersonating sockpuppet: User:NikosPolitis alias User:Erdogan Cevher[edit]

(Sorry, moving this down here because it escaped notice yesterday.) Can somebody please block NikosPolitis (talk · contribs)? He is an obvious sockpuppet of Erdogan Cevher (talk · contribs), continuing a campaign of nationalist POV soapboxing over Cyprus on Talk:List of unrecognized countries. His new username is an attempt at impersonating Politis (talk · contribs) and/or NikoSilver (talk · contribs), both Greek contributors who have been opposing him on the same page. Fut.Perf. 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be filed at WP:RFCU. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Only I thought CU was not for the very obvious cases. This one is, if you look at the edit patterns. Fut.Perf. 11:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing other editors comments in AfD[edit]

I have no idea of how many others he has edited, but this editor is editing my reason for deletion here: Please contact me on my talk page. Or in bootcamp.

Diffs editing my words:

Poster Boarding only:

Ste4k 12:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that would fall under behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia (also see context "swizzling") but also likely Wikipedia:Harassment since it appears that you have been specifically targeted. If you haven't been specifically targeted then likely a warning is in order... but if you have then a block seems appropriate. You might want to notify that editor of your post here. Netscott 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay I am putting the list I found above. I would appreciate not speaking to him at all. He has been harrassing me about his articles over a few days now. I am too new to know if this should be handled at a higher level, or what level that would be. What I find detestable about what he is doing in articles of deleteion is: "How can anyone trust the words written on the page of those dicsussions now??" Ste4k 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
He has made comments that are gender related, but that is probably because he believes I am male. I don't believe that he is doing anything more than taking an impersonal matter personally himself, getting excited about it, etc., and misbehaving as a result. That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that. Ste4k 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about your commentary here but if you yourself have been systematically targetting his articles (I'm guessing articles he created?) for deletion then your own behavior may fall under Wikipedia:Harassment. This of course wouldn't be the case if you were to have found an article created by him/her that was nonsense and from following their contributions history found other corresponding nonsense articles that merited deletion. This'll have to be properly reviewed to understand the full story of what has been occurring here. Netscott 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been looking closely at the entire category. It appears to be recursively linked and resting on very weak sources. There is a difference between a category and personal attack. I do not know if he created all of those articles, but I do know that he should be much less abusive. Ste4k 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse other users of targetting other users articles. No one owns articles on wikipedia. Kindly assume good faith, until and unless you have reason to believe that the user is really harrassing someone. Most of the facts presented here are vague and clarity is required so that some valid action can be taken. The user here (Ste4k) needs to present all the diffs. Thank you. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And also where the same user has targetted valid articles made by the other user. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nearly Headless Nick, get your story straight, I didn't accuse anyone. I merely mentioned the possibility. There's a very significant difference. Netscott 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir, with all due respect to you; I suppose the possibilities that a user might have targetted should be substantiated with diffs. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I made my (unsure) commentary based entirely upon Ste4k's response to my first post but in particular this statement, "That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that.". If an editor was going around submitting article after article for deletion that I created you can be sure that I'd be thinking that person was acting in bad faith, particularly if the articles weren't examples of nonsense. Netscott 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Warned Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) re editorialising of AfD debates. If this is a crusade by Ste4k then it's one I can get behind, since this group of articles is a walled garden concerning an apparent cult. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me that Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) has now decided to make personal attacks against me by putting my name in topic headers and accusing me of a crusade against his ideals. Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles this has been going on long enough and I will put a notice on the adjacent Admin board. Thanks. Ste4k 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Threats by anon. user[edit]

I'll try my best to summarize. I am a registered user since mid-April. I have worked exclusively on Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) and the related article Steam (band). The former article was recently deleted because of lack of evidence to support this musicians claim to fame "Na Na Hey Hey". (In fact, newspaper articles and books indicate that the lead singer was another musician.) During discussion and mediation, the editor(s) who supported the Greg Bravo article ended up being blocked for vandalism.

Other editors have popped up to change the related Steam (band) article. I had revised this article to clarify who the lead singer was (I did this in response to the Bravo hoax). I added the newspaper and book sources. I am now being harrassed by an unregistered user on my talk page. There are veiled threats of legal action because he claims that I am cyberstalking. Another statement was that I would be easy to find. --Fortheloveofhampsters 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, unless you have given out personal information like your real name, address, etc, you are definitely not "easy to find." Unfortunately, threats coming from AOL accounts are hard to deal with because AOL IP addresses can not be blocked for any significant length of time. I'm afraid you'll just have to ignore it. If registered users make threats, or act in a way that ties them to inappropriate activity by anons or previously blocked users, you can report it here and they can be blocked if needed. It's hard to do anything helpful with AOL anons. Thatcher131 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What a lovely welcome for a new user. :-( Starting with a fake indefblocked template from an AOL IP we have seen before, the Edit Summary Vandal (this is one of many edits to the Main page article yesterday) as the very first edit on Hampster's talkpage, and followed up by a legal threatster, also from AOL. :-( And still no wikimedia software solution to the virtual unblockability of AOL vandals has been found. Or prioritized? Bishonen | talk 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC). P. S. I have done the obvious: semiprotected the user talkpage so new and unregistered users can't edit it. All established users still can. Fortheloveofhampsters, please let me know if you'd rather have your page unprotected, and feel free to remove harassing messages from it. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
      • Look at the bright side. As soon as 550 is accomplished and implemented, we can just block the whole range and force registration. Until then, oh well. Use regex and blacklist the whole lot in VandalProof, VandalFighter, Pgkbot... Etal. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Constant picture adding[edit]

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) has constantly added pictures to the Gone in 60 Seconds article. He's uploaded about 25 unsourced images and keeps inserting them into the article, causing the page to become cluttered and out of format (see here). Repeated messages on his talk page have gone unanswered. I'm not sure how to proceed, but MaindrianPace was previously blocked for copyright violations on the Serpico page. PBP 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. As far as I can see the only way to proceed is to get tough. He has ignpored numerous warnings about image tagging - I say we simply delete any image he uploads without a tag until he gets the message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Jose Manuel (talk · contribs) keeps changing the infobox in the Portugal article, introducing 1910 as the date of formation of the country. That makes just no sense. I won't revert him anymore, he is a newcomer, I don't want to bite him, however, Portugal is an independent country since 1143, he is ignoring that, 1910 is the date of the Republican revolution. He also introduced some links of minor importance for the article in the external links section. What should I do? Afonso Silva 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Solved. Afonso Silva 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Yes, Ordo means Order. But these are the names of organizations and like the titles of books, are exact. There are TWO FUCKING DISTINCT ENTITIES AND THIS REQUIRES TWO ARTICLES. DIDN"T YOU EVER LEARN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS? -999 (Talk) 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is having a problem on the Ordo Stella Matutina talk page. I'm requesting something, if anything, can be done about him. Thank you. Zos 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

    • User:999 has now AfD'd the article (which he started himself). I admit to having a little trouble understanding the ins and outs of the conflict and the anger, but I have voted opined "Speedy as copyvio", as the article is entirely made up out of quotes—some acknowledged, some not—from external websites. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

User:Raven Symone[edit]

Raven Symone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) registered and made all of her contributions so far on June 1. She rather touchingly put a "this user is a kid" userbox and a picture of Raven-Symoné on her page, wrote that she was Raven-Symoné's biggest fan, and enthusiastically edited some pages. The next day, along comes this mean old admin, me, and tells her, with a rusty, unaccustomed attempt at sounding reassuring, that she can't use the name of a real celebrity as her username. Somebody else deleted the fair-use photo. It probably didn't matter, any of it, as she had already stopped editing. Unless she stopped when she logged on and saw my message [swallows]. Anyway, what's next? Do I have to be a monster and indef-block the username so the kid feels unwelcome when/if she next drops in? :-( Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I suggest that no action should be taken for now, but if you really want a block to be done, I'll fall on the sword so yall don't have to. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, thanks, Zzzscout. No, *I* don't want any block to be done, personally. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
It sometimes helps to be able to say "We really can't let you use this name, but if you'll tell me another one you'd like to use, I'll change it for you." In future, if you'd rather not have to tell them yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you, since I can click "rename" and do it straight away. Essjay (TalkConnect) 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rose State College and vandalism[edit]

Could someone consider blocking There has been silly vandalism edits for several days which I have been reverting. --Bduke 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This anon is continuing to add the same vandalism to this article. --Bduke 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated personal attack by User:Rjensen[edit]

I'm getting a little tired of being called pro-slavery.

Rjensen (talk · contribs) removed sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, alleging a pro-slavery POV.[30]. He repeated on the talk page that I was a pro-slavery editor.

The disputed text summarizes some of Hamilton's views, as expressed in this letter; I do not agree with Hamilton, and have said so.[31], last paragraph of diff. Jensen replied that pro-slavery agitators would have minimized Hamilton's work, so I must be one of them. [32].

Not satisfied with removing Hamilton's words, he has now reverted, as proslavery, a direct quotation from James Oliver Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of African History[33]. For the source, see the diff or here.

Would someone please deal with this. Septentrionalis 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I've blocked Armhead! (talk · contribs) indefinitely. While he supposedly was a new user his behaviour strongly leads me to suspect that he is a returned blocked or banned user on a serious vandalism spree. Specially he redirected every page he touched to a totally unconnected topic (an article on a British constitutional topic was directed to some town's article, for example!). Newbies don't start editing on WP by doing mass redirects. Usually they don't know how initially to redirect anything. The user seems to me to be someone with plenty of experience and to be deliberately trying to do serious damage, with a number of articles being wiped out and replaced by circular directs, so that they simply would redirect to each other ad infinitum. The fact that he had experience, knew what he was doing, and was deliberately making nonsense redirects, led me to think that this was no first time user, or first time user just messing, but a deliberate serious attack on WP by someone with a vendetta, as so probably someone blocked or banned, hence the block. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism spree, armking3, armking, armking4, armsworth, etc... -- Drini 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Armsnacks ... Pete.Hurd 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I blocked a few Armking accounts yesterday for the exact same behaviour. -- Longhair 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC) making a legal threat[edit]

This is how this user responded after being blocked for vandalism:


What shall we do? Should we block this IP longer, lock its talk page, or both? 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not read as a serious threat, and has been recanted in a similar tone of voice. Give them a chance to behave, I say.Tyrenius 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

War at Warren Kinsella[edit]

I've got a serious revert war + 3RR + litigation situation at Warren Kinsella, between user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters. See my talk. I blocked Arthur for 24 hrs for 3RR yesterday, but not Pete, b/c he didn't revert enough times. They're back at it. I need help - I am simply not experienced enough to know what to do with these guys. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to full protect the article in question so the two can come to a discussion instead of revert-warring with each other. If you don't want to yourself WP:RFP would let the possibilities of that be evaluated by other sysops. Cowman109Talk 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
After attempting mediation with little effect (accusations of sockpuppetry continue to fly and both users are pulling some variation of "Block him!"/"No, not me, him!"), I'm ready to recommend that both user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters be precluded from editing Warren Kinsella. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vote spamming?[