Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120

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

Noticeboard archives

New York City blackout of 1977[edit]

New York City blackout of 1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been receiving daily spam vandalism of a sort new to me. Each edit is usually from a new IP, and usually one that hasn't made any other edits. Each edit adds four links to sites purportedly for buying diet pills, Xanax, Levitra, etc -- and it's not the same four links every day. The links are wrapped in a "<div style="position: absolute; left: -10000px">", hiding them from humans but leaving them visible to webcrawlers, I guess.

Anybody seen this elsewhere? The vandalism seems too infrequent to merit semiprotection, but at the very least having the article on a few other watchlists would be nice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this the only article the mystery spammer has hit? Proto///type 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure; I was hoping someone else had a better way to tell! It's the only article any of these particular IPs have hit, but that's not saying much, since most of them just hit it once, anyway. I didn't have any luck trying to search for the link targets, either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with you semi protecting it for a couple of days. Proto///type 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah. Definitely the sort of article that can attract good anon edits; rolling back this stuff once a day is no big deal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Same thing at North German Confederation. Thatcher131 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Blacklist the sites in question, and run Cydebot to see whether there are any other compromised pages? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sites that have been spammed so far:

Most have been used at least twice, so I suppose blacklisting would at least slow this down. Can someone with blacklisting rights do that? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 Done Adding to blacklist. Naconkantari 03:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: Anybody who's an admin on meta can add stuff to the blacklist, right? ~Chris (squirrels!!) 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Jeremygbyrne's smoldering revert war[edit]

Jeremygbyrne (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) has been chronically delisting in a "revert war" type fashion the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article from Wikipedia:Good articles despite a 11-2 general consensus for reinstatement and polite requests that he refrain from doing that. He has been trying to "game the system" through wikilawyering by citing "GA rules" to rationalize his removals. Below are the diffs that show the extent to which he's motivated to ensure that the article remains de-listed.

Could an admin kindly tap him on the shoulder and politely insist that he refrain from further attempts at gaming the system in this way? Thanks. (Netscott) 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm politely reminding you that any editor can delist any good article at any time even if there is a 1000:1 consensus in favor of reinstatement. This is the way the good article process works. Pecher Talk 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the editor appear tome to be clearly disrupting to make a point. Circeus 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"We are delicate" attack[edit]

Refering to this edit (and others similar contribs) in light of this discussion, the IP (talk · contribs) should be blocked. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it an open proxy? That edit was in May and it hasn't made any since that date. (Though Essjay has blocked it for 24h today anyway.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On another wiki I run, we got dozens of edits with that same text a day until we blocked a fair number of networks they were coming from. --Improv 15:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais oui![edit]

I find Mais oui! a very disruptive influence. He has an agenda of “Scoticising” every article he can - see, e.g. the comment on the “Orkney people stubs” discussion:

Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)“.

(Note: the changes I was making were restorative ones.)

My contributions on notable Orcadians have challenged Mais oui!’s prejudices and he seems determined to take revenge by changing every occurrence of “Orcadian” to “Scottish”. He has even attempted to remove the Orcadian article!

Orcadian” is a perfectly legitimate term widely used to describe all those people I have contributed stubs about – as Mais oui! would discover if he took the trouble to read some books on Orkney. For example:

The Orkney Book edited by Donald Omand
The New Orkney Book by Shearer, Groundwater and John D. Mackay (this is school textbook from the 1960s)
An Orkney Anthology, edited by J.D. Robertson

As an instance, the introduction to the last of these books begins with words: “Ernest Walker Marwick was a distinguished Orcadian ..” My stub on Ernest Marwick is one of those where Mais oui! is determined to constantly change “Orcadian” to “Scottish”.

My attempts to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia are being disrupted by Mais oui! This sort of behaviour undermines the whole Wikipedia project, and, quite frankly, is putting me off from making further contributions.

I feel this user should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (I have already issued him with a vandalism warning for removing the Orcadian article, but he has removed the warning.)

Mallimak 14:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've asked both users to desist from labelling each other's edits as "vandalism", when they're clearly in the realm of "content dispute". Please don't rehearse the same content issues here: if you can't sort this out between yourselves, see the dispute resolution process. In the meantime, consider your contributions in the context of WP:NPOV and WP:FORK. Alai 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by probable sockpuppet of Stoneboy3[edit]

User:Social Rage 70 is making edits identical to User:Chicagoboy3, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Stoneboy3 (sorry for the convoluted explanation, but I did not have contact with Stoneboy3; I did deal with Chicagoboy3). He should be blocked indefinitely. TomTheHand 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked an tagged Circeus 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pattern of edits to relatively obscure articles[edit]

Edits to Dog fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Edits to Old English Bulldog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edits to English White Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edits to Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As folks may be aware WP:RFCU says that, "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser." Would someone kindly indefinitetly block SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s sockpuppet Porky Pig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Thanks. (Netscott) 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Copying my response to this from Netscott's talk page, to seek further comment from other admins...
I'm pretty well convinced. One key factor though, that differentiates this from other cases is that in this case, he was only blocked for this long because he asked for his account to be closed. He was blocked for a week, threw a fit over it, and asked for his account to be closed. And it effectively was closed by being blocked off. But unlike others like Zephram Stark, he's not really a "banned" user. Unless he had other currently unknown socks, he was away from the project for a bit over a month, well over the original one week block. So in general, it's hard for me to justify blocking off the PPig account, given that the only block he's "evading" is one that was effectively leveled at his own request. - TexasAndroid 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Porky Pig account was not used in accord with Wikipedia's sock policy and should be blocked accordingly. (Netscott) 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
An additional User:SirIsaacBrock sockpuppet that has been used in edit warring and negative sockpuppetry: List of marijuana slang terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (Netscott) 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Porky Pig is denying being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. (Netscott) 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not this editor. User:Netscott is debating me at Category:Anti-Semitic people and he is upset that he is losing the debate so he is using alternative methods. I would appreciate you deleting these posts as they are obviously a vicious attack on my person. Thank you Porky Pig 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Both of these sockpuppets have a history of being used to prosecute an edit war and should be indefinitely blocked. (update User:List of marijuana slang terms has already been indefinitely name blocked.) (Netscott) 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, I find the evidence pretty much convincing. My problem with this all remains that SirIsaacBrock is not a banned user. He is only blocked because of his own request. Finding the middle sock fills in a lot of holes. It appears her was only off the project for two weeks at the most. Less if there is another sock that was used between June 2 and June 17. Personally, I would prefer that he return to the original SirIsaacBrock account. I don't like people running away from their past here. He has a history, and he should live with that history. But if he is denying that he is SirIsaacBrock, then that makes it difficult to get him to return.
I would really like to hear from some other admins about their thoughts on this mess. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This editor has repeatedly proven themselves disruptive... and short of returning to the User:SirIsaacBrock account he should just be banned. User:SirIsaacBrock created the sockpuppet User:List of marijuana slang terms to be able to get around WP:CSD general criteria #4 by having his user page be a defacto article that was deleted. Does Wikipedia really want to keep such an editor around? (Netscott) 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon review of users' histories, I see some strong similarities, but I am not convinced. Recommend WP:RFCU. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the histories of two other obscure articles: Bull and Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Staffordshire Bull Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also look at Opera Publica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Joint warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Notice anything funny? Now User:Porky Pig is repeatedly vandalizing my user page. (Netscott) 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, another distinct similarity, both User:SirIsaacBrock [9] and User:Porky Pig [10] are making mention of a barnstar awarded to editors who contribute beneficially to articles having to do with Islam. As well he's now vandalizing User:Karl Meier's user page. (Netscott) 19:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I left a note on his talk page saying not to edit others' user pages, and he complained about the sockpuppet tags being placed on his. I told him to calmly explain the situation (if he wasn't SirIsaacBrock) and stop edit warring and making accusations. He replied by telling me not to post on his talk page anymore. [11] Something is definitely fishy. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's WP:AGF for a moment: I, too, would be angry if I was not someone's sockpuppet and someone kept putting on my page that I was. I doubt that I would return the favor, but I'm not this editor. WP:RFCU remains my recommendation. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW - The telling users they cannot post on their talk page was a habit of SirIsaacBrock. Syrthiss 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh you mean like this and this? Let's put this report in perspective and refer back to this original SirIsaacBrock report. (Netscott) 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
RadioKirk has a point; maybe we should stop with the sockpuppet tagging until definitive evidence comes up, i.e. RCU. Though I have to admit, the evidence presented here is very compelling. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is likely this is the return of Brock. However, Brock was not permanently banned, and if he wants to come back as PorkyPig instead of SirIsaacBrock there is no policy that says he can't. If he's not editing from multiple accounts at the same time, a sockpuppet tag seems like an unneeded provocation. I recommend treating PorkyPig like any other editor--warn then block for disruption, vandalism, etc. but let him edit if he can stay within the rules. If you want to permaban all incarnations of the human behind these accounts you probably need to go to Arbcom. Thatcher131 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131, your point is well taken but User:Porky Pig is denying being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. If indeed they are one and the same (as is overwhelmingly clear imho) then User:Porky Pig needs to admit as much... which he's not doing. In the interest of the spirit of "ignore all rules" should this example of sockpuppetry in disaccord with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry be allowed? (Netscott) 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he doesn't have to admit it, per the privacy policy and m:Right to Vanish, among other things I think. Also note the recent Arb against PoolGuy, who was allowed to open a new account and not disclose it, so long as he stuck to one account only. Before Brock asked for the account to be permanently blocked, he was originally blocked for a week on June 3, even if the marijuana account was also Brock, it wasn't socking to avoid that block since its first edit was June 17. Brock, marijuana and PorkyPig never overlapped either, so I don't see a policy violation.Thatcher131 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, what I know is that this editor was bad news before. He actually got another editor Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked on false pretenses and was going around calling other editors anti-Semites, referring to User:Tom harrison as an incompetent admin. If this editor intends to return to editing in the same ways and on the same topics he was previously then it's ludicrous that he should be able to hide from this past. (Netscott) 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you believe this editor should be unwelcome in any form then I think you have to go to Arbcom. There does not seem to be any policy basis to force him to admit to being someone else or to block him because he won't. Thatcher131 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what he's being accused of here. If he is this blocked user, it's my understanding that the user was blocked voluntarily after he became upset on being blocked for a week. If that's the case he's welcome to edit here under any username as long as he doesn't do so abusively. So let's stop agonizing over whether he's this blocked user and welcome him in good faith, but with our eyes open.
The user was not only blocked, he had a history of making extremely vicious personal attacks against other users; anyone who disagreed with SirIsaacBrock was labelled an "anti-semite" and attacked. So what if he requested his block? (which he did by saying, and I quote him, "FUCKOFF YOU ANTI-SEMITIC PRICKS!!") He would have wound up blocked in short order if he hadn't. There is such a thing as AGF. There is also such a thing as an old dog not learning new tricks. Those of us who previously had to deal with SIB's (SirIsaacBrock's) disruption and personal attacks have no interest in, or tolerance for, the idea of putting up with him under a new name. I for one will not treat a confirmed SIB sockpuppet as if he's a "new" user just because we have the AGF policy. There is no need to "assume" good faith when you have knowledge of bad faith. If SIB wants to wipe the slate clean, his best course of action is to apologize for his previous behavior. Kasreyn 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I just (I hope) defused a little squabble over user pages initiated by the placing of a disputed sock notice. I hope all sides will observe the warnings that I've issues, because I intend to carry them out if necessary. Please do make abuse reports if they should become necessary, but don't try it on. I'll not be happy if I see a load of spurious reports. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the above and decided to block porky pig. Most socks deny being the master account of a sock, and the above evidence is pretty clear. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So much for defusing the situation. I'm sorry, but this struck me as a case of all bite and no bark... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to echo User:Kasreyn's above comments we can see the disruptive patterns of User:SirIsaacBrock in User:Porky Pig. This comment implying that my opinion has been distorted by "hate" in response to a logical question about including a disclaimer in Category:Anti-Semitic people (as is locked into displaying now). And while we're talking about assuming good faith this comment is surely far from that spirit. To further illustrate that User:Porky Pig is bad news: As SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User:NSLE blocked him for disruption on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but as this new sock he shows no sign of having gotten that message as we see here, here, and here. He actually has had to be warned about that not once but twice as this sockpuppet. As User:SirIsaacBrock he successfully had Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked under false pretenses (User:Thebainer had to lift the block) and as User:Porky Pig he seems to be continuing in that spirit. (Netscott) 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that one's convincing. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Was busy doing some RC Patrol and I noticed this. Interesting ... -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 03:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given he was only blocked this long at his own request, and appears to have served at least the one week of actual admin block, I have unblocked him. While I don't hold very high hopes for this user in the long term, he has not gotten himself banned, so now that he has asked to return, I see little reason for him to remain indef blocked. - TexasAndroid 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You unblocked Brock. Did you mean to unblock Porky Pig? If not, I'm definitely confused now. In any case, hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Thatcher131 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I had been expressing way above that my preference in this was for him to return to his original account, and get relinked up with his history, for better or worse. The link given by Moeron just above had an anon, signing as Brock, aking to be unblocked. Not the Pig account, but the Brock account. And since this is where I wanted him to go back to anyway, that's what I unblocked. - TexasAndroid 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense. Given this user's apparent history of hopping from one sockpuppet to another to avoid his negative history following him it is fair that he keeps to one so that if his disruptions continue he can be indefinitely blocked once and for all (which I suspect will very soon be the case now that his history is remaining with him). I have found evidence that this user indeed edited during his original week long block and if this evidence is confirmed then he should be reblocked and have his original block extended. (Netscott) 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So is he or isn't he? Porky Pig posted on MONGO's talk page "I am not this user (SirIsaacBrock)"... Porky Pig is indefblocked as a sock, and suddenly SirIsaacBrock who left the project with quite the display of anger just happens to return? I'm trying to find a good faith explanation why Porky Pig was lying about being SirIsaacBrock, unless SIB has a supernatural ability to know when someone is talking about him somewhere. Syrthiss 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think given this user's apparent LONG HISTORY of utilizing sockuppets towards disruptive ends that it's safe to assume that User:SirIsaacBrock was lying when denying that he was in fact User:Porky Pig particularly in light of User:SirIsaacBrock returning to editing after this turn of events. (Netscott) 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock edited during original week block and should be reblocked[edit]

We can safely assume that since the IP address was used to request unblocking the User:SirIsaacBrock account and subsequently another IP ( was used to respond to GTBacchus' unprotecting of SirIsaacBrock's talk page then User:SirIsaacBrock's ISP corresponds to those IPs. These IPs belong to Bell Canada. This is particularly clear now with him having just returned to editing again under this username.

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of editing articles related to animal baiting even going so far as to create a {{Baiting}} template so it's logical that if he were to be blocked under his username but wanted to continue to edit on such topics he'd likely take measures to circumvent his block to do so.

During his week block User:SirIsaacBrock used at least one Bell Canada IP address to circumvent his week long block. This IP address was (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

The sequence of events surrounding User:SirIsaacBrock's block and his circumvention of that block corresponding to User:SirIsaacBrock's patterns of editing:

User:SirIsaacBrock Blocked for a week starting: 00:36 3 June 2006 by User:Tom harrison

First known IP edit: 19:43, 3 June 2006 on Monkey-baiting an article edited by User:SirIsaacBrock just 5 edits before.

Improper usage of WP:AIV to report User:Hipocrite "vandalizing" Monkey-baiting article:

17:36, 4 June 2006

Improper usage of the term "spammer":

"revert spammer":

User Hipocrite knew who he was:

"rv banned user"

In light of this evidence SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s original block should be reinstated and extended. (Netscott) 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalking of Editors[edit]

I find it rather interesting how much time you have to stalk an editor across the Wiki. Might I suggest you focus your energies on writing meaningful articles, that is a contribution worth making. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If you continue to throw around accusations like "stalking", "vandalism", and "spamming" inappropriately, then I for one will advocate you're blocked for incivility and disruption, in addition to a re-block for block evasion that I would judge to be already meritted. I concur with several other editors that an indefinite block isn't justified at this point. Alai 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New puppets[edit]

Blocked indefinitely. Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • These should all be blocked please! [12] --PaulWicks 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user using sockpuppets to evade block[edit]

An edit war has been occuring for some time in Cingular Wireless, and one user involved in it, User:Locust43, was blocked indefinitely for revert warring, legal threats, vandalism, harrassment, etc. He created a sockpuppet User:Cola2706 who was also indef blocked, and it appears that he has continued his revert war through User:IMac4ME, though the evidence of that at the moment is a bit limited. Of note, however, is that the other user involved in the revert war, User:CDMACORE, was just blocked for 48 hours for harassing IMac4ME. The entire incident is a mess and I requested protection for Cingular Wireless so things can get settled and - oh dear, it also appears that as I was writing this an IP address edited the Cingular Wireless article and reverted to CDMACORE's version, so now it's possible that he is evading a block as well. So, I'm just asking for an administrator's outlook on this matter - should I request a checkuser for IMac4ME as it is only suspicion that he is a sockpuppet at the moment? Cowman109Talk 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I can assue you I was not ever blocked and I am just following following discussions on talk pages about the cell companies. This user CDMACORE is using random IP's to harass me and is removing and adding info that no other user agree's with. I have not done anything wrong. This user is in the wrong. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. IMac4ME 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the contribs, the user has a history of denying they are a sockpuppet (and then openly admitted it afterwards). Comparing the three sets of contribs... [13] [14] [15], there are clear similarities, including a focus on the exact same two articles - Cingular Wireless and Sprint Nextel. The user also used the exactly same edit summary in all three accounts of "RV Vandalism" (which isn't much of an argument, but it's a thing to note, nonetheless, and it usually is not reverting vandalism, but is part of the edit war in which the user claims the other user is vandalizing). The user also has the similar edit pattern of removing comments on his own and others' talk pages which claim that he is Locust. So, if an administrator deems that there is enough evidence that these users are the same (there is also a WP:RFCU being requested, so perhaps it may be best to wait for it), then I am asking that the possibilities of another indef block be looked at. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

However, there are also at least 4 IPs from the same city that edit in support of CDMACORE, leading me to question whether he has entirely clean hands. Thatcher131 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
True, it does appear that CDMACORE made an edit to the page 15 minutes after he was blocked, though he didn't respond to the block notice on his talk page until 10 minutes after that. There is a possibility he simply forgot to log in and just happens to have a rotating IP, though CDMACORE has indeed gotten into some trouble in the past (though he was unblocked), which should probably be looked at as well. There appears to be quite a bit of evidence, however, that IMac4ME is indeed Locust, including yet another contribution to which Locust edited to in the past at the SunRocket article]. Cowman109Talk 14:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do sometimes forget to log in. I'm not sure which edits you are talking about but I don't always see when I have been signed out by your web site. In the future, I will make sure to sign in each time I make an edit.

CDMACORE 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, there are a couple of ways you could go with this, since the checkuser was declined. Locust was blocked for (Harassment, personal attacks, vandalism, legal threats, etc.). If IMac4ME is doing a better job of following the rules, he can be treated like any other editor in a content dispute; article RFC, consensus, mediation, etc. If IMac4ME is still harassing, vandalizing, etc., he can be blocked for that behavior without checkuser proof of a former account. Thatcher131 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As for IMac4ME, he deletes anything he does not like. The Sprint Nextel profile has been being run for a long time without any problems. If he would just post responsible, without bias, then things would be okay. But this deleting things because he hates the company is what is causing the problems. Notice I don't make nagative changes to T-Mobile's profile page. I don't care for that company, but I have no right to bash the them.

If you don't ban Locust43, then please just get him to leave the Sprint Nextel profile alone.

CDMACORE 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved between us. IMac4ME 02:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we both worked this whole problem out. There will not be anymore problems between us. CDMACORE 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chikyuu Sentai Fiveman[edit]

Moved from WP:AIV, does not look like a simple vandalism to me:

abakharev 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Another of his socks has also returned: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). jgp (T|C) 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there is something here I do not get (as I'm not into the topic), but I think the changes could have been made in good faith; there was no attempt to discuss this on the talk-pages. Lectonar 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I recently reverted edits by these and the original IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and by .163 that appeared to be a copy-paste of a monster list from another page, shown by the spacing between the name and the word "Monster". I also notified one of the IPs of the Robo/Robot vandalism which is also notable to this range of IPs for Super Sentai articles (the proper name for one of the robots the Sentai use are usually some form of -Robo, whereas these editors have at times replaced every -Robo with "[Insert prefix] Robot"). Other edits include using the number 0 to precede single numbered episodes. Some of these edits are good faith, but they are done in an unconstructive manner. Ryulong 09:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected the affected articles abakharev 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the IPs have expanded to other tokusatsu shows, such as those in the Metal Heroes genre. Ryulong 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking[edit]

It has obviously got to the point with a post at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking that I need to request a review of my actions. In particular review the discussion at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales and if you can be bothered, the history as some discussion has been removed by the anon editor. Thanks--A Y Arktos\talk 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

- but you need to look at also (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs) - probably not all but gives a sample--A Y Arktos\talk 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I need help please - could somebody else please review (talk · contribs) - he has logged on again to avoid the block imposed for pesonal attacks and is attacking me. By the way watch lists were explained to him.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that this is the same user two sections up with concerns raised by another editor--A Y Arktos\talk 10:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin Stalking I have been online for over 10 years 'playing' all through the ether. In that time I have never had my ip blocked once though I have come across all types in some programs. I have never been targeted online for anyhting apart from a couple of gentle 'boots' from one galah who wasnt viscious or kept it up night after night after night after night. In the last couple of weeks here my ip has been blocked several times when I objected to admin vandalism of stuff I had posted where meaning etc were changed making what I put up a heap of lies. I have made a lot of contributions to wik. I did make some errors as I had no idea what I was doing to start. They were not intentional. I cite most posts immediately, with references on the way in next couple of days re those I dont have the reference immediately to hand. (I have an arm injury so can't pull my cardboard box other filing cabinet off the top of the cupboard to get a couple of things out.) Since I have been on wik I have been continuously stalked by an admin who has been very rude, keeps vandalising stuff I put up, seems to be very fixated on following me around the ether and trying to control my every moove. Of course I told that admin to get lost. I am a former professional stalking/violence worker so have seen how it happens and where it ends up, and dont have regard for that sort of rot. I have never seen it to the extent that I have seen it happen on wik. I will tell any stalker to get lost. Its behaviour that isnt needed anywhere and if I am targeted to the point I am continuously being harassed and my health affected then it needs to stop. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? IS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS? I was going to put a heap of valuable stuff up but given how here is then its best to steer clear of the palce for the sake of my personal wellbeing.

I would be delighted if somebody reviewed either my admin actions or my contributions to the wikipedia - with reference to articles this anon user has also edited. I will take the issues to WP:AN/I for review by other admins. In the mean time I have blocked the user again for ongoing personal attacks.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now for that admin to find I put the above there that admin had to stalk me again as I had to log off, then come back to be able to post. Fair enough if those admins watching some wik articles do keep an eye on them but this post here shows that where I go all over wik is beign minutely watched. There is no need for that. The admin knows I am not a hoon vandel as such so no need for 24/7 watching and stalking. To post the above post, I came here first after logging back on to the Internet, cut and pasted the already written note above, then I went to the site where the admin was vandalising stuff I had put up (this has now stopped after I sadly had to remove most of the post in dispute - it contained important content). It seems that from me going to that article after here, my new ip has been reg and picked up on then tracked back to here to see what else I had posted under that ip log on number. This is totally ridiculous. Its also stalking. Its that that is uncalled for and highly irregular. CUT IT OUT!

I have put the above here as this admin is carrying on with some really bizarre stuff i.e. STALKING. The admin has been changing the content of content I have put up that destroys its meanign so it becomes totally incorrect in substance. When I remove the admins alteration of it, that admin then reverts it then attacks me. It has been totally bizarre that given wik wants content that has veracity, that this is happening.

It would certainly be a shame if AYArktos should feel under any kind of pressure from this bizarrerie. The admin actions are fine, they're excellent. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

Soul – Now you see it, now you don't[edit]

I recently moved Template:User soul to {{User:UBX/Soul}} per WP:GUS. [16] While I was in the middle of bypassing the redirects, Template:User soul disappeared! At the end of the process, I recreated the original page with a soft redirect. [17] I would like to know if anyone here can explain to me how Template:User soul disappeared. I also would like to know if any policies and/or guidelines were violated in the process. Rfrisbietalk 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde deleted it after you moved it away (and that was his cited reason); probably would have been wiser to wait until after all the redirects were bypassed, but you'd have to ask him for more details on his reasoning. --Nae'blis 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So, is this a violation of policy/guidelines or not? --Rfrisbie 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't think so. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre. Admin behavior like this certainly falls into the category of “Lacks civility and etiquette" for me. I hope you all don’t wonder why there’s a lack of admin credibility by “rabble” like me. --Rfrisbie 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do wonder, given the outstanding work done by hundreds of admins every day. This kind of blanket assertion based on the behavior of one sysop is extraordinarily unhelpful. It seems from your posts that you came here looking for a fight, and I think that's sad. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I came here to report an incident. Which seems to have been pointless. --Rfrisbie 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, a whole range of users haven't seen a problem. I'm sorry if this isn't what you wanted. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You moved the userbox to userspace. The remaining link was removed from template space. What was the incident, again? --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Cyde deleted the templatespace redirect before he (Rfrisbe) was done changing all the references to it. I'm not sure if he knew that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:user soul would still work, or not. Seems to be largely moot, now, as I only see one remaining transclusion there. --Nae'blis 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I knew how to finish off bypassing the redirects. I was just surprised (among other things) the original disappeared before I could even finish. Rfrisbietalk 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's a matter of respect for a process on a sensitive issue. Many people have been putting soft redirects in place after the hard redirect is bypassed. Cyde has ignored and undermined such efforts. If you don't see a problem, then I'm saying that's part of the problem. Do what you will and I'll just move on. --Rfrisbie 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Respect for process? If by process you mean hanging on to links to templates that shouldn't have been created in the first place, fuck process! --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for another demonstration of the quality of adminship here. --Rfrisbie 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's something he likes to say. Humour him. Haukur 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we should "humour" Tony when he bites people (someone without background on his views of "needless process wonking" could take it as an attack, or at the least incivility). --Nae'blis 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's never to early to learn that process for its own sake is evil. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's also never too late to learn that treating people with dignity and respect for its own sake is good. Rfrisbietalk 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I like to think of Tony as the lone Vulcan forced to work with a bunch of illogical, emotional humans; we tolerate each other in order to work together. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Vulcans aren't mean-spirited. Enabling Workplace bullying is hardly an acceptable administrative behavior. Rfrisbietalk 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing about wikipedia is that sometimes we have different conflicting processes. Especially things like the german userbox solution, which is at 90 degrees to certain interpretations of speedy deletion. Confused? It takes a certain kind of getting used to. It looks like you've found such a conflict.

Best move is to discuss with Cyde and find a decent mutual consensus through compromise. After that, don't forget to update the guidelines! Kim Bruning 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Rfrisbie 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this all could have been handled much better. No one has even bothered to contact me regarding this; I merely chanced upon it just now. What is the point of going to ANI and userbox talk pages and complaining if you haven't actually taken any steps to resolve the issue? --Cyde↔Weys 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I should have contacted you directly when I learned it was you. I apologize. Rfrisbietalk 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've seen no evidence of you using soft redirects in the past, why would this case be any different? Given Phil Boswell's in-my-face action, I consider this to be a hostile environment. Once again, why would I expect admins to work out a mutually respectful process? This is really quite a sickening experience. Just do what you want. --Rfrisbie 22:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Really, honestly, why are we coddling these templates with "soft redirects"? Obviously we're going to delete them in the end, but why coddle them for a single minute? Those are templates that should not have been created. That they're being userfied is a courtesy. That some people choose to create soft redirects, and the rest of us tolerate them, is the icing on the cake. But don't expect this kind of treatment for non-encyclopedia content, particularly personal expressions of religious belief and the lik that have absolutely no place in template space, to be provided as a matter of course. Administrators are not required to collude in the abuse of userspace. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Right… {{user soul}} is now redundant under WP:GUS and I have therefore nuked it. If you want to use something like it, find a WP:GUS equivalent and use that. The idea was NOT that the templates would remain sitting around in the template namespace forever, that kind of cancels out the point of the project. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Although process is important for things where people tend to disagree, there was no breaking of process here. The deletion of the left-behind redirect is a part of the process of userfying a template. Zocky | picture popups 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph[edit]

Comanche cph (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

This fellow has been blocked three times, the last time was for a week, and he's still making himself quite difficult to get along with. He has some opinions which he's very passionate about. One is that Rollo of Normandy was Danish rather than Norwegian, another is that Scandinavia must not include Finland. Here are some page-histories and diffs:

Persistent revert-warring: [18] [19] [20] [21]

Revert-warring to get a copyright-violation in: [22]

Uploading a very dubious "GFDL-self" image: [23]

Being "funny": [24] [25]

To be fair there he has showed some agonizingly slow improvement. He is slightly less aggressive than he was and seems to have gained some minimal understanding of our copyright policies. He's still violating the 3RR (on Scandinavia today) and he still calls any edit he disagrees with "vandalism".

I think it has come to the point where he needs either a very good mentor or a long block. Could someone not involved in these articles help step in? Haukur 12:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse blocks for any 3RRvio or personal attack without further warning. Editors cannot be expected to coax this sort into "agonizingly slow improvement". In my book, he should get a week's block for the "funny" edits alone. It is extremely unlikely that anything worthwile will come from this account anytime soon. dab () 12:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with dab, this isn't helping the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

I was about to report this. I just want to add that Supermos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), all of whose edits are on Scandinavia and its talkpage, could possibly be a sockpuppet. up+land 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is slowly exhausting the patience of many dedicated and respectful users, and keeps ignoring all attempts to reach consensus and engage in dialog. I reported him for 3RR violation on Normans some time ago, and this is the fourth block for assorted disruptive activities he earns. I'll try to reason with him once again, and I'll keep my eyes on him. Phædriel tell me - 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
We may be up against yet another crusader. People who want to correct all the other reference works here are barking up the wrong drainpipe. If they're really passionate (and Lord knows most are), they're willing to be martyrs to their self-appointed causes, and that means that we end up holding the spear of destiny or driving the nine inch nails. The one critical point is whether he recognizes that we're not supposed to be "true" if no one else is. If he understands that we repeat secondary sources and digest them into a tertiary account, then he could come around. If he doesn't -- if he thinks that these are matters that simply must be true and must be reported -- then we ought to be reaching into the bag of blocks. Geogre 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back, edit-warring and page-blanking (that could possibly be unintentional, but it has happened several times before). up+land 10:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been "interacting" with Comanche for quite a while now and been at the receiving end of many og his attacks so I can probably not be considered neutral on the subject of him anymore. I will however under risk of further attacks state that at some point the community will have to decide whether he is worth it. As Jimbo Wales suggested during his visit to Bergen this summer sometimes we should weigh a problem-user's good edits against the problems he is causing the community and decide if he should be allowed to stay. Inge 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock threads moved to User talk:SirIsaacBrock[edit]

WP:AN/I is not a discussion forum -- Drini 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, except it was a discussion of whether he should be indef banned by the community? Thatcher131 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Can a community block proposal be carried out on the home page of the person being proposed to be blocked? Just seems wrong to me. - TexasAndroid 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to bringing the text back? (Netscott) 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparent SEO/Linkspam to Scientific American articles[edit]

Someone or somebot (this is debated) at the Scientific American owned IP address has been adding links to Scientific American articles. When active, their contributions [26] for yesterday and today have been adding one link per article about every 3-5 minutes. This has been discussed primarily at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Massive insertion of Scientific American links, secondarily at User talk: (tertiary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Scientific American --Femto 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)). The group discussing thus far lacks agreement on what to do about it, and thus I'm requesting investigation and decisions from the larger community. GRBerry 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm powerfully against any link adding on this scale, from what I can tell the links are actually pretty relevant. --InShaneee 19:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has also been brought up on the village pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Scientific_American_linking --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New VaughanWatch Sock[edit]

  • Ummmm hi? The above user is still evading his indef block! - pm_shef 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin User:Tony Sidaway[edit]

Moved to User talk:Tony Sidaway/The Ungovernable Force.

WP:AN/I is not a discussion forum. -- Drini 05:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[edit]

This person using IP: is removing stuff in the Talk page for [Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales history. I think the page needs to be block from Anons from editing it for a few days. -- RobertM 07:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you want a talk page semi-protected because one anonymous editor deleted one paragraph, giving a reason in the edit summary. Before you ask for an administrator to get involved, you might want to start by discussing with the user. -- JamesTeterenko 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
see 2 sections below (Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking) - there has been plenty of discussion with the user and from the user - different IPs but very certainly same person--A Y Arktos\talk 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why I have different ips is because I have dial up so my ip changes each time I log on. Why I have a dial up Internet connection is because I cannot afford asdl. Note above how Artkos appears to suggest there is some nefarious reason for my IP changing. I have not registered for wikipedia as I start back at uni on Monday and wont have time to do any regular posting on articles. I did initally put up a 'new' Aboriginal massacre that contains highly significant content. It happened in 1830s but its been so hidden and has so many other connections it is highly highly important to Australia's history. Its been me found the verifying links re this event but those references can tbe put up right now as offical investigations still underway. They now cannot ever go up her ebecause of the dreadful atatcks on me by an admin etc.

The material that I posted, was removed as it wasnt verifiable by me then the admin began to attack me over that then stalking me. The admin then began changing the factual content of material I had posted which made it lies. Even 'bullets' that the above mentioned robert myers inadvertably moved so they were out of line that I put back, got edited so they were out of line again. The above mentioned robert myers made false claims online about a highly respected aboriginal Elder, then told lies about the coolac bypass by repeating incorrect abc news reporting, but did not cite that as abc news reporting. They are altering the veracity of a very important topic then attacking me re it and given it is me knows what is happening re this topic and am the one with the verifiable references, I have had to remove material so that it wasnt lies, but then along came these editors and put highly incorrect stuff back. Why do some admins and others have to atatck people who put content up then remove sections when they realise it cant stay when it cant be imemdiately verified? There is no need for that to happen and it strikes me its dog and bone stuff that is totally abusive, but the (demonstrated) stalking is also dangerous and none of it puts this site in a good light. I have been stunned by admin antics. There has been no need for any of it and the obsessive nature of it is a concern

I have did not make false claims online about Neville Williams (A Aboriginal Elder) and ive never lied about the Coolac Bypass. I stated on what the local media have said on the issue and the only online story i could find was on ABC. -- RobertM 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam or not?[edit] (talk · contribs) has been adding links to videos to a few articles. This is slow (only a few a day), and the videos appear to me mostly pertinent. Not too sure if I should issue a warning or something. Circeus 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide diffs to any additions that you think might be improper. Johntex\talk 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Individual diffs are not improper, but the fact all edits seem to involve inclusion of a link to some video is rather disturbing. PLease note that I am listing here all edits by this user, all but one include WatchMojo links.
Circeus 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC) belongs to Le Groupe Videotron Ltee, Montreal, a video on demand company. It is adding video links to, registered to Groupe iWeb Technologies inc., also Montreal. I say linkspam. Femto 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vidéotron is much more than a video on demand company, actually. Circeus 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm, missed that it's also an Internet provider. Still looks fishy though that both linker and linkee are from Montreal, and that it's several links to the same site. This seems like one good reason against the links, was there any for them yet? Femto 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's what makes really iffy: the links I've looked at (salsa and irish coffee) whee relevant and actually helpful. If they had been really mindless, I wuld have gone and reverted everything already. Can we block for linkspam if the links are genuinely appropriate? Circeus 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest a nice long talk with the user with respect to what "unique resource" means, but a block seems premature at this point. - brenneman {L} 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rampant Self Promotion[edit]

While going through some AfDs I noted a musician Joseph Patrick Moore for deletion, particularly due to the horrible formatting of one of the contributors to the AfD and the sole contributor to the article, Bluecanoe (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log).

Looking through Bluecanoe's contributions led me to see that the only edits from this user are to insert a link to Joseph Patrick Moore's article into wherever he might fit, pushing notability in the smooth jazz and/or bass player areas. The user's other contributions include Blue Canoe Records, which is identical to the user's userpage, and is mentioned as being founded by Joseph Patrick Moore, and similar linkings to this article in other articles/lists to assert notability, and Decade 1996-2005 as the only album released by the record label and recording artist, with similar linkings in other articles as well.

The only other contributions are to Joseph Patrick Moore's AfD, and it is very likely that other contributions will be made to the AfD I made for Blue Canoe Records. Something needs to be done with this user as a self-promotion/vandalism only account. Ryulong 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The user also claims to be the executive producer for the Blue Canoe label, a Ms. Karen Frieske, and as predicted, she has contributed to the AfD for the record label. Ryulong 04:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection for Bangladesh[edit]

I know today's featured articles are not normally semi-protected. However, Bangladesh has been hit with a slew of vandalism from several different new usernames, but with essentially the same blanking pattern. If a block doesn't take care of the vandals there, perhaps a semi-protection is needed. -- joturner 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright; it looks as though someone has taken care of it. Thanks. -- joturner 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Elonka Dunin[edit]

I have temporarily semi-protected the Elonka Dunin article due to an "anonymous" 172-based AOL IP editor stalking her and her edits on Wikipedia. If another administrator wishes to overturn this protection for any reason, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, I will be unprotecting it tomorrow afternoon when I have time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no stalking going on. I'm not sure how someone can even come up with such nonsense. I went to that article last night, noted wayyy too much vanitycruft for an encyclopedia article, noted that Elonka herself was making suggestions on the talk page of what to do and suspicious edits. So I removed some of the fluff to make it more lean. Then I looked to see what linked there and found that some more strange edits managed to namedrop this individual across a lot of articles, many of which were really not at all appropriate. So I removed them. Today I noticed that my edits had been reverted by an account that was a clear sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Elonka's, and a Google search on the name provided there in combination with "ELonka" confirmed that the two people were friends. So I reverted the meatpuppet's edit, placed a warning on his talk page, and then suddenly the admin above accused me of stalking. So, what, anyone who makes a couple of edits is instantly a stalker? He then used this rationalization to lock the page against policy and to make false threats of vandalism. This is not how things should work here. 08:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Protection has been removed, but if a few folks would kindly add this article to their watchlist it would be appreciated. P.S. we're up to 423KB on WP:ANI right now, we might want to consider archiving some of the older incidents. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding context: the set of anon vandal edits almost certainly has to do with a popular cyberculture webcast called "Binary Revolution". I was a co-host on the program this week, and in one segment I was very vigorously defending Wikipedia [29]. Evidently as a result, there's been an increase in anonymous attention/vandalism and attempted blanking on all of the BinRev-related articles, such as: Binary Revolution, Stankdawg, Strom Carlson, Black Ratchet, Digital DawgPound, my own bio, Elonka Dunin, and further activity on multiple pages which link to my bio page, such as my high school, birth city, and so forth. Sorry for the additional hassle! --Elonka 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh... nice idea, but, again, none of that is vandalism. I just feel that these articles for extremely minorly notable individuals were getting articles that seemed several levels above what was justified for encyclopedia articles, so I made the edits. I redirected minor personalities involved in those groups to the group page, with the thinking that the same info, pared down to more on topic information, would better meet notability requirements. Naming off a bunch of nicknames of hackers and extremely trivial bits of information on people hardly anyone has heard of was a bit silly. No vandalism happened. There was no special targeting. I did not listen to any radio show. I think the true context here is that Elonka and some friends of hers are treating the Wikipedia more like MySpace than an actual encyclopedia, and are stepping in to undo any attempts to make the articles they wrote about themselves more in line with how things are done here. It's unfortunate that there is a high level of paranoia going on that prejudges these edits as some sort of attack instead of needed and long overdue edits. I would suggest that Elonka here actually go read the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy before labeling edits as vandalism. 08:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate agreeing with anons I really have to say that he is right about this article. This is miles away from any of the subjects that I edit on wikipedia, and indeed miles away from anything that I am remotely familiar with, however it is obvious there does seem to be a great deal of self-promotion going on at the article. Since I have never heard of the woman there is no way for me to gauge her actual importance, but it is obvious from the way it is written that something fishy is going on, and I am sorry to say but the fact that she is even so involved with her own article really stinks of pretention. Since Can't Sleep, Clown will eat me is an admin that I respect, he is probably right that the anon was acting innappropriately as well, but I really think a few uninvolved editors really need to rewrite the entire article in question.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgent! User: DISH needs to be blocked ASAP[edit]

The user:DISH appears to be some sort of bot or malicious person inserting spam into Wikipedia articles and should be blocked immediately. This person or bot has inserted links to internet-scams into 13 articles (all dealing with satellites or satellite TV) within less than 2 hours. See

Roland1989 06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put it here Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Alerts you usually get faster responses there.--Crossmr 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming, link blacklisted. The username makes it pretty obvious they were here to do link addition for commercial purposes. Essjay (Talk) 11:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dyslexic agnostic is banned from editing User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow[edit]

User:Dyslexic agnostic is banned from editing User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow or any page in T-Man's user space for six months. He has been made aware that such edits to T-Man's page inflame a delicate situation between the two users and so I have taken this step in the hope that circumstances will resolve themselves whilst maintaining an even keel. The ban is issued per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. Hiding Talk 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding blocked me for this friendly and innocuous post... this block is completely inappropriate. I ask for sanction against this blocking admin and removal of Block's block.-- Dyslexic agnostic 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Frosites Kid page[edit]

Hi, I have as of late noticed that Wikipediatrix has been constantly changing and adapting ana rticle to suit her POV. After several attempts to reason with her by other users and myself in Talk:The_Frosties_Kid she has blatantly disregarded anyone's input and the fact that this article is based on a true subject. On top of this she turns the argument around by making everyone else appear guilty of being in the wrong. It is eveident that she has no knowedge no cares to learn about the subject that the article relates. Please could you take care of this matter in the best manner seeing as I have no other solution. Piecraft 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Article protected. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[edit]

The user currently running off has an interesting history of revisions, it's pretty common to see the revisions as being very POV Special:Contributions&target= and are gradually being rolled back, piece by piece. Could someone perhaps lart? --Blowdart 12:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)