Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

teh n00b.[edit]

Kickaha Ota 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What does one do about a problem user who bombards one's user talk page with false warning templates? Ste4k has been doing so, making false accusations of personal attacks (an example of what Ste4k classifies as a personal attack can be seen when she selectively quotes a sentence beginning "What is a problem is you trying to make that decision for everyone else ..." as "What is a problem is you..."[1]) Ste4k has also falsely accused me of vandalism [2] (for removing, as mentioned above, a set of twenty links she inserted into the "See also" section of the article on rationales as vague as "Hell - Related to Religious Figures") She also claims that I "Remov[ed] direct quotes from a cited source supplied by Nscheffey (talk · contribs)" when in fact, the source she refers to is not directly quoted at all, and responds to the fact that I had to restore information she removed on incorrect pretext, twice, by informing me "Please refer to policy listed at WP:3RR." What can be done about an editor who abuses Wikipedia and attacks other editors by misapplying the mechanisms meant to deal with actual wrongdoing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this analysis. Ste4k combines a stubborn nature with an incorrect interpretation of policy, along with an infinite capacity to be "offended". The drama she has caused over her talk page alone is amazing, but she has wreaked havoc in many other areas of Wikipedia. I have witnessed many editors have unfriendly and bizarre interactions with her, and am considering opening an RfC on her behavior. Her current activity is removing comments from her talk page as "personal attacks." --Nscheffey(T/C) 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well of course you with your personal issue agree with him, after all, you invited him to start stalking me like you do. Ste4k 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And now false accusations of stalking, too. This really can't go unchecked. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Reggae Sanderz, possible sock of banned user[edit]

Reggae Sanderz (talk · contribs) may be a sock evading a block. Some of his contributions have just been strange, like a lame attempt to turn a prodded dicdef into an article [3], categorizing an indefinitely blocked user [4], adding a ridiculous internal link [5], and quasi-trolling [6]. He discovered RfA awfully quickly [7], tried (not very hard) to replace an imposter vote in one [8]. He asked a question [9] that provides the only clue about who he may be (and the most damning evidence of what he's doing). [10] also provides some evidence of who he may be. Hopefully someone who follows ArbCom can handle this appropriately. Thanks.--Chaser T 08:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as sock by Consumed Crustacean. Thanks!--Chaser T 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed

Consumed Crustacean's posted content. I see he's offended by what i did, but he never left any comments on my talk page. Reggae Sanderz 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Accusation[edit]

Hey all, I've recently been accused of being racist,

I am British you racists person, there are many of us in the UK, irrespective of our ancestry. I suggest you move on to another site preferably backed by the National British Party. I would be greatful if you could email me your remarks with your full name and address (you do not have to, of course). Thank you.Politis 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from Talk:Macedonia (terminology))

Normally I wouldn't object, just smile and move along, but I also noted this:

Sorry, your racist remark has been noted (yet again, I think) and hopefully acted upon (unless you apologise) Politis 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (from User talk:Politis)

I don't think that this could be construed as a legal threat, but considering he also mentioned "...You could be taken to court, or at the very least reprimanded." and "I am afraid I cannot let this one down and will return to it, this week, next or whenever." I'd like to get other peoples opinion. Needless to say, this is my real name. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't want to say anything more, but would take advice gladly. - FrancisTyers · 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat. he seems to have a bee in his bonnet. I cannot see why he has taken such offense but perhaps he's suffered racist comments IRL so is extra sensitive. Who knows? What I would do, in your position, is nothing. He may calm down and cool off. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's what I was intending to do :) - FrancisTyers · 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it recurs, if he decides to fixate upon you and the "racism" that has not yet been fixed (by your premature removal, etc.), then I'd suggest calling up the mediation cabal folks to take him in hand, figure out whether he misreads everything or just you, and try to help. "Racism" is one of those rhetorical nuclear charges. The most important thing is not to debate it, I think, as that maintains the focus on some demand that you please someone else, but rather to acknowledge the feelings as a practical matter only. Geogre 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism qualify as a personal attack and incivility. Warn him off. If he continues, give it a NPA warning, and ask someone else to remove the attack. If you can avoid him, do so. If you don't wish to escalate the matter, go to WP:MEDCAB or perhaps WP:GMN, if they're anywhere near operational by now. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and issued a warning, but he hasn't edited since, so no response just yet. --InShaneee 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and the advice, I also see User:Jtdirl has removed the other mention. - FrancisTyers · 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, things are being dealt with in private e-mail and are unlikely to escalate further, I'd say. Fut.Perf. 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Dalek Cab (talk · contribs)[edit]

Anyone else think there's something just a bit odd going on here?--172.149.233.183 00:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Just reverting vandalism. Probably an RC Patroller. --InShaneee 00:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought at first, but look at these earlier edits and tell me there isn't something odd about this--172.149.233.183 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
he's obviously been having fun with his edit summaries. And so? Which aprticularedit are you ojecting? Circeus 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh nevermind, all I'm saying is it's a bit strange, not vandalism or anything, just strange--172.149.233.183 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverting massive quantities of vandalism can be boring. I would say this is an experiment that Dalek likely will write up in his paper, "Investigating silliness as a remedy for boredom." -- llywrch 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


A chain of at most 114 copyvio articles[edit]

I recently looked at opentasks and stumbled on this. The text seemed curiously blocky, so I inputted the text into google and found a summary, verbatim, at TV.com. Now, this would be a simple matter if it didn't appear that just about every other episode summary was a direct copyvio of the summary at TV.com. The copyright policy on TV.com here clearly states, "All materials published on our sites, including, but not limited to, written content, photographs, graphics, images, illustrations, marks, logos, sound or video clips, and Flash animation, are protected by our copyrights or trademarks or those of our partners. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the materials or content on our sites in whole or in part"

This may be a long term thing, but each episode is possibly a copyvio. Looking through List_of_Scrubs_episodes, episode 1 does not appear to be copyvio, but 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all are blatant copyvio. This leads me to believe it is likely that each of the... *gulp* 114 episodes could be copyvio. I brought this up in IRC and it was suggested I bring this here, so here you go. What should be done, heh? Cowman109Talk 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuke all the proven copyvios. With fire. —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Good news; it appears that I did not look through the entire list of episodes, and it seems about two or three entire seasons don't have articles about the episodes, which means we may be dealing with only about 60 articles. Cowman109Talk 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You should probably check User:Thricecube's other edits and warn them that failure to respect copryrights is a bannable offence. You don't need to list them all on WP:CP, just revert to the version before they added huge chunks of copyrighted text.--Peta 04:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize that one user created the pages. I have left a note on Thricecube's talkpage and asked him to see the discussion here. The problem, however, is that many of them don't have information before the copyrighted text. Cowman109Talk 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Scanning through his contributions, it appears that his Star Trek Voyager episode pages are similarly lifted mostly from TV.com. - TexasAndroid 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've cleaned out the violating material out of the Star Trek Voyager and Next Generation episode pages. I have also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek asking for people to rewrite some of the removed material into a non-violating form. - TexasAndroid 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am now bringing the copyvio discussion here, as the matter doesn't seem to require administrators. I have removed the copvio from the first season, and I will get to work on the others. Cowman109Talk 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


User:The Mad Bomber first ever Rfa candidate to be blocked during candidacy?[edit]

Hello everybody. I have blocked this user during his RfA after he made innappropriate comments which may invoke thoughts of the T word and also the R word. I previously blocked him for a week in June for the latter. Is this a proper process or a denial of justice for the candidate? Blnguyen | rant-line 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not the first blocked RfA candidate: HolyRomanEmperor was briefly blocked indefinitely after it was reported he had died. (The block was lifted and then the RfA was closed). That said, a bureaucrat or rouge admin should close this immediately. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Some diffs would be helpful BLN, thanks. --Cactus.man 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Read his RFA. I don't think you'll be needing any further diffs. - Nunh-huh 08:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, just read the RfA page ... say no more. --Cactus.man 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh right, Jesus on Wheels was also blocked indefinitely during his RfA. Anyway, an RfA shouldn't be a window of opportunity for trolling without consequence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A message on the user's talk page saying they have been blocked (with some diffs) perhaps? Just for the sake of convention. - brenneman {L} 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the RFA should be, in my opinion, for trolling, and not the personal attacks. The candidate's usage of "nigga" and overuse of profanity was probably a childish imitation of rapper talk, so NPA isn't really applicable on the RFA. However, it was a completely unserious RFA designed to troll, to give the candidate another opportunity to play. The RFA needed to be removed to not feed the trolls and because, under early removal, the pro/con voting was 0 - 15 after :30. There was no chance. As for the block, it's wholly appropriate for vandalism and trolling. Geogre 11:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been closed; my stated reason was that it was invalid, but it would have been closed early in any event as it had over 75% opposition, and I close any RfA that passes 75% opposition. Essjay (Talk) 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Rule Britannia![edit]

Obvious sock of the torchwood vandal. --Quentin Smith 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


AN/I thread[edit]

Administrator's noticeboard is not a discussion forum -- Drini 05:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yet when concensus is to do the not-so-right-thing... ;) -- Drini 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


New tools for everyone to play with ..[edit]

{{subst:User:AOL user/cab|{{PAGENAME}}}}--AOL user 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


General Tojo[edit]

I've been thinking of not just reverting, but deleting, his contributions. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo (talk · contribs), for reference. Powers 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks.Tom Harrison Talk 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Drowner[edit]

Drowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) denies being a Hogeye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet and wants to be unblocked. I would like to request a review of my block of Drowner. --cesarb 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The disruption block (by Tony Sidaway) is more than appropriate to me, but I am not sue about the Sockpuppetry. Hogeye seems to never have touched Anarchism in the United States, on which Drowner is concentrating. Are there common trends in their editing? Diffs would be useful. Circeus 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Although having said that, could be an RJII sock. - FrancisTyers · 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out User talk:The Ungovernable Force for some ideas he put out about the identify of Drowner. I seem to recall that he suspected either RJII or Hogeye. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally didn't think it was RJII, (that was Francis). But I have to admit that after talking to Francis over email, more in depth analysis and in light of the style of their recent messages on their own and Hogeye's talk pages, I could have been mistaken with regard to it being hogeye. I am starting to agree that it could be RJII. Either way, I am certain this user is a sock of one of these two blocked/banned users. Brand new user's rarely end up on such obscure pages as the ones he did and start pushing that pov. Anyways, their first edit was a revert, which seems highly unlikely for a new user (I didn't learn how to do that for at least a week or two, maybe longer). And although Hogeye never edited that page, as of June 30, four open proxies suspected to be socks of hogeye have edited it. [11] [12] [13] [14] Their edits on American individualist anarchism (which currently redirects to "anarchism in the united states") were reversions to pov forks supported by other suspected hogeye socks. The Ungovernable Force 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Drowner has complained about this on the unblock-en-l list. Could someone please substantiate the allegation of sockpuppetry in more detail, including a checkuer or specific article edit comparisons? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 06:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
User's very first edit was to revert to a revision by an open proxy IP, which is tagged as being used by Hogeye. Other users who are more used to Hogeye's edit patterns also have said it's either Hogeye or RJII. Checkuser probably will not help, since Hogeye is known for abusing open proxies to evade blocks (he also seems to have come back in force last week; Sarge_Baldy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked a number of the proxies and sockpuppets he used). Also see The Ungovernable Force's comment above. --cesarb 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He has sent another e-mail to the unblock list stating that he is "4.156.27.205 according to the screen that comes up when I try to edit." Drowner has added "Also I did not take part in disruptive behavior. Someone blocked me for

"edit warring" but I did not do any reverts at all in the article in question that I am aware of. Someone else was simply deleting everything I put in the article because they were claiming i was a "sock puppet". Capitalistroadster 02:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Giovanni33 again[edit]

Having looked at this issue (see WP:AN/I#Serial_unblocking_of_Giovanni33), I think there's a reasonable solution. On the one hand Giovanni33 has been sockpuppeting and editing in a very combative way. On the other hand, some people believe he is willing to edit in a positive way going forward. The main issue I see is that he has not admitted his sockpuppeting; without this admission of wrongdoing, it is unlikely he will cease from doing these behaviors. My recommendation is that he be blocked until he admits all of his sockpuppets, uncluding User:Professor33, and promises not to use sockpuppets again. Once he does so, he can be unblocked, and given a fresh start. Comments? Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think G33 especially disruptive, besides the puppetry and the arguments which follow. Nor are his puppets generally disruptive, except insofar as they're used to ignore 3RR (always). His puppets should be indef blocked, and he should be allowed to continue editting from his main account without prejudice. Edit-warring should prove less appealing without the capacity for limitless reverts.Timothy Usher 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I support this, it's a reasonable compromise. Taking responsibility for past transgressions is a good first step to earning back the community's trust. FeloniousMonk 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable request. Until he has acknowledged his sockpuppetry and pledged not to engage in further sockpuppetry, I support a block. After that, he should have a chance to earn a place, if his behaviour merits it. Guettarda 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that unless someone is willing to admit that their past behavior has been inappropriate, they are very unlikely to be reformed. The user must be willing to acknowledge that his past actions were in violation of Wikipedia policies, and be willing to give his word that he will abide by policies in the future. Otherwise he should not be allowed back. --Elonka 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I trust that any admin doing either blocking or unblocking is going to commit to staying on top of the situation. Jkelly 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
He should be able to edit Wikipedia, but the socks need to go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that as there have been some clearly wrong allegations together with some possible allegations that it would be wise to get some final desision on what are his socks or not by some that are not involved in editwaring with him, and then take things from there. Agathoclea 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There have not been "some clearly wrong allegations", Agathoclea. There was, I believe, one (not some) wrong allegation — that of User:Deuteronomy2000. I never made that allegation, and when I asked the two users who had tagged that page to stop, they both stopped. It was not a crazy assumption to make, though, as that user account was clearly created specially for the purpose of trying to get blocked someone who had blocked him, as he has a history of creating puppets, and as he drew attention to himself by reverting my removal of Deuteronomy's post. I would strongly oppose any suggestion of blocking Giovanni until he admits that Deuteronomy is his puppet. But I do not think that a brief accusation (against someone who has violated WP:SOCK again and again), which I never supported, should be allowed to weaken the case that he has used numerous puppets.
Regarding the "possible allegations", on the cline between absolutely excluded and absolutely certain, I think the word "possible" comes far too low when referring to Giovanni's puppets. I might include FionaS as a "possible" puppet, but that account is of little interest as it was created just to support Gio, after he was caught redhanded in puppetry, and did not attempt to revert to his version afterwards. But there is no way that Kecik is a "possible" (meaning perhaps, perhaps not) puppet. The same goes for MikaM. Think of it. They both registered around the time that Giovanni was meeting with opposition. They have both edited while logged off, and then acknowledged the edits, from IPs that were geographically close to Giovanni. They both share linguistic idiosyncrasies with Giovanni. They both began to revert to his version soon after arriving. They both follow Giovanni from one article to another, in order to revert to his version or to support him on the talk page. Kecik's seventh edit and MikaM's sixth were votes on the transubstantiation talk page, supporting Giovanni, who wanted to put in stuff about Transubstantiation being based on earlier pagan rituals with cannibalism. Note that the Transubstantiation article was not being discussed at the pages where they started their wiki-life, that no message was left on their talk pages asking them to show up, and that they did not have e-mail enabled. Note also that they would frequently show up when he had run out of reverts, and would just revert back to his version without discussion. Kecik has 40 reverts to Giovanni out of a total of 45 article edits. He was nearly four months at Wikipedia before he made a single edit to a page that wasn't one where Giovanni needed support. And he only did that after I had repeatedly pointed out his record of doing nothing except reverting to Giovanni. MikaM has 32 reverts to Giovanni out of 42 article edits. How could those accounts be anything other than puppet accounts? AnnH 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree to indef block all sockpuppet accounts. If he continues edit warring with the G33 account, it can be dealt with existing WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good approach, and support Jayjg's decision. Proto::type 12:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I support Jayjg's approach. Guettarda and Elonka have it right: until he acknowledges his inappropriate behavior, there is no sense in turning a blind eye to his disruption. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds downright inquisitorial. "Admit your guilt!" Sheesh. The fact that there is disagreement on which accounts are actually his socks and which are not makes Jayjg's approach difficult. It also suggests that wikipedias policies do not work, and that administrators just make stuff up on the fly. If you are dead set on this action, please make it part of the blocking policy first. Otherwise it will come off as arbitrary. ^^James^^ 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't disagreement. Giovanni has never admitted to deliberately violating our policies in a devious way. Nobody who has seen all the evidence has disagreed about any particular account being a puppet. The accounts are BelindaGong (confirmed), Freethinker99 (confirmed), MikaM, Kecik, RTS, NPOV77, HK30, Mercury2001, and Professor33. Apart from RTS, whose IP is not known, they are all known to be geographically close to Giovanni33. RTS appeared suddenly one day and reverted seven times to Giovanni's version — as a brand new users. Brand new users don't normally know how to revert. Within minutes of his blocking, NPOV77 jumped in and reverted back to his last version. AnnH 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is some disagreement, but the point is, this idea is a bad one. Surely there is a better way to resolve this. ^^James^^ 02:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not going to admit to wrong doing, and some of them may not be puppets, so should he admit to something he hasn't done just to get unblocked? What has that accomplished. I applaud the attempt to avoid arbitration, but don't see how it can really be avoided. Wikibofh(talk) 23:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is community ban material. His sockpuppetry is blatant, obvious and an insult to the intelligence. He's here to push a POV and will sock frantically to do it; he's not here to write an encyclopedia for anyone else. I strongly suggest shoot on sight. - David Gerard 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Will comment more fully tomorrow, but just before I go to bed:

  • Rebecca said she was going away for a few days, and asked that things be put on hold until she got back.
  • Giovanni is very unlikely to admit to any wrongdoing that can't be proved. Even when it can be, he's not given to admitting things. For example, he has claimed that his only edit warring was at the very beginning when he "didn't know the policy at all", despite the fact that there are numerous diffs to show how he was told about the 3RR over and over again, and was not reported until he had carried out numerous violations after the warnings.
  • I think we should try to discuss things here before any blocks are implemented (other than blocks for new offences), and should also avoid unblocking without full discussion. His block log is, I would say, rather embarrassing to administrators.

I have e-mailed a full account of Giovanni's puppetry, with evidence, to members of the ArbCom. Or, to be more accurate, I e-mailed it to a senior Wikipedian who is able to access the ArbCom mailing list, and asked him to forward it. AnnH 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


IP evading block[edit]

On the List of religions page an IP keeps adding Matrixism with a link to a Geocities site. Matrixism, as an article, has been deleted twice as non-notable, and yet a couple IPs keeps adding the link even after the discussion on the talk pages (See the archive as well). One IP (User:71.139.66.105) was blocked by User:UtherSRG, but he has evaded his block by using another IP User:69.226.105.161. Secondly, I've tried, as a compromise, to leave the bulleted item in place, but remove the link to the geocities site, as it is a linkspam, but the IP keeps reverting that as well. Can the page be semi-protected? I have reached by three-revert limit for the day, so I cannot do anything anymore today. He, on the other hand evaded 3RR by using multiple IPs. -- Jeff3000 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that WP:3RR provides an exception in the case of clear vandalism. I'm not an admin, but I really doubt admins who read this will disagree: go ahead and revert him for now. I'll help out too. 3RR is not meant to straitjacket legitimate editors faced with sockpuppetry. It is only meant to enforce a sort of equality between editors who have varying amounts of time they are able to devote to the project. Kasreyn 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
After User:71.139.66.105 and User:69.226.105.161 were blocked , the user is using another IP (User:69.225.13.17). The consensus on the talk page is that the addition is linkspam and non-notable, yet the user, through multiple IPs has violated 3RR and keeps on adding the link on the page, in addition to other pages. I would suggest a semi-protect. -- Jeff3000 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins, please take note that the "Matrixism" linkspammer is approaching 3RR, refuses to discuss the issue of notability, and has begun to engage in personal attacks against other editors, in this case User:Jeff3000. I am beginning to feel that the user has no intention to work with others constructively at this encyclopedia and seeks to own List of religions. Kasreyn 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: that was fast. The user is now in violation of 3RR. I have continued to revert him beyond my own 3RR limit, in cognizance of the "clear vandalism" clause of WP:3RR. I understand that revert wars are undesirable on Wikipedia, but I also strongly feel that blatant vandalism and attempts at ownership of articles should be firmly repudiated. I will immediately desist reverting the vandal if anyone (other than the linkspammer) asks me to on my talk page. Thanks, Kasreyn 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Similar nonsense bios[edit]

I'm currently doing CSD deletions and I came across James Wamble whose article looks very much like the one I deleted about Derny Bullard a few minutes ago. I think it's obvious the creators are sockpuppets or a group of people behind one computer having fun... Can someone else see if they can find more such articles? Should I request a sockpuppet check to avoid any new accounts from these people? Otherwise we may still be deleting next week. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who found these 3 articles by chance by checking what pages link to Regis Philbin. I also found Trapped in the Pantry and Josh Paisant yesterday. Plus they seemed to be reposted from the deleted George DeWalt article mentioned in the Pantry discussion. It's some odd behavior, indeed. Tinlinkin 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Derny bullard has just come up. Tinlinkin 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing it out. I've requested a checkuser to stop the creation of sock accounts from that IP. It is obviously the same person. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I'm anxious to see how this pans out. Tinlinkin 10:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Legal Threats[edit]

Anon IP 82.133.83.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making legal threats here and here. It is a static DSL IP so a block or ban will not impact innocent users.--Isotope23 18:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User already was blocked 24 hours and has not edited since. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah so they were... missed that. Thanks.--Isotope23 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Jersykohttp violation of 3RR[edit]

User:Jersykohttp has violated 3RR at Sufjan

Those reports go at WP:AN3. Also, please sign your posts. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Guidelines for Editing Freemasonry Related Articles[edit]

In so much as the policies are in place, by "WPs", already, and generally applied to all Wikipedia - why is the Freemasonry articles page(s) seen as a "special case" - and upon what authority? If the WPs need amending, then why not use the channels of communication set out for that purpose? I see no "moral authority to chastise someone who violates it" behond that given to everyone by the general WPs - indeed the special policy - as set out and interpreted already - looks much like a charter for a Police State separated from the rest of Wikipedia. When would the "legal" vendetta murders" start? :( In short Why is the above needed? Why not in good faith point out the generally agreed Wiki Policy documents, and rigorously use the consensus "disciplinary" protocols set out therein? Mousescribe 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Could you give some links to indicate what you are talking about? --Carnildo 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
To Carnildo. I do not know how to link to the specific section, but see Freemasonry current talk page section "Proposed Guidelines for Editing Related Articles". This is quite important, in my view.

My 42 is in (Base 13)

Probably related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Imacomp and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp. Thatcher131 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Try signing your stuff [user?], and no its not, I just do not want a Police State set up as a special area in Wiki. I am allowed to raise a question with Admin. My 42 is in (Base 13) PS Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, [not different disputes or multiple users]. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with My 42 is in (Base 13) 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC). I'm not Imacomp. My 42 is in (Base 13) 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you registered your account 2 days ago and have never edited any article, much less articles on Freemasonry, you obviously don't have anything to complain about, do you? Thatcher131 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see also sock discussion.ALR 21:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
(Yes do, as I'm not a sock either - try getting a factual sign-on protocol for editors here, "Witchfinder" with checkuser is no use.) So you agree officially with a Police State setup? It is not a complaint, it is a question on Wiki policy. Also if you are linking me to "Imacomp" you have done a "covert" checkuser to show I have the same IP address. Why not just ask? I feely tell you that I Have, "He" is my Grandpa, and the IP address a/c is with Blueyonder, under Grandma's name. Also Grandpa "Imacomp" is a Freemason, as is my Father "mousescribe" - and I am not. OK?. If you "like" the proposed special case @ Freemasonry, then I think I'd better look for a more direct route up to Jimbo Whales? My 42 is in (Base 13) 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any particular viewpoint on the discussion there. If you feel the other editors there are creating special policies that differ from normal wikipedia policy, the best place to bring it up is the Village Pump, for starters. Admins can delete articles and block users, but with respect to article content, they're just editors. There's no point in bringing the issue here unless you want someone blocked or something deleted. Thatcher131 23:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Tell it to Jimbo, I'm "Just a sock"(?) right? You could have just directed me to the “Village Pump” in the 1st place (?) I just cannot be bothered wasting any more life here, now :( Lucky I did not use my real ID here. (Are the CIA goimg to track me now?) I would not want to be "murdered" by the so-called "Freemasons" (and not counting My family, I do not think any REAL ones actually Edit here, except the German "Irregular" one) This is a very sad place. Bye, and I'm sorry that "Jimbo's" idea has been so corrupted :( My 42 is in (Base 13) 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)



More inappropriate usernames[edit]

Someone needs to get around to blocking non-roman alphabet usernames filling up the new user log. Judging by the repeated hangeul characters, I'd venture to guess it's the same IP. For example:

There are a few more, too.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just done those three, and I'm currently looking for any more. Raven4x4x 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Administrator provoking 3RR problem with bad behavior[edit]

This incident troubles me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive22#User:Xombie_reported_by_User:Mailer_Diablo_.28Result:_8h.29

Mr/Ms Diablo, who is an administrator, inserted a derogatory personal opinion regarding the subject of the article, more than once. Xombie, who was policing the article for such comments, since it involved a current event drawing much attention (the World Cup final) properly removed the Diablo posts, as well as those from other users. Diablo then complained about Xombie, listed as 3RR violations Xombie's clearly correct removal of inappropriate posts as well as some that were more debateable. William M. Connelly then blocked Xombie without giving him a chance to respond. The comments Xombie removed often bordered on vandalism. More important, the deletion of derogatory unsourced information from the biographies of living persons is an exception to the 3RR rule. The comments Xombie deleted either violated that directly or were derogatory personal opinions, which are even worse. He did not delete any appropriate, purely factual, sourced comments. One or two of the deletions were partially sourced, but the text went beyond the sources. I think this is an example of an administrator acting out of pique and ignoring the fact that his own postings violated Wikipedia policy. He should at least have been warned about the derogatory comments/living persons and edit warring involved. Xombie deserves an apology. VivianDarkbloom 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you Xombie? It would be a lot easier for you to be honest about your interest in this subject, and you relationship with these users.
And as another note, it is forbidden to use a sockpuppet for voting purposes, as you have. Perhaps we could make an exception if you identify your master account, but you have not done so, therefore your account is liable to be blocked.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
On looking at the history, it appears to me that Mailer diablo acted correctly, and the material repeatedly removed by Xombie was not inappropriate. It also seems that many editors to this article grapple with spelling. --Jumbo 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Exhausted the Community's patience Ban of User:SirIsaacBrock[edit]

The follow text is copied verbatim from User:Tony Sidaway's talk page:

Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.
The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One sockpuppet User:Porky Pig (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. (Netscott) 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He has returned to inserting crufty descriptions of not notable fights between dogs and what not into various article that were questionable when he first wrote them without sources. Shouldn't users on the return from long blocks be expected to have reformed somewhat? Is this a case for ArbComm? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Given his behavior, I think a nice long block would be in order here. Certainly his harassment of editors (for having been given particular barnstars, no less!) has to stop; whether he'd prefer to do so of his own volition is up to him. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Given his already demonstrated behavior and the associated behavior mentioned in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp with the corresponding block logs of the sockpuppets mentioned there below it is not unreasonable to enforce a community ban on this editor:

(Netscott) 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Of these, Battlefield seems to be the only one currently contributing. The others are all dormant, and we don't want them any other way. Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Blocking?[edit]

While looking up information, I found myself "blocked". I'm not affiliated with Wikipedia or an editor, so I guess I don't understand what this means. I have looked up things with Widipedia before... and I wasn't blocked. I have no idea what this means... any help with clarification would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.65 (talkcontribs) .

We can't help much, due to the way this page is structured, unless you sign your posts by typing four tildes (this character ~). Then we can see what IP you're using and find out why you got blocked. The most likely scenario is that you are an AOL or Netscape ISP user who was blocked as part of "collateral damage" when a vandal was getting stopped. If that's the case, people here will unblock you, but we have to know where to look. Geogre 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I've signed for the anon user. From the block log, your guess about AOL vandal collateral damage appears to be on the money. Kasreyn 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Charhally[edit]

Charhally (talk · contribs)

Spamming Wikipedia with unencyclopedic articles about Wake Forest University (such as Wake Forest Study Abroad Programs, Wake Forest Greek Life, Wake Forest Undergraduate Student Housing, Four Years at Wake Forest) at a rate that reached one new article a minute. Many of these are likely copyright violations from offline print sources (possibly promotional material from the school), and those that aren't are likely OR. He also spammed Wikimedia with 50+ Wake Forest images,[15] all unsourced. He was blocked on Wikimedia for repeatedly uploading unsourced images, and after the block expired he "corrected" the problem by erroneously tagging all the images GPL (which only applies to software), and still did not add any source info.[16] I've alerted the Wikimedia admin that blocked him the last time, but I'm sure they could also use some help tagging the images as unsourced. He may just need some help at this stage, but unless he puts on the brakes long enough to actually notice what this site is about, he's just going to be disruptive. Postdlf 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

Complete removal of history of user page[edit]

This page history used to be huge. Someone completely emptied any history in it. Can someone explain this? --mboverload@ 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"View or restore 91 deleted edits?" Raul654 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Users may ask to have their pages deleted. See Wikipedia:User page. -Will Beback 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize that included the history. --mboverload@ 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Raul, only Admins can see erased histories....or perhaps you thought mboverload was an admin? A user, as well as an anon, sees a very abridged edit history.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but anyone can see the log. Wikipedia was designed so everything would be logged, and no one is out of the loop. There is an exception to this fundamental rule, with oversight. Honestly, although I understand why, I don't like it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Prodego talk 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:BEANS aside, stop and think for a moment about what is user-specified, could contain personal information, and showed up in the oversight log before it was made private. If you can't figure it out, email me and I'll explain. Really, there isn't sinister intent to *everything* that happens around here. Essjay (Talk) 07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Right...bwa ha ha.....the cabal wins again! No, seriously, I support this idea, anything that protects users from snoops at Hivemind and Wikitruth can't be evil...and with Essjay at the wheel, I'm not really worried about oversight. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Damburger Personal Attacks[edit]

The user has been making personal attacks to other users.

I understand how someone as ignorant as yourself is desperate to silence those with contrary opinions, but now you are being fucking pathetic. Every time I post something to that page you remove it and are now threatening me with a block merely for voicing my opinion. Congratulations on being a Fascist. Damburger 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [17]
It isn't "common knowledge" at all, outside of your Rambo fantasies. Damburger 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [18]

The user who is being harassed is an admin but will likely be attacked as "abusing his admin privleges" if he attempts to give a temporary block to this user. So I suggest that a neutral third party enter this.--Jersey Devil 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Naconkantari 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I spoke to him on IRC yesterday and tried to explain that, yes, he was making personal attacks and the admin wasn't being abusive by removing the comments. He didn't get it. Concur with a slap on the wrist, since it seems to have persisted Shimgray | talk | 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Satris[edit]

User:Satris is repeatedly removing 'wikify' and 'unreferenced' tags from several articles, and reinserting commercial links and endorsements into Laser hair removal. He is on the verge of violating 3RR (if he hasn't already, by now) on several articles. I have left several messages on his talk page, but he has not responded, and has not changed his behavior. I've reverted him enough for tonight, and I want to go to bed. Could someone keep an eye on him, please? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't issued a warning, yet, but I'm about to. He does seem to have very narrow interests -- something called Ten O'Clock Classics, which he bolsters a great deal, and laser defoliation. The removals of tags seem to be a very naive form of OWN, too. If he continues after the warning (I won't watchlist him), please flag the mediation folks to see if he'll respond. If he doesn't respond and keeps going, then he's probably not here to help the encyclopedia, but rather to advertise. Geogre 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I now see he's in the time-out corner for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Repeat offenses will up the blocks (and he has 4 warnings). Geogre 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, all. It looks like we had a good community response on this. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Xed[edit]

Since this user was reblocked by Jimbo for his continued trolling and he has continued on his talk page including attacks on other editors I have protected his talk page. --pgk(talk) 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tor blocks[edit]

Since the implementation of anonymous-only blocks, I think it's time to review our policy of blocking Tor exit nodes. I believe that we are better off removing all Tor blocks and replacing them with anonymous only blocks with no account creation. It has also been suggested by User:Gmaxwell that we use a bot to update these blocks based on the list provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Comments are welcome. Werdna (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • yes, well, your "anonymous only" blocks seem to also be preventing account creation/use--172.144.86.145 06:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I support the unblocking of Tor, as it's the only way those in Mainland China can access Wikipedia. - Kookykman|(t)e
I'm ok with unblocking tor under previous access restrictions, the anon blocks and no account creation must me on in my books, though I wouldn't want to be the poor person who goes thru and does all of the blocks, I'll let someone else run a bot to do it -- Tawker 04:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd do it, but I don't have the sysop bit. Werdna (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Holy crappy educational comics, Batman! Fire the Curps-Signal! Will (message me!) 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Ste4k[edit]

I'm not sure how to handle this user. Also see the contibutions.
I'm just completely and utterly tired of this user and their "attitude". I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I'm on vacation, I shouldn't even be here. --mboverload@ 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this user for a while without significant problems, I think she has a slight tendency to be paranoid about stuff on WP. I'll have a chat. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Off topic - why the scure link for the contributions? - brenneman {L} 12:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was over an unsecure wireless network =D --mboverload@ 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think JzG's interactions with Ste4k represent the exception to the rule. Look at her talk page (which she has repeatedly removed comments from) and her bizarre arguments on Talk:Endeavor Academy. User:Antaeus Feldspar posted a good summary of her actions on this page, but it was archived. I'm not sure what to do about her either, but something needs to be done. --Nscheffey(T/C) 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:SirIsaacBrock Fan Club Members[edit]

Did anyone notice that most of the individuals involved in this discussion are people I have debated at the Category:Anti-Semitic people talk page and might have the Islamic Barnstar image on their User Page ? It seems many of them have sour grapes that they keep losing the votes to close and rename the group and are hitting back at me "By any means necessary" -:) SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this call for a life time ban too ? Would it be be hippo-critical to accuse someone of something they have done themself ? -:) Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I for one have nothing to do with Wikiproject Islam and do not have an Islamic Barnstar. I merely oppose your edits and support blocking you because I have seen few editors more disruptive than you in my time at Wikipedia. (I'd say Thewolfstar is the only one who tops you.) Your belief that anyone who opposes you on cat:Anti-Semitic people and related articles must be an "anti-semite" is an example of your demonstrated routine failure to assume good faith, and your neverending personal attacks, such as (incorrectly) calling netscott a "spammer" when the section heading he wrote was factually accurate at the time he wrote it, are the principle reasons why I support the idea of such a block. Your attempt to escape your past as User:Porky Pig failed, and so now you blame the poor reception your personal attacks has earned you on a past vote. I'd like to point out that none of the other editors who sided with you on the delete vote have been blocked that I know of, and many of them still participate collegially with those of us who voted to delete the category. The odd one out in this equation is you. I suggest ceasing the personal attacks, ceasing to assume bad faith, and working with us. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Amusingly, another editor has come to almost exactly the same conclusion about SIB's editing style. Funny how two separate editors who've never met before could come to the same conclusions independantly, eh SIB? Don't worry, I'm sure it's all just a massive anti-semitic conspiracy against you. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Based upon the above evidence, short of an Exhausted the community's patience ban, this editor should abide by his own previous statement, "CLOSE MY FUCKING ACCOUNT NOW !!! I QUIT THIS SHIT-HOLE !!" and return to the "I QUIT" state. (Netscott) 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we can safely say "Not here to help build the encyclopedia". "Abusive sock farm" fits well, too. An indefinte block seems just right to me. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Brock has also used the administrator WP:AIV page to have me blocked when I was editing his high school article (I was adding an infobox to the school article). There are a few cases mentionned above of improper use of AIV, but my name was not one of the ones listed. I have in the past gone through a large section of Brock's contributions, and there are easily-detected patterns of:
  1. improper edit summaries, with comments about reverting "spammer" or "vandal" if SIB doesn't like the previous edit
  2. if SIB doesn't like a talk comment, he typically posts on that user's page telling them to "stop spamming" him, or tells users to keep "McOpinions" to themselves
  3. abusive comments are typically signed "Cordially"
  4. small bound of interest; does not edit all over Wikipedia, but typically acts like he WP:OWNS articles about dogs, baiting, some army/warfare, and an obvious fascination with the anti-semitic category
I would support a ban or action taken against this user from my previous experience with this user. In the 4 or 5 months in which our paths crossed several times, all incidents were negative experiences. My talk archive contains the details of my run-ins with this user. FWIW, I'd also look at User:Battlefield -- through this account is currently dormant, I suspect it is also another account for this same user (for example, [19]). --Stephane Charette 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen enough. I support the blocking of this user as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --InShaneee 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. More than enough - I have blocked him. WP:ROUGE applies, as ever. I will also block the sockfarm. Just zis Guy you know? 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be too hasty; I'd like to maintain a balance between the users who call me an anti-Muslim racist and those who say I'm a pro-Muslim anti-semite. ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with his edits here, but content to allow you to modify or remove the block as you see fit since you have more experience of this particular editor. Please feel free to unblock. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
From being familiar with the history of Tom Harrision's own blocking of this individual it is fairly safe to say that his comments are examples of sarcasm. :-) (Netscott) 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was meant as sarcasm. Sorry, I'm not very good at it. Maybe I need to practice more. Block him, all his socks, and his little dog too. Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
See, even the arch-Brit can fire up the brain with the irony filter disabled sometimes ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Panairjdde blocked[edit]

I'm not clear just how this burr got under his saddle, but Panairjdde needs some time to cool off & reflect on his behavior.

History: As you may have noticed, he's been involved in an edit war at Montanism over whether the letters "AD" should appear in the article (after the words "second century") because they are redundant. He has also been removing this abbreviation entirely from many other articles apparently for the same reason. Panairjdde argued at Talk:Montanism that the Manual of Style gave him the right to remove this term; however, various editors who disagreed with this interpretation must have presented a good case, because he immediately proposed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) a change in the guidelines that would support his interpretation.

(Warning: here I became involved, & pointing to Panairjdde that redundancy was not the most convincing argument justifying his deletion of "AD" entirely from articles, & pointed to the guidelines at WP:BEANS. I tried to keep my tone friendly & non-confrontational. I also asked him if there was another reason for his dislike of this term, but never saw an answer.)

Last night I saw that Panairjdde had announced that he dropping the matter, & thought that was the end of the matter. This morning, I noticed that he had made these edits to Honorius (emperor), adding "AD" before every appearance of a year. Here I felt he had stepped over the line & caused a disruption to make a point, so I left this warning on his talk page. (Afterwards, I saw that he had engaged in reversion wars over this usage at the article on Pope Stephen II, his third reversion in 24 hours, & at Pope-elect Stephen third reversion here in 24 hours. It had no effect, as shown by his response, & that he immediately moved to another article. I admit that in these examples he was stopping just short of a clear violation, but the intent overshadows his attention to the letter of the rules.

PS -- From this, it appears he might not be willing to listen to me. Anyone else want to attempt to reason with him? -- llywrch 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments (maybe even a scapegoat is allowed to present its own POV):
  1. "various editors who disagreed with this interpretation must have presented a good case" They did not, since we kept discussing. But my point was never (never) disrupting Wikipedia, on which I have been working since 2002. Just because a lot of people did not like the way I was editing (and a few even said I was right) I asked for third opinion and a MoS modification to let the rule be clearer.
  2. "I also asked him if there was another reason for his dislike of this term, but never saw an answer." I answered you, pointing out that my change proposal was against redundancy, not against AD (in the AD/CE diatribe, I am for BC/AD and against BCE/CE), so it included AD and CE.
  3. As regards "dropping the matter", I asked to be allowed to apply the MoS with the same degree of liberty CodexSinaiticus (the user I started to edit war agains in Montanism, after several other "redundant Ad" removals found no opposition). Since this right was not granted, I decided to change position, and do what Codex Sinaiticus have been doing in all his edits, that is adding AD wherever possible (and note that CS adopts this policy because he want to push a religious POV, as you can see from his talk page and edits).
  4. None of my edits disrupted anything. If anyone is able to show me that I disrupted anything, I shall disappear totally from Wikipedia. The problem is that llywrch did not find it good to point to any disruptiveness (I was just adding ADs in front of the years, as well as doing other uncontroversial edits). I also asked him why the same kind of edit was disruptiveness when I did it and not when Codex Sinaiticus did (no answer, of course).
  5. It is also the second time, at least, that an administrator blocks me out of no reason. I was good the first time, waited for the block to expire, discussed with him, and in the end he recognized I was right and the block was wrong (User_talk:Panairjdde/Archive2#Block_for_violation_of_3RR, end of the post).
In the end, I did (not Codex Sinaiticus did, or any of those writing "settle this matter trough consensus" did) all I could do to settle this matter within WP rules. But, when I acted according to the "rules" set by a stubborn user (CS) and by the indifference of everybody to the matter, I got blocked.
If this will end without llywrch excuses, I kindly ask you to block me forever. Thanks alot.--151.47.126.70 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block)
  • Comment In the interests of honesty you should probably add that you have evaded your block by continuing to edit several of the articles as User:151.47.99.146, including Edict of Milan with the illuminating edit summary "I am Panairjdde, and I am not experimenting" in response to my level 1 warning. --Guinnog 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true, because in no case I wanted to hide the fact that it was me who was doing those edits. I feel I was kind and nice the whole time, and got treated bad, by you, llywrch and others. Since being nice on WP does not pay, I feel free to act in the way I see best, taking my responsabilities, by signing my IP-address posts like in your case and in the comment above, because I feel I am right.--151.47.126.70 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block)
See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Guinnog 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you even read my posts? Quote for some lines above "If this will end without llywrch excuses, I kindly ask you to block me forever".--151.47.126.70 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Panairjdde, out of block, and knowing this "the situation worse")
Looks like my proposal got no support. Fine. At least acknowledge I am allowed to remove redundant AD is I feel like.

I read that as dropping the matter.

And your next words, before I had a chance to respond to the above were:

It seems like you are not realistic. All of these started because I removed ADs from an article in which all of the years were AD, and I ensured the sentences were clearly worded. See Montanism and Paul of Tarsus. Since there is no consensus in claiming that redundancy is a reason to remove ADs in itself, I shall play it safe and allow/add ADs wherever it is possible, even beyond 1st millennium.

That doesn't read to me as if you were engaging in a discussion. You threw down an ultimatum & started doing what you promised. And what is it with this black/white thinking? Your point seems to be that either there be no use of "AD" or it should always be used, despite style & convention. People were trying to convince you that there was a third solution -- that there should be some use -- but you were too impatient to listen.

And this is your response to me from your talk page:

(First paragraph snipped)
Now, how do you dare removing my ADs from Honorius (emperor)? In which your edit is different from Codex Sinaiticus' ones in Montanism? Why the same rule is applied liberally to CS, and restrictively to me?
In the end, if you feel like I am "disrupting" (but you should be sure it is a disruption, and I don't see why my version of Honorius article is disrupted), you are free to adopt whatever action you like. Being "nice" does not pay on Wikipedia, this is what I learnt in the last years here.
I have enough of retreating in front of stubborn editors like CS, who have their views only because they do not actually want to collaborate, but to make their POVs prevail: I am going to start being stubborn myself. Whatever it takes.

I removed your edits from the article because you were pushing your point ad absurdum -- which is the core of WP:POINT. Stop being disingenuous. Your edits are silly & you know it.

This matter is not about Codex Sinaiticus or what she did; at worst the dispute at Montanism would have ended up at WP:LAME. If you believe she's misbehaving, there's a wide variety of options to use to grieve the matter. But she dropped out of the picture when you announced you were about to launch an edit war, & editted several articles to prove your point -- & came close to a pair of 3RR violations. And now you are still making changes to Wikipedia as an anon.

I have tried hard to be nice about the matter, & to show some understanding, but it's obviously not working with you. I'll be blunt now: grow up or leave Wikipedia. I'll feel the same way about which of these two options you follow. -- llywrch 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I truly believe you are twisting the events to fit your POV, now you understood you were wrong on the matter. If this is absurd or silly, I would like to know why this is not. I already asked you this twice, but you forgot to answer, funny.
I looked for consensus, there was none, I applied the policy coming out, which says it is upon the editor. This is not black/white, this is either I am allowed to do what I see fit, or none is. Same rules for all editors.
"If you believe she's misbehaving, there's a wide variety of options to use to grieve the matter." I tried them all, and the result was that her behaviour was correct. I simply applied it (again, see this and this). The fact that you blocked me and not her means that the rules are not the same for both of us?
As regards "And your next words, before I had a chance to respond to the above were" bit, I got an answer to my preceeding post, which was sort of "do your edits leaving the article clean, and probably noone complained", a mockery about was happening in Montanism, don't you think? You forgot to put this too, funny. However, the result was that the style/convention is on the editor taste, and I applied mine.
As regards making changes as anonymous, it is because you kindly blocked my account. I could not do it otherwise.
As regards being nice, note this "nicenesses" of yours:
I'm asking you to stop this disruption immediately. Obviously, you have an issue with the style "AD" for reasons other than redundancy; I would suggest you spend your efforts on explaning them in the appropriate place. If you ignore this request, as an Admin I will be forced to take appropriate actions. I sincerely hope that this will not be necessary.
In a single post you are accusing me to do disruption (thing you still have to motivate), accusing me to have issues (thing you still have to prove), mock me after the long effort to settle this matter through WP means, menacing me. I hope you will be more nice when you "grow up" (thanks again).
I do care about this, otherwise I would not be here answering to you. But it takes two persons willing to settle the matter for a discussion, and in none of your posts to me (talk page and here) I see your will to settle the matter. --151.47.126.70 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And my alleged mistreatment of you justifies your use of three sockpuppets in the last few hours to circumvent this block? You were banned for throwing a tantrum worthy of any four-year old, & I gave you a timeout -- just like any four-year old would get. And you threw this tantrum because people did not approve of your deletion of "AD"! There might be sillier things worth risking a 24-hour ban over, but I can't think of one.
To repeat myself Panairjdde, why did you originally want to delete all use of "AD" in an article? And when people thwarted these efforts, why did you start inserting "AD" into articles as much as possible? Does a little redundancy truly offend you this much? I honestly can't imagine why these letters mean so much to you, so so there has to be more to this issue than what you are writing. If you don't want to tell me -- well, there it is. But to risk so much over such a silly matter? There is no way I can understand this as adult or mature behavior.
If you stop creating sockpuppets, & just spend the 24 hours away from Wikipedia & your computer, the block will be over. And if you do that, I'll offer you a deal: prove to me that I misjudged you. Do these things: for the next 3 days do not make any "AD"-related edits -- don't worry, the articles will still be there after that many days; during this time, make substantial improvements to 15 articles in Wikipedia: Cleanup. If you want to shame me & show how you've been wronged, improve twice as many articles -- or three times as many. Do that, & I will genuinely apologize for mistreating you & misunderstanding you.
But in any case, make this block into a wikivacation; the world consists of a lot more than Wikipedia. The way you are behaving, you are going to end up causing yourself even more grief & frustration, & you may be blocked for good from Wikipedia. Other Admins are reading this & forming opinions. -- llywrch 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know a thing. User:Panairjdde no longer exists, the password was changed to a random one, and noone can login anymore.
A side question: is it possible to be sockpuppets of a non-existing user?--151.44.36.230 10:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure somebody at wikitruth.info is laughing for this. =_= ridiculous --necronudist 23:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


207.69.139.6[edit]

This user has continued to add in spoilers from the SmackDown tapings(specifically a title change) despite being warned over and over not to. He has several warnings on hig page but continues to add the title change before it airs tonight. TJ Spyke 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Spoilers" are not a concept that we shy away from. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. --InShaneee 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Problem at Lordi[edit]

81.153.160.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is removing the real names of the band members, and has declared its intent to continue doing so until it succeeds. As far as I can see this has happened a number of times before. Perhaps a block of the IP + semiprotection of the article may be appropriate. up+land 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute. I've warned the IP about WP:3RR, and he will probably merit a block if he reverst again. Please read WP:VAND, Uppland, as this is most certainly not vandalism. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
We're up to the 18th or 19th time the same (presumably) POV pusher (two IPs and one username) removes the names of the band members in contrary to the the consensus version. I wonder when some admin is going to realize that this person isn't going to give up (and he will probably come back with new usernames or IPs). I would again suggest semiprotecting the article now and blocking UKLFC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a day or two. up+land 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- ChrisO 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Complete removal of history of user page[edit]

This page history used to be huge. Someone completely emptied any history in it. Can someone explain this? --mboverload@ 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"View or restore 91 deleted edits?" Raul654 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Users may ask to have their pages deleted. See Wikipedia:User page. -Will Beback 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize that included the history. --mboverload@ 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Raul, only Admins can see erased histories....or perhaps you thought mboverload was an admin? A user, as well as an anon, sees a very abridged edit history.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but anyone can see the log. Wikipedia was designed so everything would be logged, and no one is out of the loop. There is an exception to this fundamental rule, with oversight. Honestly, although I understand why, I don't like it. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Prodego talk 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:BEANS aside, stop and think for a moment about what is user-specified, could contain personal information, and showed up in the oversight log before it was made private. If you can't figure it out, email me and I'll explain. Really, there isn't sinister intent to *everything* that happens around here. Essjay (Talk) 07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Right...bwa ha ha.....the cabal wins again! No, seriously, I support this idea, anything that protects users from snoops at Hivemind and Wikitruth can't be evil...and with Essjay at the wheel, I'm not really worried about oversight. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Damburger Personal Attacks[edit]

The user has been making personal attacks to other users.

I understand how someone as ignorant as yourself is desperate to silence those with contrary opinions, but now you are being fucking pathetic. Every time I post something to that page you remove it and are now threatening me with a block merely for voicing my opinion. Congratulations on being a Fascist. Damburger 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [20]
It isn't "common knowledge" at all, outside of your Rambo fantasies. Damburger 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [21]

The user who is being harassed is an admin but will likely be attacked as "abusing his admin privleges" if he attempts to give a temporary block to this user. So I suggest that a neutral third party enter this.--Jersey Devil 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Naconkantari 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I spoke to him on IRC yesterday and tried to explain that, yes, he was making personal attacks and the admin wasn't being abusive by removing the comments. He didn't get it. Concur with a slap on the wrist, since it seems to have persisted Shimgray | talk | 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:Satris[edit]

User:Satris is repeatedly removing 'wikify' and 'unreferenced' tags from several articles, and reinserting commercial links and endorsements into Laser hair removal. He is on the verge of violating 3RR (if he hasn't already, by now) on several articles. I have left several messages on his talk page, but he has not responded, and has not changed his behavior. I've reverted him enough for tonight, and I want to go to bed. Could someone keep an eye on him, please? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't issued a warning, yet, but I'm about to. He does seem to have very narrow interests -- something called Ten O'Clock Classics, which he bolsters a great deal, and laser defoliation. The removals of tags seem to be a very naive form of OWN, too. If he continues after the warning (I won't watchlist him), please flag the mediation folks to see if he'll respond. If he doesn't respond and keeps going, then he's probably not here to help the encyclopedia, but rather to advertise. Geogre 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I now see he's in the time-out corner for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Repeat offenses will up the blocks (and he has 4 warnings). Geogre 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, all. It looks like we had a good community response on this. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


User:216.143.138.153[edit]

216.143.138.153 (talk · contribs)

POV-pushing troll, possible repeated libel [22] [23], general purpose persistent disrupter. Phr (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given him his last warning, if he continues he'll be blocked. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Sussexman[edit]

Unless you can positively prove that Sussexman has any real input into actually issuing legal proceedings against anyone on Wikipedia this block is out of order. Blocking someone for pointing out that others are possibly breaking laws by what they are saying here is wrong. In fact it should be encouraged. Why not lift the ban and see how matters progress with Sussexman himself. 213.122.87.43 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:NLT. Will (message me!) 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Considering that Sussexman appears to have close links with an entire kookhive of anon-IP users, two of whom I've had to block for making some quite vicious personal attacks, I think I'll pass on this too... -- ChrisO 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Bobblewik at it again (delinking of dates)[edit]

Afaik, Bobblewik never showed any commitment to stop delinking of dates in places where this is perceived as contentious. Afaik, Bobblewik continues to be clueless when such delinking is perceived contentious and when it isn't.

Further, Bobblewik ignores the consensus reached on the current guideline formulation (WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates):

[...] Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example [[2006 in sports|2006]].

Requesting a block that is more significant than the previous one. --Francis Schonken 10:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That particular piece of text states what different people believe, as for as I know that's not a concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 14:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for a month. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The speed he edits with suggests he's using an unauthorized bot. You can't find and delink the dates in over 4 articles by hand in a single minute even if you use tabbed browsing. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone with tab experience help with reverting his contributions where needed? - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, 90% or more of his edits are good ones. The way dates are indiscrimately linked in some articles is very hard on the eye and adds no functionality. What would be wrong with 'letting nature take its course' and only restoring the (very few) dates which have any value to the articles whatsoever, rather than reverting?
  • Francis, you didn't warn Bobblewik in any way before bringing this here (or at least I couldn't see any sign on his talk page that you had). Is that proper? Is repeatedly calling him 'clueless'? He may be many things but clueless probably isn't one of them. Please, be WP:CIVIL. --Guinnog 11:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This user has a very long history of following his own agenda with regard to standardising articles according to his perception of Wikipedia MoS guidelines with regard to dates, weights and measures, country names and other similar matters. He usually does so without regard to whether the prior text is contextually useful or accurate and has a long history of upsetting users by continually re-changing the text on pages that have been reverted by major contributors to those particular pages. Jooler 11:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to those specific points: he's been repeating the removals on multiple passes through the same articles, even where the edits were reverted previously (as in the Stravinsky case). As for warnings, it's not as if he doesn't know this is a problem for many editors. And given the speed at which he edits, speed of response is probably of the essence. HenryFlower 11:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate what both of you are saying. I chose this [25] edit at random as a sample of what he has been doing.
He has delinked three years, one of which was linked twice (!) for a total of four changes. As (without, admittedly, having checked) I very much doubt that the three year articles contain any information relevant to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, to my mind Wikipedia is four useless links better off for this edit. In fact, if I had been copyediting this article I would have delinked the years too. (There's an argument that an article like this should link to the "xxxx in music" instead.) I do appreciate your concern and I have read into the background on this, and I still fail to see why "speed ... is of the essence" here. It's not like he is vandalising anything useful after all. Is it because he is (presumably) using a bot to edit? Surely there must be a better way to sort this out than a block! And why (other than to make a WP:POINT) would you want to revert these edits en masse?
I notice with relief that Bobblewik seems to have stopped editing for the moment. I think that would be wise while this discussion takes place. --Guinnog 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
He's stopped editing because he's been blocked. ;) HenryFlower 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? Then why is there no sign of this on his user page, nor any sign of a warning? It still seems a terrible shame when he is clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia!--Guinnog 12:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Mgm announced a month long block above. Another warning might have been appropriate, but this is an issue that Bobblewik clearly knows there is no consensus for, and has been warned about (repeatedly), and blocked for several times. He should have learned by now that this is not acceptable editing behaviour. --Cactus.man 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "you didn't warn Bobblewik in any way before bringing this here":

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobblewik&diff=54359508&oldid=54336621#Date_delinking - this notice was specific about the Stravinsky article.
  2. Also note that there had been a recent warning regarding delinking of dates on Bobblewik's user page (posted 30 June - 2 July): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobblewik&diff=61640276&oldid=61412469#Dates (archived less than a week ago, 9 July 2006). --Francis Schonken 12:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the one dated 20 May 2006, but missed the one from 1 July