Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125

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

Noticeboard archives


Acadamenorth (talk · contribs)[edit]

This editor had an article about his micronation speedily deleted and protected from re-creation. Instead of filing a deletion review, the editor is complaining to me and several others in a very insulting, abusive, and arrogant tone we are trying to offer help. S/he is on other users' user talk pages calling them "anti-socialist" and "10-year-old swashbucklers" (examples: User talk:Fan-1967, User talk:RidG, User talk:Friday), and has blanked his/her user talk page. The user also happens to have a history of abusive edits and vandalism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this from WP:PAIN because I've never used either of these before (never had to), and felt that it was more appropriate here because of the editor's history. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have left a note. I notice that User:Friday has had a run-in with this editor as well, and may have insight into the problem. Jkelly 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have to admit to being a little confused, though. I've never before been insulted by being called a swashbuckler. Is it considered a derogatory term somewhere? I always thought it meant a character in an old Errol Flynn movie. Fan-1967 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
S/he called me that too. It's certainly the strangest insult I've ever received. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on some things posted a few months back when the article was being deleted, this is a high school student. Fan-1967 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this editor is up to no good again. I've left a {{npa3}} warning on his talk page, but I don't think s/he is going to stop. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He blanked his user talk page again. I restored the warning and applied a {{wr}} tag. This is getting ridiculous. Something seriously needs to be done about this editor, as he will likely end up doing the same things tomorrow. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
He's not stopping. Another insulting note left for Guy [1], a POV edit on Marshal Tito [2], and a nonsense article created [3]. I think this is a game to him. Fan-1967 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend a block, but I'm not an admin. Then again, leaving an abusive message on an admin's user talk page is not the smartest of ideas, so he'll probably end up blocked anyway. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

300+ hate mail messages from User:[edit]

Prior to disabling my "e-mail this user" feature, I had blocked the above editor for a long history of anti-semitic, and sometimes childish vandalism (this is characteristic [4]). Please review my actions: I believe they were justified, but always welcome a second opinion.

I immediately received over 300 copies of the following message:

What is your problem you lying despicable scumbag??? All I did was
write factual information about Israel and you've banned me twice. It is
people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name. Within the next 10 years
Iran or Syria will undoubtedly get their hands on a nuclear device and
then you can say goodbye to your cherished illegal state. I won't shed
a tear. They had no right being there in the first place. My edits to
the page about Israel are clear for all to see. All backable by
historical text. You are a dickhead and when Israel gets nuked I'll throw a
party in your honour.
Fuck off and die you nasty little shit!
Wayne Smith.

Currently this person is blocked for another week. Please keep an eye on him: he has a splendidly long history of vandalism, and I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of him. Antandrus (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What an unfortunate little fellow. You'll want to forward the email to the relevant authorities. A note to his ISP would be in order, as would one to the internet crimes unit of the local police services, should such be available. Incidentally, is that a static, unshared IP? We ought to lengthen his holiday if it is. —Encephalon 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was of the impression that IPs couldn't use the email this user feature, has that changed? But the IP reverse lookup goes to, which is The state library of Queensland --pgk(talk) 09:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same User:Wayne Smith on Wikipedia?? --TheM62Manchester 10:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've checked, but don't see any obvious connection; that they both seem to be from Australia is probably coincidental. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it is quite possibly a terminal in the library used by members of the public rather than an employee. I suspect it is not therefore an unshared IP in the strict sense. However, there don't seem to be many other editors from the IP in recent times and we can limit the ban to anonymous users.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This user is also UniverseToday (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) (currently blocked) and Universe Daily (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) (currently active and editing), and probably others. Without a checkuser I'm uncomfortable blocking them, but the edit histories make it quite clear that it is the same person. He spams his website all over the place, and includes "Wayne Smith" as the owner; in addition the hate mail I received was from "Universe Today". Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks now like this guy's been a problem for even longer than I realized: see, for example, this post on long-term abuse. He spams relentlessly and often enough blatantly vandalises. Not sure what to do at this point, other than to alert others to watch for his activity, and to be forewarned that he's a truly nasty one. Antandrus (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that an "obvious sockpuppet" situation (per above with Lingeron)? If so, you don't need to go bugging check user. I know you're involved already, so, if you want someone else to do the honors, I understand, but I'd say that getting all the personae is merely conducting a single block. I.e. you're blocking this one single user, who happens to be at multiple accounts. Geogre 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, since I was involved in the "conflict", such as it was, I didn't want to become too block-happy. I'm also not entirely 100% sure about a lot of the alleged sockpuppets (e.g. in Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_Universe_Daily) since I was never part of the original conflict. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Universe Today (with space) is also his, and not blocked. He emailed me today as UniverseToday (no space, account blocked), called me a jerk, and demanded to be unblocked at once. Much of what he does is add links to sites he owns. These often seem to be close to the names of other popular websites. I say block any account identifiably his. Tom Harrison Talk 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would support that. If we work backward from the belovéd website links, we're going to find him. Is it likely that anyone else is going to think of his websites and want them linked? If not, the socks are obvious. The 300 copies thing is way, way over the line into the block and block again. Geogre 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I just blocked Universe Daily (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a sockpuppet of this neo-Nazi and hate-mail spammer, as suggested in this discussion. We don't need people like this here. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin is threatening to delete my subpage[edit]

The page is here, her comments are here. She is calling it an attack page, but it only contains descriptions of edits which is explicitly allowed in Wikipedia policy. This is a list of edits that I consider objectionable. I'm not making personal attacks; I'm factually commentating on content in a civil manner, which is specifically condoned by WP:NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack—it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user."

As Tony Sidaway has put it [5], "Deuterium is permitted to gather evidence on matters concerning the construction of the encyclopedia and people's conduct within the community." Deuterium 07:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Deuterium four times what the purpose of the page is, and he is unable to explain. I regard it as an attack page, and have asked him to remove, or in some way neutralize, the descriptions of the people who are listed. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and keeping pages like that is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst causes unnecessary ill feeling. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to butt in, but as a third party, I've just read all the banter, and it appears he has in fact explained it to you... 07:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you can translate for me, because I'm not getting it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I will try my best. He says "It is useful to gather evidence regarding people's conduct as part of the overall process of building an encyclopedia". I take this to mean that he is using the page as a tool to catalog edits which he characterizes as problematic. This helps him both by allowing him to later study similar trends in problematic edits to improve his own writing and conduct, and to keep track of possible evolving problems much the same way you might use a watchlist or recent changes. 07:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's exactly correct. Deuterium 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL!! I wonder why you didn't say it yourself if it's "exactly correct." So you're studying similar trends in problematic areas to improve your own writing and conduct? So far, not much improvement, sadly. Maybe you need to add more names. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that Hillman's dig pages (see above) seem to be getting the all-clear, a page of this type is nowhere near as problematic, and I don't see why it needs to go. Proto::type 07:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Hillman's page tracks long-term problems with pushing of POV in certain well-defined areas. The page under discussion seesm to be a random collection of "OMG! Rouge admin abuse!" But I could be wrong. For example, calling Magabund a holocaust denier was harsh, but as it turns out Magabund has made numerous edits supportive of holocaust deniers, so although it's a poor kind of an edit summary it is not without a basis in truth, especially since Magabund seems to me to have been deliberately ratcheting up the tension in Talk. If you want to trawl the database looking for edits where people are accused of being holocaust deniers I suspect you will find a large number, almost all form editors with a less illustrious edit history than Jayjg. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that I have offered to discuss removing any specific listings that SV (or anyone else) might have a problem with. I have removed one when Timothy Usher pointed out I made a mistake, and I've just removed some others that people have expressed objections to as a good faith gesture. Deuterium 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It could alleviate some objections to not organize it by sections on the users who made the attacks. —Centrxtalk • 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it would also make it a lot less useful as I can't see who the troublesome editors are. Deuterium 09:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's see, you claim that my description of User:Magabund as a "Holocaust denier" is a "personal attack". Now, this is the same User:Magabund who, in his first edits felt the need to defend Holocaust denier David Irving [6] [7] [8] [9], to buff up Irving's article [10] [11] [12], to add Irving to the List of historians, [13] and to add links to Irving's website to other articles. [14]. His first edits also contained a defense of Holocaust denier Fred A. Leuchter [15] He later returned to defend Irving some more, buffing his article [16] and insisting he shouldn't be described as a "Holocaust denier", [17] [18], and buffing up the article of Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf for good measure. [19] He returned again a few months later for more defenses of Irving [20] [21], then a defense of Rudolf [22] and some support of Irving's views. [23] This was all in his first 100 edits, and I've left out a number of his other dubious edits. Now, in exactly what way do you feel "Holocaust denier" doesn't fit? Are you arguing, for example, that "defender/supporter of Holocaust deniers" would be more accurate? Jayjg (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, since he hasn't actually denied the holocaust, accusing him of being a holocaust denier is a baseless personal attack. And I don't see the use of characterizing him as a defender or supporter of Holocaust deniers either, as someone can edit in favour of a cause without supporting it, it's called being a devil's advocate. Remember WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Also #

'# Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Deuterium 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you're being absurd. People don't defend Holocaust denial in order to play devil's advocate, just as they don't insist 2+2=5 to see what it feels like. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Absurd? I thought WP:AGF required us to not make assumptions about other editors' intentions. Regardless, given that the user in question has not actually denied the holocaust accusing him of holocaust denial is a personal attack. Deuterium 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, if it helps, I've changed the listing to be more neutral and removed the characterization of JayJG's edit as a personal attack. The facts speak for themselves in this instance. Deuterium 10:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Deuterium may have the wrong politics. But there is nothing wrong with Deuterium's page. Nothing said on that page is a personal attack--just as those who call the page an "attack page" have not made a "personal attack." --Rednblu 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've come late to this discussion, but after reading it, I decided to change the layout of Deuterium's page a bit, leaving the actual descriptions pretty much the same. I managed to fit my rationale into the edit summary: "refactored to better emphasize the "bad edits" themselves, not the people who made them... section headings were an assumption of bad faith, that you expect the same users to make more "bad edits"". Could this be an acceptable compromise? —freak(talk) 14:54, Jul. 30, 2006 (UTC)

I think it is kinda silly that we would allow users to keep these kinds of pages. It seems like Deuturium is just trying to get back at certain users that he has had disagreements with and it does nothing but create tension. How is this at all an acceptable use of user space?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If I may say so, this is a perfect use of UserTalkPages. These kinds of necessary arguments and civil discussions should be kept out of the MainPages and out of the TalkPages. What do you say? --Rednblu 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You can say what you'd like, but in this case you'd be wrong. It's a page designed to engender bad feelings among users, often filled with inaccurate and false statements, much like this page: User:Deuterium/Timothy Usher and this page: User:Deuterium/Andjam and this page: User:Deuterium/JayJG. In the latter, the first edit, which he describes as "Deleting relevant, sourced, correct information" is actually the deletion of completely unsourced and factually incorrect material, and the second edit, which he describes as "Removing perfectly good link" in fact involved removing a link to a POV blog. On top of that, he seems to be creating attack biographies - e.g. [24], and has started wikistalking me (e.g. [25] [26]) It's a disturbing pattern of behavior for one so quick to inaccurately point fingers. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the emotional intensity in what you say. But then isn't Deuterium partially right in saying that you were "Deleting relevant, sourced, correct information"? For in just simply clicking on the link in the paragraph just before what you removed, I find the following paragraphs at the end of that linked page.
Far-right parties running in next week's general election in Israel have built significant support with anti-Arab platforms.
The Yisrael Beiteinu party advocates redrawing the border to place about 500,000 Arab-Israelis inside a Palestinian state. Yisrael Beiteinu is expected to win about 10 seats in the 120-seat parliament, meaning it could hold the balance of power. Another right-wing coalition is expected to take a similar number of seats.
--which seems to be about 10/11ths of what Deuterium said in the paragraph that you were "Deleting as relevant, sourced, correct information." Perhaps the source misspelled Beiteinu's name you say? In any case, it seems to me that it would be a good thing if civil discussions such as this would be kept off the MainPages and the TalkPages of Wikipedia. Perhaps civil discussions such as this should be here on this page--perhaps on Deuterium's pages. What do you say? --Rednblu 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he was wrong, because he provided no sources for his claims, and his claims were wrong in any event. He claimed their platform "involves the removal of Israeli Arabs by supporting Arab immigration", when it supported neither the removal of Arabs, nor Arab immigration. As for the rest, there's no "emotional intensity in what [I] say", and if you want to take your discussion elsewhere, be my guest. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those other subpages, I don't use them anymore and they aren't linked from my main userpage. I would delete them if I knew how, but I'll just blank them for now. Feel free to delete them yourself.

Regarding FreakOfNurture's changes, yes that is acceptable for me and your argument about bad faith makes sense. I'll arrange future listings in that way. Deuterium 04:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To delete pages where you have been the only substantial editor, stick {{db-author}} on them. Be advised that doing this for pages whose talk pages contain warnings issued to you, or pages that are being linked as evidence in things like ArbCom disputes, is a bad idea. --Christopher Thomas 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added the template to those pages. Deuterium 04:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with Deuterium's page. I don't think it's comparable to Hillman's, which I support. Phr (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lonyo and User:[edit]

These two (Lonyo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) seem to be tagteam vandals everywhere they go. I don't have the time to mop up after them, so if someone else does, I'd appreciate it. Tomertalk 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, most of Lonyo's edits seem fine. Could you point to specific difs? Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Good lord. Try this one on for size. Tomertalk 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To clarify my original request, putting aside my guess that they are one and the same person, I don't think either of them are exclusively vandalistic, but both display vandalistic propensities. Tomertalk 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, we should keep an eye out on them. JoshuaZ 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING Langan Article[edit]

Material has been placed in the Christopher Michael Langan bio that comes from an poor source. The material is "hype" for a documentary film on Langan. The paragraph appears only in a mouse rollover on a picture of Langan on a website. There is no author given. This can hardly be a reliable source and the presentation of the material is insensitive. Seems like a clear violation of WP:LIVING. DrL 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Futher explanation The source in question is the production company of a documentary about the biographee. One would think a production company gets to say on their own website what they construe the documentary as showing, and the statement is attributed to the correct source. I do not understand what the problem is, except that it is less than flattering to the biographee (although by no means harmful or abusive)...I think that perhaps DrL would like to look at the box over here, which clarifies some matters to do with vanity articles. The WP:BIO articles do not imply that every biography should be a hagiography; rather, they are there to keep libelous and defamatory material out, and the statement in question is neither.
She has been using the documentary to establish the notability of the subject, so it is only appropriate to include information about what the documentary portrays. And I can imagine few more reliable sources of that information than the production company that made the documentary; DrL seems to be of the opinion that her personal viewing of the documentary affords a better and more neutral source, which is obviously not correct. Byrgenwulf 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Using 'she' to imply a certain view of DrL's real life identity might not be proper, or has it been used before that? --Philosophus T 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The technical details of the construction of the website are not relevant to the issue. As for the author, the website,, is the website of Fourth Floor Productions, Earl Morris' production company. The description of the documentary by the producers of the documentary is certainly a reliable primary source. --Philosophus T 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think that a mouse rollover at a website (that has no contact information other than an info@ email address) could possibly constitute a reliable source. NPOV and WP:V are very important in a bio, particularly wrt living persons. According to WP:LIVING
Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.
Obviously this source is not suitable for inclusion. DrL 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not "obvious", DrL. As I explained on the talk page, the fact that the webpage is contructed like that is irrelevant: all of the information about that series is included in that manner; and it is not a random website either, it is the website of the production company which produced the documentary in question. As has been pointed out, there can be few higher quality sources of information about a documentary than the people who made it. Personal testimony by one (biased) person who has merely seen the documentary is a far less reliable source than that. The source is not unreliable, it is just not flattering, and I think that is why DrL is so adamant it must be removed from Langan's hagiography. Please read the link I gave to the vanity policy, DrL - I see you included the vanity policy in your own comment on a second thought, but it doesn't strike me that you have read and understood it at all, particularly that clause to which I have drawn your attention. Byrgenwulf 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
(FYI, I referenced WP:V (verafiability)) DrL 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a reliable source and certainly not a "high quality reference" and that's why it should be removed. It's really as simple as that. Why don't you just let the administrators take a look and decide? DrL 06:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've rarely heard a sillier argument about a source. Simple question: is the website a reliable source -- period/full stop? If "yes", then the form that conveys the information is utterly irrelevant, whether it be plain text, fancy text, photograph, banner graphic, Flash animation, mouse rollover, or a chorus line of dancing pixies. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Biographies of Living Persons. Noncontroversial material about a living person may be taken from that person's own statements or an authorized web site. This is not to say that it shouldn't be significantly rewritten to meet NPOV, encyclopedic tone, etc. If there is some reason the statements may be considered controversial or factually doubtful (and not just because it it self-sourced, but for some other legitimate reason) then it can be removed pending more dependable sources. Also, this is not a good forum for this dispute. Admins can block accounts and delete pages, but are not content referees. Since the solution here probably won't involve blocking either of you or deleting the article, you might try a request for Wikipedia:Third opinion or an request for comment on the article content. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that a rollover on a website could be considered a "high quality reference". This is because it is more a part of the interface and the browsing experience rather than the content. Also, it is unauthored, the comments in the Wiki article are inaccurate, plus they speculate on state of mind, rather than factual material. I've edited it a little more accurately and will wait to see if it is satisfactory to all concerned before I take the matter further. Thanks for your advice as to where to bring my complaints if this inaccurate editing persists. DrL 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the fixation on the material being in a "rollover". First of all, not all browsers interact with the page source material in the same way; what's a rollover for you may appear as "alt text" for someone else (or be read out loud by an audio speech generator for a browser used by a blind user). In the absence of contradictory evidence, there is a presumption that the material was published by the web site owner in its normal course of editorial production and was not some secret unauthorized material snuck in by a hacker. Or are you arguing otherwise? And given the prominence of Errol Morris and his documentary production company, I see no reason to doubt his own official web site as a reliable primary source as to the content of a film about the subject of the article. Moreover, I'm not sure what this is doing here (with the request for administrator intervention), since it looks to me like a garden-variety content dispute. --MCB 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:LIVING clearly states:
  • Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).
That seems pretty clear. I will try to find the correct page for challenging content - thx. DrL 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a misreading. It is self-published web sites that are unacceptable as sources. Someone's personal hate-site or fan-site isn't considered a reliable source. The web site in question, however, appears to be that belonging to a television program, and thus published with the backing of the organization that supports this work. That doesn't mean it's a reliable source; it just means that it doesn't voilate WP:LIVING. --Christopher Thomas 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page. There's no admin issues I can see. Phr (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User: space articles and an external link[edit]

The pages linked to from Special:Linksearch/ trouble me. Nearly all are in userspace, with the corresponding users created; their titles resemble article titles (prefixed with User:), and they have copyvio-like contents (although I can't find evidence of copyvio). I noticed this after a stretch of user-creation patrol; after seeing two userspace articles created as the first or early edits of a user with identical external links, I grew slightly suspicious. I'm not sure what to do next, so I'm posting this here. Is it possibly a spammer experiment? --ais523 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Google pagerank. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure extlinks in user pages get served with rel=nofollow, so Google doesn't spider them and doesn't count them for pagerank purposes. Phr (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Phr is correct. Dumb+Google Pagerank? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but shouldn't some of those usernames be reviewed? Like Porn Actor and THE VATICAN?--Anchoress 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not exactly a copyvio, but the text from Porn Actor is from these classified ads.--Anchoress 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have nuked the spam pages and blocked the accounts - 40 blocks in one hit! a new personal best :o) - and logged the domain at the spam blacklist. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Congrats. Nice one. Tyrenius 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Roy Masters article[edit]

User 67.150.* keeps posting huge, uncited quotes from Mr. Masters in the article, and reverting any changes he disagrees with (he removes unreferenced tags, etc.) Also, vandalization of talk page including deleting comments, and editing others' comments. (Even pretending to be Wikipedia administration at one point, to "apologize" for my behavior.) Page was semi-protected, but he came right back after it was lifted. Refuses to discuss any disagreements civilly, and generally behaves very childishly. --- Bennie Noakes 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Roy Masters#Quotes Citations and Talk:Roy Masters#Citations & Editing. ---Bennie Noakes 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That article is a disaster waiting to happen. As per WP:BLP I have stubbed the article until proper sources are found and provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And, of course, he just came by and reverted all your changes. Less than an hour later! Well, this guy's dedicated, that's for sure. If only he could put that same energy into looking for credible sources, or learning how to cite properly. ---Bennie Noakes 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Jorge Cauz[edit]

Should the following edit: [27] to Jorge Cauz (the biographical article on the current president of Encyclopaedia Britannica) be expunged? Nobody outside has complained about it, and the content is patently ridiculous. OTOH, it is a defamatory remark about a living person, and even though Mr. Cauz sometimes says naughty things about us (I hereby propose a "Wikipedia:Simon Cowell award" for the editor who can successfully haul the most articles to AfD, in honor of Cauz's brilliant prose regarding the respective merits of his and our respective encyclop[a]edias), we ought not be saying naughty things about him. At least not in article space. --EngineerScotty 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Lest I be seen as promoting a deletionist agenda, we probably ought to balance that with the WP:Paula Abdul award, for what exactly, I'm not sure. ;) --EngineerScotty 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ummm editors that violate WP:BLP by having affairs with the subjects? (or something like that) Pete.Hurd 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsure about adding copyright symbols[edit] (talkcontribsWHOISblock userblock log) has been going around adding the ® and ™ symbols to Frisbee articles. They claim they represent the Wham-O corporation. I'm not sure if we use those symbols on Wikipedia; I've never seen them used before. --Liface 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't use those symbols; see WP:MOS-TM. Phr (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the symbols at Frisbee (may need to get to some other articles) and left the user a message. The IP address resolves to a law firm in San Francisco, so maybe the foundation will get a call--that's life. Phr (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic seduction and User:Aine63[edit]

Not long ago, I came across Academic seduction. This area is outside my expertise, but I noticed that the article dealt with the topic only in a rather limited number of cultures. Thus, I added a {{globalize}} tag to the article. (diff). I was mistaken in writing then that the article dealt only with academic seduction in the United States; it does not. User:Aine63 pointed this out while removing the {{globalize}} tag (diff). (S)he then messaged me regarding the removal of the tag (see User_talk:Zantastik#Academic_Seduction) and posted his/her rationale on the article's talk page.

At this point, I argued at length why I do not believe that this article's examples and perspective represent a world-wide view (article talk page).

In the meanwhile, I noticed that another article Aine63 had written, She Creature, was identical to a review of the film on amazon ([28]). I messaged User:Aine63 about this matter, asking if (s)he had had permission or had written the review in the first place; I also made some suggestions as to WP:STYLE. (diff)

User:Aine63 did not respond to my question, deleted my remarks from his/her talk page and stated:

you are definately "hounding" now (your word, not mine)which is a good word for following specific people around Wiki trying to poke holes in what they--sounds like it wasn't my pride that was wounded.) Aine63 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (diff)

I found User:Aine63's response to my long critique on the article's talk page overly personal and uncivil); I was essentially told to either globalize the article myself (I lack the expertise to do so) or "back off". (diff)

User:Aine63 has made thinly-veiled personal attacks on his/her user page, each of which was added onto the user page at the same time that comments were made on the user's talk page and the relevant article talk page. (see here).

I would like to emphasize that I believe User:Aine63's contributions to Academic seduction to be valuable. But his/her lack of civility and willingness to work together to build consensus in order to improve articles is a problem, and I believe that at this point a fresh perspective from an experienced, neutral administrator would be best. --Zantastik talk 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My comments on my user page are not directed at Zantastik, but common problems at Wikipedia I've experienced and witnessed on a number of articles. I've seen other such comments on user pages, including those of administators. As for his comments on the Academic seduction article, his earlier critique was that there was absolutely no non-US content, which is false as much of the content comes from non-U.S. sources. He had simply not carefully read the article nor checked any of the references. Zantastic then raised the objections that the content was too "anglophone" of which I agreed, and invited him to contribute said content of which he felt should be included. If he could not do so, he needed to back off of the article and wait for me or someone else to add the content. From that point I was accused of not being civil by a friend of Zantastics, User:Jersyko. Now the two of them are attacking another article I created last night, and which is still being constructed. To me, the two of them seem more intent on hounding me, and this post here in the Admin Notice board is just one more attempt. Aine63 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I made the accusation of incivility solely because Aine63 said the following to Zantastik (after Zantastik gave a detailed description of his rationale, which Aine63 apparently accepted, on the article talk page), "If you yourself don't have the time, or the inclination (though you seem to have much to say about the topic), then you need to step back." Additionally, while WP:AGF perhaps might compel us to assume that Aine63's edits to your his/her user page are, in fact, unrelated to Aine63's interaction with Zantastik and me, the timing and content of the edits to the user page coincides remarkably with our interactions on the article's talk page. For examle, the statement "Any idiot can criticize", which follows "This user is really sick of . . . Wikipedians with long-winded criticisms on what is lacking in content, the time and energy for which could have been used to contribute the content that is deemed to be lacking," was written a short time after Aine63's response to Zantastik's detailed commentary on the article's talk page. I would also note that Aine63 had no userpage until today. Finally, Zantastik and my "attacks" on Aine63's other article are merely questions of a possible copyright violation. I said as much on the talk page, and I'm still waiting for a response. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that there are under 150 unique Googles for this term, despite the prevalence of the underlying idea, this sounds a lot like a neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was proposed for deletion but was kept. --Zantastik talk 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't see why, it has all the hallmarks of a novel synthesis. The chances of any credible academic reference using the term "seduction" to describe sexual abuse by those in positions of trust is, I think, vanishingly small. Just zis Guy you know? 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur. It's sexual abuse, and I've never heard of any department or university, in any part of the western world (mind you, western and northern) endorsing or permitting it. There have been failures to prosecute, and there have been winks & nods, but by statute it's harassment in most places. I'm as mystified by an AfD keep as JzG is. (It ain't seduction, if one party has a coercive power over the other.) Geogre 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Though not necessarily relevant to whether this article is OR, Zantastik notes on the talk page of the article that French universities do not prohibit professor/student relationships and that the practice was prevalent in ancient Greece. In any event, I've become convinced that it is original research and that these topics can be adequately covered in other articles. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that discussion of whether this article is novel synthesis or not is important, the appropriate forum for this debate is on the article's talk page. I'm pleased to see that it's moving there. However, I raised some rather serious issues about User:Aine63's beheviour that have not been dealt with. Being accused of "hounding" him/her because I raised a question about a potential copyright violation (still unanswered, by the way), the implication that I am an "idiot" and being told to "back off" if I only critique Academic seduction rather than massively edit it... this is a serious matter. I believe that I have demonstrated good faith in these matters but would like an outside assessment of the matter. Potential copyright violations and insults against other users are contrary to Wikipedia policy. --Zantastik talk 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Starneptune (lowercase n) managed to get StarNeptune's (uppercase N) username changed. --SPUI (T - C) 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And I thought I was cryptic to the point of obfuscation. - brenneman {L} 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
An impostor got someone to change the username of the real user. See the contribs. --SPUI (T - C) 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of impersonation may point to this being the same person as the blocked vandalism, impersonation, or troll-only accounts Darth.Culator, RmfitzgeraId50 (note capital I in place of lowercase L), Darth Vacatour regrets..., Zotoros Infinite, Darth Vacatour, Christopher Keim, Dan MacQueer, Dan MacQueen (who stole my real name), and Sozferka, all of whom have trolled or vandalized Wookieepedia. I suspect it's a vandal we blocked from that wiki. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A little more explanation, since it seems there's a bit of confusion. Somebody came on IRC, complaining that their username had been changed without cause. A quick look turned up the request, but you should become suspicious once you look at the diff. Looking at Special:Contributions/Starneptune, we can see the account was probably created for the sole purpose of screwing somebody over. It's unfortunate, though probably understandable, that this wasn't caught earlier. In short, we have somebody whose username was changed without their consent, and they are understandably upset. Luna Santin 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The name change was done without my knowledge or permission. I had tried to log in a couple of days ago, and noticed my account didn't exist anymore. I think Wikipedia had just had a database error, so I assumed it was due to that and recreated my account. It was only pointed out to me today by one of my friends that my acccount was renamed due to a request by an imposter account named User:Starneptune.
I don't beleive this is an isolated incident, as myself and at least two of my fellow administrators over at Wookieepedia have been harassed here on Wikipedia by a user named User:Swainstonation because we had banned him from Wookieepedia for homophobic remarks. User:Silly Dan has had at least two accounts made to impersonate him (User:Dan MacQueer and User:Dan MacQueen), and User:Darth Culator has at least two as well (User:Christopher Keim and User:Darth.Culator). I have reason to believe that these are all connected, and I ask that you check and see if all these imposter accounts are the same person.
Thank you for your time. StarNeptune 02:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe SiIly Dan (again, note capital I), SiIly Dan eats Pelican Shit, and Silly Dan still eats Pelican Shit are additional socks. Anyway, thanks for your help, and sorry a dispute on our wiki carried over here....—Silly Dan (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The real rko (talk · contribs · count)[edit]

The real rko (talk · contribs · count) just removed the AFD tag from Wrestling General Board (IGN) again [29]. He removed it eariler just two days ago [30], which I reverted and warned him for [31]. Now, should i warn him again, this time with {{drmafd2}}, or does this kind of deliberate behavior warrant a block? Hbdragon88 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Defamation in Talk:Yoshiaki Omura[edit]

A new user, Abbaenok, presented a very long entry into the Talk at 02:27, 1 August 2006, defending the subject of the entry, which was reverted by Crum375. The material presented by Abbaenok included a series of personal attacks and allegations, with a name presented, and legal noises made. Similar defamatory attacks have been posted to this entry previously, by other users or via other user names, in an attempt to shape the entry, presumably by intimidation. I would think this would require admin attention, given what would seem to be legally defamatory material being posted, and having been posted before, and possible removal of the defamatory material from the History. Hence this post. Arcsincostan 05:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User Tagishsimon and user[edit]

I feel like I'm sticking my head in a lion's mouth, but here goes: While reverting vandalism from User:, I came across some terrible personal attacks directed to him, on his talk page, from User:Tagishsimon. I haven't refactored them, but they are incredibly offensive and hurtful and in no way are convincing this young IP editor to contribute to the work rather than tearing it down. The IP user did tell Tagishsimon, on Tagishsimon's talk page, that he feels he has an open invitation to vandalize any and all WP articles because of the way the welcome message is phrased, but that's no excuse for behavior like this. I felt I had to call attention to the exchange, even with all the Colbert nonsense that's happening tonight. Thanks - Baseball,Baby! ballsstrikes 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Frightening. I don't consider that acceptable at all. Vandals are not immune from WP:CIVIL. Powers 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The return of Druidictus[edit]

Re Druidictus (talk · contribs): not sure if we have a neo-Nazi or just a troll on our hands here, but I thought I'd give the heads-up, since he recently made his first edit in a while, at least his first under this account, and it was a bit of a doozie: an edit to Talk:Ashkenazi Jews that effectively talks (as if it were a commonplace) about how much German science benefited from Hitler kicking out the Jews. Normally, I'd just go "troll, do not feed", except I looked at his contributions, and I decided a note here might be in order. Given the hiatus and then the return in the same style, might a user check be in order? I suspect that he's been editing under a different account and is back to this one because of a block. Of course, I could easily be wrong. Still, alghouth it may be un-wiki of me, but 'm not willing to extend any supposition of good faith to someone who would make that edit. - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct link for that diff: [32]. Phr (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry. - Jmabel | Talk 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Checkuser confirmed three groups of suspected socks here: [33]. Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks. Tortfeasor 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry for posting, an admin got to it. Thanks. [34]. Tortfeasor 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I doing the right thing?[edit]

Am I doing the right thing, looking through Special:Allpages/User, finding banned users' subpages and applying {{db-ban}} to them??

I'm trying to be helpful, let me know if it was wrong. --TheM62Manchester 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what is on them; db-ban is for any pages created by banned users, not necessarily the userpages of banned users. If the only contents of the page are notices about the user's ban, then don't db them, they are a necessary record. Also, anything created before they were banned is not subject to deletion; it's only the creation of a banned user if they create it after they are banned. Essjay (Talk) 09:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I was using them on subpages of AI (talk · contribs), Lir (talk · contribs) and Sunholm (talk · contribs) - if I'm wrong, they can be restored. The content wasn't too offensive, I was only trying to apply CSD G5. Sorry about that! --TheM62Manchester 09:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sam Sloan[edit]

Sam Sloan (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) is a highly opinionated editor (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch) with long-running disputes against many people on and off Wikipedia (see also Sam Sloan). He just posted this [35] on my talk page. Am I alone in seeing a threat in there? Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by what I've just read, I'd say block him for a period for making threats. --TheM62Manchester 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm the target I'd appreciate it if some other admin did the needful, but yes, I am very much of that view. Just zis Guy you know? 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Shall I post {{threatban}} on his page, JzG?? --TheM62Manchester 09:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope the Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation can afford a spellchecker. I don't see these as serious threats (everyone has a right to open an arbitration case if they feel an admin has done something wrong), but they are undoubtedly breaches of civility (deletion of articles by the proper routes, involving discussion by many other people, does not constitute "vandalizm"). A warning and pointing out the criteria for notability would be more useful. --ajn (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sloan has a long history of pursuing tendentious edits, and off Wikipedia he is known to have launched vitriolic personal attacks. He undoubtedly brings his battles to Wikipedia. I am not sure what action to take against him and will go with whatever the cabal thinks. Just zis Guy you know? 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that chess players seem to be even more prone to infighting and personal abuse than Trotskyists or objectivists. You've done a pretty good job of refuting his allegations on your talk page, and I'd be quite happy to back you up if he ever manages to post a valid request for arbitration. --ajn (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing incivility there and elsewhere in his contrib history, if it continues after further warnings a short block seems in order to me. JzG, if you don't want to do it yourself, ask away, many of us ROUGEs would be happy to help... ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that message on JzG's page too. I'm wondering what's going on with Sloan. I've been dealing with Sloan on Usenet for longer than Wikipedia has existed, and while I've had my differences with him, he's at least usually a good speller. He's been doing stuff here and on Usenet recently that are weird even for him, and I'm wondering about his sobriety when he posted that thing, and even about his current mental health. His personal situation (because of the USCF election stuff among other things) has to be stressful (look for his name on Susan Polgar's blog [36] to get an idea of what's going on). I have to recommend some sensitivity with him at this point. Phr (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex Jones, our encyclopedic source[edit]

I think this has gone way out of control. Apparently we are now saying that 9/11, the London terrorist bombings, and many more were carried out by the respective governments. Because Alex Jones says so. And Mr. Jones' web site is an encyclopedic source because Mr. Jones' web site is a reliable source for what Mr. Jones thinks. Thus WP:RS is apparently satisfied. What??? Rapidly running out of patience... Weregerbil 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Any bets on the time and date of the anon surge? I say 11pm tonight, British time. That's what tipped the last AFD Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones should be kept in the article about him. -Will Beback 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No need for socks and stockings, when AfD has a great many "keep everything omG you dont want to be meen to anyone" voters going through and voting without, apparently, reading. (Take a look at Us russian alliance and it's AfD. Nominator, one vote, and then me wondering why that keep voter is acting as if on drugs.) Geogre 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghost of the Ghost of Bluegold (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Above user is a blatant sock of the indefinitely blocked user Bluegold (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Isopropyl 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Syrthiss 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Request help with[edit]

The apparent same person at this IP keeps inserting a singular piece of arbitary minutiae that editorial consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#The use of in-universe statistics all disallow.

I've given him these links links and requested three times at User talk: that he read these policy/guidelines and consensus. But he just keeps going back and back and back, though never three times in a day.

I and at least one other editor, User:Eric TF Bat, have kept fixing the page in question (Thor (Marvel Comics)). Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks very much -- Tenebrae 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Request help with User:CyrilleDunant[edit]

This user keeps removing a warning on personal attacks from his talkpage despite he has clearly made one, in which he called me "a troll pure and simple". I reported the matter as a personal attack as this wasn't the first incident, my request for intervention was however removed because I did not warn the user first. After this I did, to avoid this in future encounters. Up until now the user has deleted the warning for 4 times (1, 2, 3 and 4) Rex 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for removing warnings and personal attacks. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this block. While it's certainly not polite to call someone "a troll pure and simple", it is not the kind of remark that has ever, in my experience, resulted in a block with no warning. I'm not familiar with this editor, or the one he's in dispute with, but I'd point out the Rex Germanus has recently been blocked three times (within a two-month period) for 3RR, so it looks as if he has a history of going against consensus, whereas CyrilleDunant had a clean block history. Rex Germanus reported the "troll pure and simple" post at WP:PAIN without giving any warning,[37] in violation of the PAIN instructions. His report was removed because there was no warning. He then sent a message to CyrilleDunant, this morning, not for a new attack, but for that one, warning that he would report him (he already had reported him and the report had been removed). Cyrille removed the comment, and Rex reverted him. Then Rex replaced it three times more.[38] [39] [40]

It seems that if Rex had reported this at WP:AN/3RR, it would have been rejected on the grounds that 3RR is not generally enforced against users on their own user space, except in cases of vandals removing genuine vandalism warnings. Only two days ago, I made that point when I dismissed a 3RR report,[41] pointing out that warnings are not meant to be used as black marks which we give to naughty people who then, as punishment, have to display them on their talk page for a certain length of time.

There was a similar case last October, when a new admin blocked an established user for removing warnings from his talk page. Kelly Martin undid the block, and David Gerard commented:

You can't hammer someone into making your comment stay on their talk page. 3RR is not in fact generally held to apply in this situation. If you put it there and he removed it, he saw it. It's not like the diff has vanished. This has been well established in many cases where annoying trolls were bugging people on their talk pages then tried to nail them with 3RR when they removed them. If he doesn't want to keep your comment there, that's up to him, not you, and you don't get to edit-war otherwise. . . . You gotta be joking. He had a 3RR warning put on his talk page, then he removed it. So he was warned and can't deny he was warned. Then what is the point of repeatedly replacing the warning except harassment? That's precisely why 3RR isn't generally applied to a user in their own userspace - people harassing others with repeatedly replacing removed additions, then trying to nail them on 3RR. (David Gerard, 10 October, 2005, this noticeboard)

The issue of removing unwanted posts from one's talk page has been discussed often. Some people think it shouldn't be done, but there is definitely no policy against it, and there are troublesome users who seem to delight in sending unwarranted warnings to their opponents (particularly admins) and replacing them when they're removed. Alienus comes to mind in particular.

So, if we discount the 3RR violation (and I'd very much want to know why Rex kept replacing that post once he knew that Cyrille had seen it), we're left with the "troll pure and simple" remark. Bearing in mind that people are never blocked without warning for something as mild as this and are very seldom blocked for "attacks" that were made the previous day, that Rex had been edit warring with other users, and that no report has been given of personal attacks made by Cyrille after Rex began harassing Cyrille at his talk page, I do not think the block is justified.

I don't want to wheel war, but I'm hoping either that Will might be persuaded to lift the block himself, or that there might be some agreement here that the block can be lifted. AnnH 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any further conversation about this? Jkelly 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I left a note for Will, and a few moments ago, he posted back to me to say that he had unblocked. I was particularly concerned because Rex Germanus replaced the warning on Cyrille's talk page (violating 3RR himself in the processs) after he knew that Cyrille had been blocked. I warned him on his talk page, and he apologized. I hope both editors will now stop squabbling and will just get back to writing an encyclopaedia. Thanks, Will, and thanks, Jkelly. AnnH 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me (I never knew I was blocked). I never thought I would get blocked for removing annoying messages from my talk page...CyrilleDunant 18:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


User:How dare you? has placed the image Image:Howdareyou.jpg on his user page. What is the policy on inappropriate content on user pages? (I know of a case when a user created a rather offensive one, and it ended before the Arbitration Comittee.) Should it be nominated for deletion? - Mike Rosoft 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen SPUI's user page? There are some questionable parts on Freakofnurture's as well. Unless it gets complained about, I say we leave it alone. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate content"? It's just a middle finger, c'mon, we're not a children's television network. We have faaaaar more "offensive" stuff on-wiki. And keep in mind we aren't censored ... Cyde↔Weys 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Splash (talk · contribs) indef block of Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) and a few others[edit]

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not these individuals are sock puppets, I'm simply going to say that this seems to be a rather unilateral decision made here with a number of blocks for which I see little basis. The evidence pointed to on one user is a year old, and his latest evidence seems to consist mainly of "contributions". I'm no John Nash, but I'm certainly not sure I see the pattern here. One user has this evidence link on his user page [42]. I'm not sure how Kramden and some of the latest fit into this picture. Having a look at the alleged puppetteers targetted articles, I'm just not seeing it on Kramden's list here. They may very well be sockpuppets but I don't see the connection to Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs). I just want to make sure the 'i's are dotted and the 't's are crossed.--Crossmr 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Kvens of the past[edit]

Semi-protection request for Kvens of the past. An unknown user, recently appearing under names WeBeToys, It'sAparty and PauWau, and also using just IP addresses, is without any explanations vandalizing the article and today also the discussion forum. This has been going on for a while now and does not seem to be slowing down. User behind the many sock puppets refuses to participate in discussions. I can check the page every day and revert it, but semi-protection would be preferred to slow down the vandalism. --Drieakko 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not enough recent activity to justify s-p imo. Days have gone without any vandalism. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Based on earlier discussions at Talk:Kven, the puppet master seems to be Art Dominique. He seems to have got very disappointed with everyone not agreeing with his opinions, and is now just overwriting other works with his own without bothering to explain anything anymore. The user is spreading a lot of misinformation that he could easily check himself to be false, but his motivations seems to be something we don't know.

VaughanWatch socks[edit]

Wow, I feel like I have opened Pandora's box. Yesterday, I opened up a Suspected Sockpuppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch. This is really a continuation of a previous issue, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VaughanWatch.

All of a sudden, a whole bunch more socks have come out of the woodworks. For user IDs that are clearly socks (vandalism only, targetting those involved in the VaughanWatch dispute), I've been blocking indefinitely (as have other admins). I've also temporarily blocked a few IPs (again, so have other admins) that fall into the same boat.

In all cases, I have been logging it in the SSP noted above. Since I am now a participant in this issue, please let me know if you feel I should not be blocking these users. If this is the case, I ask a few admins to watch the SSP noted, my user page, as well as User:pm_shef's user page. -- JamesTeterenko 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This puppeteer is getting sneakier. Creating impersonization accounts to vandalize then immediately reverting with another sock. -- JamesTeterenko 17:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Edipedia editing things in my userspace[edit]

I don't know if this is vandalism, but I've saved a Userbox in my own userspace for my own personal use, and User:Edipedia has been editing it. Please advise. [43] --- Hong Qi Gong 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although no one owns a page, I think that Epipedia should respect your wishes when editing your userpage. He doesn't have to have the userbox on his page. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are an admin, can you please warn him? --- Hong Qi Gong 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I did leave him a note. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ask him to subst: it then he can change it if he wishes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have a problem with the Userbox itself, he doesn't even want to use it. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want userboxes on your userpage to change, then subst them. I find it disturbing that you think editing something on the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit merits a warning. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that will solve my problem. He doesn't like how the userbox appears on my userpage. That's why he's editing it. He'd still edit it even if I subst it. He doesn't use the Userbox himself. His behaviour is basically the same as modifying people's personal information on their userpages. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, you've both been edit-warring in Template:User Han Chinese, and you're both thoroughly entitled to 3RR blocks as a result. Please don't do that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see your problem but the best solution is for you to subst if he changes it revert it, if he changes it again ask him nicely not to do it again and revert. If he does it again then dont revert paste the diffs here and a sysop may be willing to do something more to prevent it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm ready to ignore all rules on that template. But that is a seperate issue from the fact that he's editing a userbox on my userspace that he doesn't even use. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Woha, You have so violated 3RR, i will remain neutral for now and just warn you. But i advise that you both make no more reverts for now.
I have given you both the 3RR boilerplate and started a discussion on the template page and reverted to prior the edit war. This template should be left like that until your issue is resolved. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And if User:Edipedia reverts your edit? --- Hong Qi Gong 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You will both be reported and a 24 hour maybe more (67 reverts in 4 days!) block will likely be imposed on you both. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cooler heads have prevailed. A second template for Edipedia's POV is now accesible here Template:User HanChinese. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Coghlan[edit]

Could I ask for a slightly-speedier-than-normal speedy keep of this discussion? The stub article Monica Coghlan was nominated for deletion, I expanded it, the only participant changed their opinion to Keep, the nominator withdrew nomination, champagne was shared by all, Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard at its finest. But then the main author of the stub began expressing unfavorable opinions of the nomination in the first place, which isn't going to help anyone, and may cause hurt feelings. Since the discussion meets speedy keep criteria, can I ask someone to close it, and possibly nip an unproductive conflict before it escalates further? Thanks, AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! Excellent work, by the way. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, you are fast! AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

request for help with user with multiple accounts[edit]

I am hoping someone can help me with a user with multiple accounts who is bothering me. They have vandalized my user page and are now posting dozens of times on my talk page. Known usernames include:

However, this user claims that some edits are by his brother, and also claims there are four more usernames. Perhaps someone with access to CheckUser could verify this. I don't know what the policy is on blocking an IP when there might be more than one person using it, but I need help. I'm not sure if there is more than one user or not, but I did notify this person that "Impersonation is a form of vandalism on Wikipedia" as edits by Missingno and have been signed by Qho. I'm quietly making my edits and I really don't want to be harassed. I would be happy to provide more examples and details if necessary. Thank you so much for your time. — Reinyday, 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Qho replied the other way around over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hel-p me. I'd like to move discussion there so we can deal with it all in one place. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting block of[edit]

Hi. Sorry if this is the wrong place, but has been continually vandalizing Redan High School (Contribs). — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

18:11, 1 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked " (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (vandalism) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal-ball-kicking user names[edit]

I dont know if this user thinks he's being funny or what, but it's getting annoying. Should we just stay on the lookout for these types of names and permblock on site?Ernie001 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
We seem to already be doing so. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

porn link spammer[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is spamming extlinks that go to a porn site. Phr (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user persistently uses Wikipedia discussion pages as a means to advocate, propagate, and debate her political beliefs, as though they are mere blogs, thereby disrupting the editing process and violating Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. For evidence, one only needs to check some of her recent contributions, particularly her ones to Talk:Anarchism and Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. I've told her on several occassions that her use of disucussion pages for general political debate is unacceptable at Wikipedia, and that she should comment contructively on the content of articles, only. She responded to those notices by denouncing them as "assinine", "total crap", and "harrassing"; by removing them from her talk page; and by personally attacking me: removing this assinine bogus warning from a non-admin airhead, [44] removing further total crap left by a delusional editlor. [45] I admonished her personal attacks using the appropriate template, but she removed it.[46] Needless to say, virtually all of her comments to me and other editors (except those who agree with her political beliefs) have been uncivil.

She has told me that "I really don't much give a @#!& what you think and I can't for the life of me see how any of this is any of your business." She has also told me not to comment on her talk page again. [47] Accordingly, any form of mutal dispute resolution, including RFC and mediation, is out of the question, as those processes are reliant on the editor's respect for the opinions of others.

In summation, her disruptive conduct is analogous to that of a troll and likewise obstructs the improvement of this encyclopedia. And, unfortunately, her evident intransigence, incivility, and disregard for the opinions of others suggests that any type of personal reform is unlikely. I believe that immediate punitive action, at the very least, is in order.

(Please note that I have only worked with this editor for a few days and have already experienced two personal attacks.)

-- WGee 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: The user has been blocked indefinitely as an obvious reincarnation of the permanently blocked user user:Thewolfstar. It took me a while to get a handle on the procedures, as I'm not usually the block-forever kind of person, but Wolfstar is someone I'll learn the methods for. Geogre 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I have not personally worked with Thewolfstar, her disruptions to Wikipedia have gained a sort of infamy. Thank-you very much for dealing promptly and effectively with Lingeron; your assistance is greatly appreciated. -- WGee 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think we have more than one thread about this user, I'll repeat, I support this indef block. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-) If we needed more proof that it's Maggie Wolfstar, the fact that Lingeron has managed to get three complaint threads going on AN/I at once would be fairly conclusive. Few manage to be that nasty without being instant blocks the way that she can. De nada on the block. I don't like issuing blocks, but this person is richly deserving. Geogre 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel the same about blocks (even though I'm not an admin), but you're right, it was called for in this case. Thanks for all of your help, everybody. She was disrupting a lot of the articles I work on. --AaronS 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support this block. The sock alone has caused too much disruption in the Wikipedia community, primarily to the RfA process. — Deckiller 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    • That is, assuming that I look through the evidence and agree that a connection can actually be made....— Deckiller 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment in the other section pertaining to this user but I will also comment here. I would appreciate it if somebody would produce some evidence linking Lingeron with Thewolfstar. The fact that Lingeron might be doing some things inappropriately does not mean we arbitrarily select a former, banned user and pretend like they are "obviously" the same. The differences look pretty clear as far as I can tell: Lingeron is an anarchist capable of writing legible text; Thewolfstar was a borderline psycho Democratic ideologue prone to emotional rants. If you all want to give more ammunition to the critics of our community who say we arbitrarily ban people who rub the right people the wrong way, then by all means keep up this behaviour. — GT 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I just noticed that "new evidence" wasn't dug up; this is still based on the old speculation. A checkuser should be performed before the block. I'm withdrawing my support of this action until a checkuser (or something to a lesser degree) is performed. — Deckiller 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this isn't enough to go by. I'm unblocking this user until solid evidence can be obtained. This isn't necessarily an obvious case. — Deckiller 03:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points, all. Those differences are important. Lingeron is by no means a Democrat. She has, after all, accused me of shadowy Communist subversion and sedition. --AaronS 03:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was out of line to support the block without even checking to see if new evidence had been obtained. I hope I have redeemed myself. George, I understand why you blokced the user; but it's going to take a bit more process and time to come to a conclusion. Now, I will leave you guys to come to a conclusion as to the user warrenting another block outside of sockpuppetry (which has yet to be proven). — Deckiller 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, and agreed. --AaronS 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the first to observe that Lingeron appeared to be Thewolfstar. It's certainly fair to ask for supporting evidence though. I don't have the time or energy to do a full job right now. Here's a little:

  • Political stance: GT said " The differences look pretty clear as far as I can tell: Lingeron is an anarchist capable of writing legible text; Thewolfstar was a ... Democratic ideologue prone to emotional rants". Thewolfstar was no Democrat: see [48] for example: "I'm a life-long anarchist and environmentalist... I already stood up to an administrator and a huge troop of drooling, controlling idiots in this place. They're mainly Democrats." The confusion may stem from the fact that Thewolfstar spent her time editing articles on the Democrats, but she was mostly inserting stuff that the Democrats there didn't seem to care for. Example: [49].
  • I believe they also both frequently discuss Thomas Jefferson; here is an example of that from Thewoldstar.
More to come if I have the time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The Lingeron account had had I believe no interaction with Bishonen at all before Bishonen made this post on her page. It's fairly cryptic, and not a direct accusation: "You're making yourself increasingly easy to recognize. Again." How does Lingeron respond? At first, reasonably. A little later, though, she deletes the section with edit summary "and removing this nut case personal attack and lame, senseless accusation". I just don't see that kind of reaction occurring unless if she knows Bishonen knows she's Thewolfstar.
  • After Bishonen warns her more directly, Lingeron posts this, including the fascinating "I am currently looking through (Maggie)Thewolfstar's contributions, pages, etc. and do not find this user to even be abusive". Forgive me, but if Lingeron's investigation was even cursory, that statement either makes her insane, or Thewolfstar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that Thewolfstar's last contribiton may be recent enough for a checkuser. Think we should set up a request? — Deckiller 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I suppose we need to. Care to do the honors? Hopefully a simple pointer to this thread will be all the evidence needed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. Again, I apologize if this all turns out to be confirmed and I look like the paranoid idiot here — I've seen some strange things happen in the past, after all. — Deckiller 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has been disruptive, see the warning I placed on their page. I think it is a Bad Practice to overturn a block without seeking consensus first, that leads to wheel warring. I'm not sure I'd characterise the correlations reported by several admins as "old speculation" either. So I oppose lifting this block of a disruptive and incivil editor. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and believe me, either way I was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one — I continue to endorse the block, I get in trouble. I unblock the user for further discussion, and I get a few people mad at me. The block was for sockpuppetry, but nothing had been proven; and the last thing I want is to see a huge embarrassment case made out of this if we're wrong. Either way, bad practice was not my intention; I just want to keep this resonable. By old spculation, I meant the speculation that I already read about (meaning, nothing new was proven prior to the block). — Deckiller 05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's thewolfstar, although I only had a small number of dealings with that user (which is funny since my talkpage is linked as evidence of thewolfstar calling herself an anarchist. how did you find that btw?). I actually tried to avoid her after her second post to my page. Thewolfstar never edited the anarchism articles as far as I know, which has been Lingeron's main area of editing. There do appear to be some similarities though, both politically and behavior wise (the constant ranting against socialism, saying it's just fascism for example). It looked like they might be wising up after our discussion a few days ago, but based on some of their edits to their talk page I'm not quite so sure. I say that we wait and see what happens with checkuser and with her future edits before taking such a drastic action as indefinitely blocking, but regardless of if they are a sock or not, they are on thin ice. The Ungovernable Force 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you think a shorter block would be in hand for the other, non-sockpuppet allegations? I think so; but, given the current circumstances, I am no in position to do the blocking myself. — Deckiller 06:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is more likely than not that Thewolfstar's most recent contribs are too old. Be sure if you file an RFCU to list other confirmed socks that are more recent. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron's first edit was June 18, and Thewolfstar's last edit was May 9 (I believe). Is that still too much of a gap? — Deckiller 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We have records on Thewolfstar; I'll check into it. Essjay (Talk) 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it  Confirmed. Essjay (Talk) 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I'm a bit surprised and sorry to have been critical of Geogre and others before. Admittedly I didn't do much more than a short review of Lingeron's contributions. But at least it is, apparently, all settled now and in my opinion this Checkuser should have preceded any indefinite block. — GT 08:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the sockpuppet is obvious, then checkuser is not required; we routinely decline such requests under the rubric "Obvious sockpuppets may be blocked without the need for checkuser." If someone disputes the position that the sockpuppet is obvious, then a checkuser can be requested. To my knowledge (I haven't checked RfCU) no checkuser was actually requested by either side; it was mentioned above, but if I hadn't decided to do it sua sponte, it would not have been done. Essjay (Talk) 09:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well not that it's necessarily my interpretation that means anything, but to me "obvious" is quite different from "probable" or "likely" or "strongly suspected". — GT 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so is someone going to redo the block? The Ungovernable Force 09:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Having handled hundreds of such requests (possibly thousands, I'd have to go look), I don't feel particularly conceited to style myself as somewhat of an authority on the subject. Had the immediate reaction been to list this on RfCU rather than block, and had I been the checkuser who handled it (until about a week ago, it was about a 75% chance I would be), I would have rejected it as obvious. Additionally, we do not generally perform checks of this nature (that is, to clear up questions about a block) until someone asks us to do so; given that RfCU is the appropriate location to do so, such checks are generally not done until listed there. Essjay (Talk) 09:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reblocking indefinitely, referencing this thread, and I welcome review of my actions. I got an email from Deckiller explaing that s/he felt s/he had no choice but to lift the block. I guess I sympathise with the prudence, but don't agree it was warranted. The lift seems to have not taken, which is fortunate, no harm done, but in future, really, I think taking the word of other admins and asking for further investigation before lifting a block may be a better approach. An obvious sock is just that, obvious, and when several admins come to the same conclusion, engaging valuable Checkuser resources, while arguably prudent, and understandable, might be reconsidered. Admins need to, by default, trust each other, and to assume we're all here for the same reason, to build an encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It's perfectly fine with me that the block was lifted. The actions that followed were all by the book, and I'm pleased that there were questions, that they generated a check user, and that a block has been reinstated. We should be skeptical when indefinite blocks are involved, and I welcome any review of further blocks. (In other words, no hard feelings at all. I'm glad that there were questions and that the questions prompted precisely appropriate actions.) Thewolfstar is pretty dedicated and...upset. Geogre 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think questioning, skepticism, asking for clarification and all are fine but I don't see the need for rash action, there was little harm and some considerable benefit in leaving the block in place (or reducing it to a definite one for the disruption caused) and none in lifting it, in my view. As I said, we could have discussed this without one admin overturning another that way. we were fortunate this user didn't cause more disruption, but that was luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: For the record, just so folks know, Wolfstar wasn't a Democrat: she was an anti-Democrat. Her campaign, pursued with the kind of monomania that's scary, was to alter the article on the Democratic Party to make it "socialist." I.e. she edited it a lot because she wanted to tell the world the secret truth about Democrats -- that they're all socialists. Lotsa edits doesn't mean interest. :-) Geogre 12:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this ban against Lingeron. It has not been proven that she is a sockpuppet of TheWolfStar. A checkuser must be run, and the IP results made openly available. This ban is out of process, and appears to be negatively motivated. I request that the out of process and ill-considered ban be removed (again, it was already removed once by a discerning user) until and unless it is publicly proven that the user is a sockpuppet. - MSTCrow 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You do? Gosh. Check user was run. Puppetry confirmed. Folks are free to take a look at user talk:MSTCrow to decide for themselves whether this objection is motivated by due concern or prior hostility. Process was followed. Geogre 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Prior hostility to whom? I have not interacted with anyone involved in this entire issue previously, save Lingeron. I do not understand the thrust of your argument, and it damages your own character to stoop to questioning my motives. It is not enough for someone to claim that a checkuser was run, I'd like to see confirmation that a checkuser was run, and that the IPs matched. As banning a user is the ultimate action that can be taken against a user, the process must be as transparent and open as possible, to prevent abuses of power. - MSTCrow 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • As I've been saying ad infinitum on User talk:Lingeron, Essjay saying above that "IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it  Confirmed" IS the confirmation that checkuser was run. Essjay is one of a very small handful of people with the Checkuser right on wikipedia. He ran a checkuser, he gave us our results. The fact that they aren't in WP:RFCU is absolutely meaningless unless if you want to try to set some world record for Wikilawyering. As far as "seeing confirmation" -- the report of a checkuser is always like that, just a few words about the results. We don't get to ponder the full dump, both for privacy reasons and to try to keep sockpuppeteers from getting any better at what they do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't understand what possible privacy reasons could be involved, or how it would help sockpuppets improve, but I see that per WP:RFCU, not much else can be done at this time. What isn't in WP:RFCU that is supposed to make one capable of wikilawyering? - MSTCrow 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • A full raw dump of a checkuser request would be akin to revealing private information about a user, most notably their IPs used and thus their ISP. Beyond that, revealing the methods by which sockpuppets are caught is akin to revealing what you need to avoid being caught as a sockpuppet. It's not hard to understand.--Rosicrucian 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Until recently, only things where the request was made at WP:RFCU did it get listed there anywhere. We just started trying to catalog results by checkusers that weren't requested on WP:RFCU over there. (Check out WP:RFCU/SORT if you want to leave a note that checkuser was used somewhere) Go check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thewolfstar. Evidence from here is documented there now. I'm to understand checkuser is used outside of WP:RFCU, esspecially by ArbCom (who holds the right to assign, and the majority of people with the permission). No need for discounting the checkuser results anymore now I hope. Unless, of course, someone wants to question Essjay's character, in which case we're in a whole new ballgame. Kevin_b_er 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protected[edit]

Based on this diff: [50] in which Thewolfstar is manipulating official notice templates in a way to cloud or obfuscate official findings (the checkuser is confirmed, it's over, this is a sock) I have protected the User_talk:Lingeron page, and Thewolfstar will have to use email to communicate further. I welcome review of this action. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I support it completely. — Deckiller 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Maggie's "contributions" before blocking were to suggest that Democrats are socialist and then, as this account, that she knew the real meaning of anarchism and that all the rest of her input was talk pages and trying to rally soldiers around the grand old flag of "Admins are abusing me: help, help, I'm being oppressed," her talk page is the primary thing to lock. Without the talk page stuff, she's easy to spot and nearly negligible. (I.e. I support the lockdown.) Geogre 11:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"Oh, Admin, eh - very nice. And how'd you get that, then? By exploiting the editors! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress..." (sorry, I couldn't resist).[51] The Ungovernable