Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive138

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Administrative abuse by User:David.Monniaux[edit]

David sez: This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating Wikipedia's policies, most notably WP:NOT: Wikipedia user pages, signatures, etc. should not be used for advocacy. He then blocked User:Rookiee indefinitely and deleted, and then protected Rookiee's user- and talkpage. The "other policies" alluded to here were not mentioned anywhere, and the indefinite block apparently followed Rookiee readding of a link once. He was not warned following this.

David's allegation of "signature advocacy" apparently stems from the devious subliminal message Rookiee uses in his signature, and, ironically, David also had a links his homepage on his userpage. JayW 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rookiee was warned in the strongest possible terms that an indefinite block was coming unless he ceased using his user page to promote pedophilia. Fred Bauder 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You alone do not have the authority to make such a warning. JayW 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
?!? Not only does he have "the authority", it's part of every admin's job description to protect the project, which this clearly falls under. This is a particularly weird comment, given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom. Jkelly 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
..here's a scenerio. I'm an admin. I go TheLand's userpage and discover s/he enjoys the violin. And as it happens, a violin raped my father last week. So I burst in hir talk page and declare - without any community discussion - that, should "TheLand" not censor her page immediantly to suit my delicate sensibilities, I'll single-handedly block her - without even asking others or a "warning" block - forever. Per WP:NOT of course, nothing to do with my personal prejudices... (I might even throw in a vague death threat, just for good measure.)
..and all this is despite the fact that hundreds of other people are also violating "NOT," yet they're still free to edit.
Within my rights? Y/N?
Of course, in the real world, violins are not blamed for everything imaginable, so this analogy might be just a little off.
"given that Fred Bauder is a member of ArbCom."
uh. It's unfortunate you don't know what the ArbCom is? JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
My suspicion is that the above is an attempt to entertain yourself. If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Jkelly 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"If you're genuinely confused, you can find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee." The point was that the ArbCom doesn't have shit to do with anything here and if you believe it does, you clearly don't know what it is. JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
They would be the place for an indefinitely blocked user to appeal the block. Again, you can find out more information about how dispute resolution works at the above link. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly: ergo, your point is ridiculous and Fred still doesn't have the right to bypass the wiki community. And you're yet to explained why a ban is more appropriate than a simple page protection. JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt at an "analogy" goes far beyond reductio ad absurdum and simply into the realm of the bizarre. A violin does not advocate for, bluntly, the legalization of child molestation. FCYTravis 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rookiee was blocked on the basis of WP:NOT? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Good call. We are not a platform for the promotion of 'boylove'. The Land 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a fuck what you do to his userpage, but the indefinite block is disproportionate, unfair, and against our own blocking policy. There was basically zip for dispute resolution, here. JayW 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that lengthy dispute resolution is required when a user is blatantly violating Wikipedia policy, in a manner that endangers the project, and refuses to stop after repeated warnings. -- SCZenz 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
There was an extensive discussion between a number of people; including senior administrators, on his Talk page. That's all the dispute resolution needed. From the content of that conversation, the content of the deleted edits to his user page, and the nature of his blog I am clear that Fred and others acted correctly. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and particularly not one for pedophiles. The Land 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The action was necessary and proper to defend the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I wholeheartedly support it. FCYTravis 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like Rookiee's userpage, blank and protect it. A block is not appropriate and not excusable. We have already concluded, after losing multiple editors, that paedophiles shouldn't be blocked for their orientation; wanna discuss it again? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The real shocking thing here is not the block, but that he has been allowed to last this long as it is. He was indef blocked with his userpage deleted in March, and it was reversed. Whenever a disruptive user is saved by other admins, they almost always end up getting blocked again. We need to stop this. Disruptive users or those who pose a threat have no place here - to hell with "rehabilitation" and to hell with AGF. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many people fail to understand that WP:AGF does not require that we continue to assume good faith in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary. FCYTravis 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I 100% agree with you, good editors should be encouraged to work through problems and continue to be good editors (though often by the time it gets to a block, it's well beyond that). But yes WP:AGF is not "look the other way", and maybe we do need a WP:NOT a psychiatrist's couch, daycare centre, rehabilitation clinic etc. --pgk 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Apart from that, feel free to send this to ArbCom, and please do not edit my user page. David.Monniaux 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"I find it... amusing that people who claim to support free speech quote the Gayssot Law, which basically bans speech that some people consider "hateful". Ever bring a plastic knife to a gunfight before, David? JayW 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You should consider attending to your own behaviour at this point. If your interest in Wikipedia is amusing yourself by making quips or scoring points on an internet forum, please find another venue. Jkelly 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"making quips or scoring points on an internet forum" Your attack is irrelevant, seeing as the above post was simply a reply to David's implication. How the hell is that a "quip?" JayW 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"Quip" would be overstating; "confused non sequitor" is more descriptive. --150.61.31.119 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked JayW for incivility and trolling. 24 hours. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I continue to advance the notion that pedophiles should be blocked on sight. El_C 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line? Fred Bauder 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the block of JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't. He is swearing a lot and debating very aggressively. However, he is not sdimply trolling, he is trying to argue quite a serious and difficult point, albeit not very calmly. However if we blocked people for swearing when we were angry we'd all be fucking screwed. The Land 09:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with The Land that JayW should not have been blocked for swearing. Dionyseus 09:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The block is only for 24 hours, so I would let it stand. I hope that it gets the point across that making personal attacks against users (a blockable offense) is a no-go on Wikipedia and if he wants to debate the indef block of Rookie, then he should do so without the name calling an insults. As for the swearing, we all done it, but it should be a good idea that in a debate like this, just refrain from doing them (don't block just because he swears, but if the swearing is getting too much, come back here). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Everyking was banned from this page because of his repeated assaults on the actions of administrators. There is precedent, JayW. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

hay guyz I have an idea, how about we discuss Rookiee's block instead? I really don't care about how many people you've censored before; I'd just like someone to unblock Rookiee ASAP, per policy, human decensy and common sense. Thank you. JayW 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

per policy, human decensy and common sense. Except for each of those "per"s being wrong, wrong, and wrong, not a reason not to do it. Other than, of course, being a completely ridiculous idea, that is. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I am talking with Rookiee and Jimbo regarding his page. I would rather finish that conversation first. I hope he can be persuaded to make his userpage less aggressive. Simply restoring it short circuits the conversation. There is also hope he might consider not using the signature "revolyob" {boylover spelled backwards.} I think there is consensus that he can edit, on the same terms as others. The issue is using Wikipedia for pedophilia advocacy. We need to make an agreement with him though, not with his defenders as if he has to be constantly policed, it is better if he is not here at all. Fred Bauder 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Unblocking Rookiee is not going to go over well in certain circles. Some people are of the opinion that it is impossible for a self-admitted pedophile to remain neutral when editing related articles. Rookiee's pro-pedophile activities outside of Wikipedia are well-documented; phrases like "harboring pedophiles" are starting to be mentioned in relation to Wikipedia. Is that what we want to happen? Powers T 14:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing happening so far. Unblocking him is just not completely ruled out. Fred Bauder 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I remain boggled as to why it's not completely ruled out. Powers T 13:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, generally, we let people edit if they follow our policies. Blocking someone because they use Wikipedia as a soapbox is fine. Blocking someone because we don't like the thoughts they express off-wiki is not something we should dabble in (even when the thoughts in question are as extreme as "pedophilia should be legal"). — Matt Crypto 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I used to think that Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy suggested a sort of 'free speech' approach which allowed all viewpoints, however unpopular, to be expressed. The 'userbox wars' suggested that this was not the case where the existence of 'potentially inflammatory' userboxes in the template namespace might be taken to suggest Wikimedia backing of such... as opposed to the appearance of similar sentiments directly on the userpage where it was then ascribed only to the user. This incident now seems to suggest that even things which are clearly only the user's individual views are to be suppressed if they are heavily disliked. If we are going to have this as a practice we should do so formally to avoid understandable confusion as to why 'pro abortion' statements (equally hated by some) are allowed but 'pro pedophilia' statements are not. Both are completely legal in the United States, where the servers are hosted, so this is presumably not a 'legal concern', but an 'image concern'... we don't want Wikipedia to be in any way associated with ideas offensive to the vast majority of our users. Does Nazism make the cut? Homosexuality? Does it vary by language (homosexuality being much more unpopular in some cultures than others)? The last time this came up some people were suggesting that homosexuals should be similarly censored... and you take this concept to the Arabic Wikipedia and I think it very likely that will be the case. Should expressions of support for 'Falun Gong' be barred on the Chinese language Wikipedia? Are 'pro pedophilia' individuals allowed to be users if they don't state their views or attempt to bias articles, or should they be banned entirely whenever identified (even by off-wiki blogs and the like) as some have suggested? We should spell it out. If Wikipedia is going to have a censorship practice we should have a censorship policy. Otherwise this will inevitably look (to those impacted and strong supporters of free speech) like individual admins enforcing their own biases. This is clearly censorship and thus I think we need to have some sort of guidelines from Wikimedia on what should be censored and to what extent. --CBD 12:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for something as provocatively (and unjustifiably) named as a 'censorship policy' to explain David's actions here, since they can be quite simply covered by WP:NOT ('a webspace provider') and by Wikipedia:User page. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 13:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Provocative? Unjustifiable? C'mon. In what way is it not censorship? We are barring statements of support for a particular viewpoint. It couldn't be more obviously censorship than it already is. And I'm sorry, but WP:NOT and WP:USER don't cover it because there are thousands of user pages which violate 'not a web-host' every bit as much. We aren't removing material because it is 'unrelated to building an encyclopedia'... we are removing material because of what it says. Using 'not a web-host' would mean sanitizing everything of that nature. When you do so only for particular topics it is clearly a different animal... and identifying which topics are verbotten can only help everyone. --CBD 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not censorship for the same reason that it isn't censorship for us to delete articles on non-notable topics: they don't belong in an encyclopaedia. Personally I would be quite content for 'everything of that nature' -- everything that doesn't relate to building an encyclopaedia -- to be 'sanitized' from userspace (although again that is another unnecessarily emotive word), but I think it is fair for cases of abuse to be looked at on an individual basis. Rookiee was invited to stop using his userspace for advocacy totally unrelated to Wikipedia or its projects, chose not to, and has faced the according consequences. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
To me this seems like hiding behind a fiction rather than being up front about the realities of the situation. 'We are removing non-encyclopedic userpage material' may sound nicer than 'we are censoring pro-pedophilia views on userpages', but it isn't accurate. It paints a false picture of how Wikipedia works and opens the door for further confusion and conflict on this issue down the road. If this is going to be Wikipedia practice then we should have the courage of our convictions and say so rather than hiding behind a pretext which only gets used in specific instances. We don't blank user pages and indefinitely block people for saying they support gay rights, various political positions, and a hundred other sorts of advocacy... and thus it is absolutely clear that this isn't about removing non-encyclopedic advocacy in general (which I agree would be preferable to doing so selectively), but rather about censoring a particular topic. If we don't have the integrity to say so openly then you can't very well blame people for not knowing or not believing individual users on this issue. --CBD 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I still don't really understand what you're complaining about. Rookiee was advised that his userspace breached several Wikipedia policies and chose not to do anything about it. I now hope the same action will be taken in other extreme cases of Wikipedians who use their userpages for proselytising, public soapboxing and other advocacy unrelated to our project. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not complaining so much as urging clarification. You express a "hope" that this "will" be part of a widespread effort to remove proselytising... whereas I am expressing an 'observation' that to date it has not been, but rather a targeted effort on a particular topic. If this IS activity against proselytising in general then by all means let's say so and treat everyone the same way (right down to the indefinite block if need be)... but if it is activity against pedophilia in particular (as seems to me the case based on statements of the involved parties) then we should say that too and make it official that we censor users on that topic. No complaints. Just a request that we be clear about where we stand and what we do. --CBD 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Promoting pedophilia is adovcating an illegal act, which is illegal. As abortion is legal, advocating abortion-choice is not illegal. Powers T 13:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Powers, I suggest you read the NAMBLA article as you are very much mistaken about the law as it relates to 'speech' about pedophilia being an illegal 'act' in the US. It is illegal in some countries and a case could be made for 'Wikipedia avoiding illegality in any country'... but then you might have to tell all the female users that they aren't allowed to show pictures of themself on their user pages unless they are wearing a burkha. Good luck. :] --CBD 13:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I misspoke slightly. From the NAMBLA article you referenced: "The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to defend NAMBLA as a free speech matter and won a dismissal based on the fact that NAMBLA is organized as an unincorporated association, not a corporation. John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA 'may extol conduct which is currently illegal', there was nothing on its website that 'advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape'." That implies that advocating or inciting the commission of illegal acts would have been grounds for continuation. Rookiee's user page advocated and incited the commission of illegal acts. Powers T 14:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If, as you appear to be arguing, this is supposed to be a 'legal issue' rather than an 'image issue' then it (obviously) ought to be handled by the foundation's lawyer rather than individual users who have no legal background and/or are not legal representatives of Wikimedia. However, I don't believe that to be the case because there is really no legal issue here. Your claim that he "advocated and incited the commission of illegal acts" just does not appear to be true. There were no statements encouraging anyone to engage in any illegal activity. Rather there were statements of his beliefs that it should not be considered illegal / immoral... which are protected speech. The distinction may be difficult to see, but it is very real in terms of the legality of speech. It is legal to say, 'I think mass-murder of lawyers would be a good thing'... but not, 'I want you to kill that lawyer'. --CBD 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
See Imminent lawless action for the actual U.S. dividing line between 'free speech' and 'speech as an illegal act'. --CBD 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well. I may have overstated the case a bit. I personally interpreted some of the content on his user page, and on linked pages, to be inciting actual acts of pedophilia (in the common sense, not the medical sense), but I recognize it was not clear-cut to everyone. Regardless, I have no problem with blocking users who persistantly push a pro-pedophilia POV. Powers T 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Advocating the change of law is not illegal, obviously, and that's all Rookiee has done on his userpage or anywhere else. "Libel," on the other hand, is a crime virtually everywhere. Watch it. JayW 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that a threat? Powers T 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont know why you would think that him pointing out a legal aspect, libal, would be a legal threat if you yourself pointed one out above, that I am sure you did not mean as a threat. I think everyone just needs to calm down a little bit. I have no sympathy for pedophiles, but advocating a change of law is not illegal and wikipedia should not be against someone stating their opinion, however their userpage should not solely consist of soapboxing for their purpose. Then again we have many Democrats on Wikipedia who's pages seem to be quite similar. I am sure there are many legalize marijuana users on wikipedia as well. --NuclearUmpf 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally[edit]

I finally figured it out. Look, before we start anything else, I'm not a troll or a sock. I do honestly love the admins that are here and I want to show gratitude towards them by showing how incredibly awesome they are. I thought about it real hard the last few days, but I think Alphachimp, Crzrussian, Yanksox, and Tyrenius are like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. They will kick yo ass and you won't know what happened. Of course, this leaves the opening for Bill. I think it's pretty damn obvious who Bill is, none other than Samir. Yatuern 11:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This sort of accusation needs to be backed up with evidence. You appear to hold the very same opinion as a banned user, so it's logical for people to assume you're a meat puppet or sockpuppet. Instead of posting this and getting yourself banned again, try going about it the correct way. - Mgm|(talk) 11:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See Yanksox is awesome and similar articles for the other admins involved. Am deleting them as they don't belong in the article space. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yatuern has spammed this message across multiple pages and reported himself to AIV after he was done. I blocked him for spamming, trolling, sockpuppetry (and by his own request). - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent response. It's nice to know that we have fans. alphaChimp(talk) 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll be Vivica! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The timing of Reterole's account creation and unblock request is slightly suspicious, but seeing as 192.138.214.102 (talkcontribsWHOISblock userblock log) is a SharedIPEDU belonging to Suffolk University, I've had to lift it on good faith. So be aware of any further vandalism and sockpuppetry from Yatuern and co. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(sigh)This is all rather thrilling... Yanksox 04:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
OF COURSE IT'S THRILLING! I think these admins are awesome, they're better than the Jimi Hendrix Experience. If I had to make each one a band it would be, Yanksox is Led Zep, Tyrenius is the Beatles, Alphachimp is ELO, Crzrussian is the Rolling Stones, and Samir is David Bowie. THESE ADMINS ARE TH3 COOLEST! I LOVE THEM! <3 ~~Kimberly

User:Abu badali[edit]

I believe User:Abu badali is unfairly harrassing me! He continually is retagging my images and listing them for deletion. After a big discussion, the fair use images probably should (or will be, anyway) be deleted. But now, I think he is unfairly targeting the images that I upload just because I argued with him. And the new images I uploaded were created by me anyway, so he has no right to retag them as not being created by me. Please, I need some help in dealing with him. Thank You. - Ivan Kricancic 12:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point to an image or two which were marked by this user but for which you provided all the necessary information? Or are you saying that he is marking images which are missing this information? If the latter, the way to stop this from happening would be to provide all the necessary information and this would not really be grounds for a complaint. --Yamla 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a continuation from an early incident in which Ivan asked for administrative assistance. Some people do not agree with Abu's tagging, while it seems it does follow policy. I would have hoped after the issue comnig to AN/I that Abu would have ceased interacting with Ivan as it was clear Ivan felt it was malicious, however during the AN/I discussion it seems Abu went ahead and kept filing for Ivan's image uploads to be deleted. It seems to be at the very least a bad judgement call and did no good in helping to difuse the situation or ease a fellow editors worries. If Abu is randomly going through the list of images that needs tagging and finding Ivan's I guess that is fine, however if he went through Ivan's contribs to find image uploads then that may be a different issue. --NuclearUmpf 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Abu Badali is asking legitimate questions about the gfd-self tags on images such as Image:Sfxycwncgm.jpg. He's doing so very politely, too, given the circumstances. [1] Ivan, if you would show a little cooperation and provide more information about these photographs — such as when they were taken and the reason that they have ink patterns similar to newspaper print — then we could all move on. Your talk page is the correct place for this discussion (outside of WP:PUI); please do not delete AB's posts there as "harassment" [2]. ×Meegs 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Abu badali is unfairly targeting me. Polite or not, it is still harrassment; if I politely asked a girl if I could touch her ass, it would still be harrassment. I want nothing more to do with Abu badali, as he just serves to irritate, frustrate and drive peopel away from contributing to Wikipedia. If i see his posts as harrassment, I will delete them. - Ivan Kricancic 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
We got thousands of image upload each day. Many of these are copyright infringements. There is a small number of people who understand the copyright laws, wikipedia copyright policy, the tools we have to facilitate the dealings with the images. Some of them devoted most of their effort to the unthankful job of sorting the images. Sometimes they are named the image police. Sometimes they are rude, but we can not live without them. Please do not make their life more difficult by harassing them, just provide the necessary info and try to be nice and maybe they will be nice in return. Unfortunately the demand for Abu Badali to leave you along is similar to the demand to traffic policeman to leave you alone. It would never happen. abakharev 09:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Muhammadhani[edit]

User has been warned repeatedly about submitting copyrighted information, and continues to do after my personalized warning. -- Merope Talk 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

More information: This user is persistently creating articles that are copyvios. He has four {{nothanks-sd}} warnings, two {{nothanks}} warnings, and one warning from me asking him to stop copying and pasting content. Since that warning from me, he has created one more copyvio article. He's also doing something extremely strange: he's copying existing Wikipedia articles (e.g., Hub Power Company) and creating new articles with the word "Limited" appended to it (Hub Power Company Limited) even if that's not the name of the company. I can't remember, but I don't think that Wikipedia policy uses "Limited" or "Inc" in the titles of articles, but even still, he should be creating redirects. (I mean, he clearly knows those articles exists, since he copied them, formatting and all.) Nearly all of his edits are copying and pasting material (either copyrighted or from other WP articles). Since repeated warnings have not worked, perhaps a 24 hour ban? -- Merope Talk 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

for requests like this please use WP:AIV: you'll get a faster response there. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiding facts about admin conduct[edit]

A group of admins wants to hide facts about their conduct. They abuse privileges and then if someone reports these, they wanna delete the report. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of worries me and I think a policy needs to be made regarding gathering of information. As a previous debate raged here earlier I think you have to tag the page as the start of an RfC or something to the liking. I think users shouldnt keep "attack" pages but I think we need to draw a clear line eventually as to what constitutes one. Considering the information is sourced with dif's I dont think its really an attack page. --NuclearUmpf 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Also not kind of worried about the offsite communication as numerous voters are not MfD regulars yet have found themselves to that page to vote, all being admins listed on the page. Perhaps we just need a page where people can post stuff like this for review by the community or something. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue... on the one hand suppression of dissent and on the other possible aggravation caused by being included on such a list. As such, I'd suggest we encourage people to keep such lists privately 'off wiki' for future reference and express dissent in written form rather than as a list of disputed actions. Some sort of consistent response to these would be a good idea though since it comes up fairly often. --CBD 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The "aggravation" stems from the admins actions. Nobody is included there id he did not violate policies. If someone has killed someone, well you can decide to mark him on the forehead as former killer or not. You can also go and say, we keep it only in an archive, and don't mark the forehead. What I see here is a perpatuation of a two class WP society. The admins can leave there markers on other peoples forehead, whether valid or not. But regular editors can't even collect evidence about the admins. I lately was denied AWB access by User:Winhunter, who still did not point me to the corresponding policy as I did request. Furthermore admins are free to alter my comments and if I revert can come in and put officiall warnings on my talk and point me to 3RR. Yes they are three, I am one. So 3RR is very easy deal for them, right? This is mega corruptive. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"Mega Corruptive" would be a great name for an industrial band. And as far as I can make out, AWB use is left to administrative discretion. --InShaneee 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gathering data is good. Disrupting is bad. If people complain why not move it offsite? At least temporarily? Willingness to play well with others says more than any analysis of the content. WAS 4.250 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how this data collection page is disrupting. Offsite? Hey, how shall this be done? I have the FF browser and the wikipedia server. That's it. Shall I move it to meta? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking Geocities would probably be a better idea. --InShaneee 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming "OMG ADMIN ABUSE" is disruption in and of itself, as is complaining "The MfD isn't going my way". --InShaneee 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is complaining about a MfD but about the proccess being undertaken to eliminate information from Wikipedia that normally would not be removed. People have half completed RfC's all over Wikipedia and I doubt any admins are specifically hunting them down. However since an admin who is on the list found this it got sent to MfD. I believe this came up earlier and was stated that pages like this needed to be tagged as RfC's in proccess or something similar. As for disruption I don't really see how its disrupting anythnig if someone would have never taken it to MfD in the first place and left it alone. Perhaps if he moves it and removes the wiki-linking of names that will help, then noone will stumble on it? --NuclearUmpf 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the MfD is proceeding, so this is not the place to complain about its validity. --InShaneee 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is actually the place to complain about admins abusing procedure, especially if its seen as being done to cover up their own issues of the past. Since this user is asking for admin assistance regarding an incident, I really do not see a better place. --NuclearUmpf 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
...Except that no administrative actions have occured here. Anyone could have nominated that page for deletion, and anyone still can vote. --InShaneee 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has copied the entire contents of the abuse page, word for word onto the MFD. I replaced it with a link (note it is already linked at the top) and he reverted. It is a complete duplication of the abuse page and a link would be better to include as there is no point posting the same information over and over again. I won't revert again since I'm obviously one of the abusive admins, but for the sake of clarity and readability and just plain common sense, can someone please remove the duplicate material and replace it with a link? pschemp | talk 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

the fact that I copied it to the MfD, is that the orig may be altered. I have an updated version on my user page now. So I really would like to know which of the facts are wrong on the original page. That's why I copied it. Annotations can also be made better if the stuff is copied. Please go and say what is not violation of policies. Golbez who brought this to MfD right now, has done so only after he abused again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, it isn't admin abuse to want a readable page without the same exact information as the page proposed for deletion pasted in there again. I'm writing this now because I fully expect someone to come along and tell me that removing duplicate information and repleacing it with a link to the exact same information is harassment. Which it isn't. The whole point here isn't whether it is true or not. No one is going to go through and annotate anything. This issue is whether its appropriate to be sitting around in an encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG wikiadmin conspiracyz!!!11one Danny Lilithborne 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not troll here, your comments are not helpful in difusing the current situation. --NuclearUmpf 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This situation is not helpful for Wikipedia, and my comment was no more harmful than much of the nonsense being passed around in this discussion. Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not really sure what you mean by this situation. A user/editor believes they are being targetted by admins who are attempting to hide information ... this situation is indeed not helpful at all. The more thought out response would be to explore the allegations not make trollish comments. Attempting to debase the conversation really serves no purpose to easing the editors feelings or solving their complaint. --NuclearUmpf 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting an entire page that is up for MfD ON the MfD is just NOT our practice. Tobias has inserted it three times already, and it has been removed by three different discussion participants. I've warned him to be careful of 3rr. In my view he's in violation in spirit already. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Are they all admins, are they all people voting delete? I mean if they are you would see why according to this discussion he all see's them as one. If people who are on this list are removing it then ... well it kinda goes toward his point, not that I agree. I just think he should keep the page without the wiki-linking so noone can claim they stumbled on it or its distracting anyone, and he should tag it as a future RfC. --NuclearUmpf 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course it makes his point for him...but only for people willing to believe in the Secret Admin Cabal(tm). And opinions about the fate of the MfD belong on the MfD. --InShaneee 20:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to argue this point with you, but the information has already been immortalized in the MfD log now, so whatever was attempting to be accomplished is now really moot. The discussion here is about admins deleting pages that contain misdeeds. As for Secret Admin Cabals, if you do not believe any admin would work with another admin for a negative purpose then you probably do not believe in meat puppets either or two users working to circumvent 3RR. Same principle, not every admin has to be stewing over a bubbling cauldron plotting world domination for their to be an issue. --NuclearUmpf 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well now. As far as I can tell the mature response to the original request here was "fuck off, troll". Everything since has been nothing more than gratifying the troll's ego and providing more comfort for those who wish to see Wikipedia reduced to anarchy. Jaded? You betcha. Guy 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this responding to me? If not please refactor your comments. I am not sure who here has said "fuck off, troll" or anything else in your post. If you are in fact jaded then you may want to take a step back and lower your wiki stress levels for everyones benefit. --NuclearUmpf 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter who Guy was addressing the comments to. That is obviously egregious incivility and personal attack and serves only to promote "anarchy". Guy, if you are that stressed take a break from whatever it is that is causing you grief. It's a big wiki and there is always something else to do. --CBD 11:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record:

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Usually" != "Always" ... Tell you what, Tobias. As was suggested before, if you want to start an RfC, a mediation request, an RfAr, or any other of our normal dispute resolution mechanisms, where rules of fairness and civility apply, everyone that is involved can give their views, and if you're willing to abide by the results of that dispute resolution process... I'll undelete the page for you and put it in one of those places, Just decide which, and say when, and I will be happy to help. But if you want to maintain a biased screed with no chance for anyone else to reply or rebut, and maintain it indefinitely, well... maybe you will find it a bit harder to get someone to help you. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the page being poof'd and keeping it poof'd. The page served no legitimate purpose on the project. Take it to MySpace. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The page should not have been deleted out of proccess. That is my only complaint. Its funny that an admin would do that when the issue is brought up that they may be trying to hide information, then delete the page when its on MfD. --NuclearUmpf 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was deleted out of process. Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A collection of a persons own quotes are not a personal attack. Unless they were in fact personally attacking themselves. --NuclearUmpf 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone's own quotes can be used by another with the intention of painting them in a bad light, as was the intention here. Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You pointed me to NPA and it does not list this phenomenon, it actually implies this list was ok. It states that saying someone is acting like X is ok since you arent calling them an X. In this case that is not even being done. If I missed something no NPA please quote it here. I also want to point out that the page was not deleted per NPA and was not reported under WP:PAIN where it would have been then, still making it out of proccess, instead the MfD was simply closed.--NuclearUmpf 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem finding autoblock[edit]

I'm having problems finding an autoblock that is blocking User:Agr723. The block was initially placed on User:Js2Jo. This user is trying to edit from 205.188.116.137. I know how to find autoblocks, I'm just not turning anything up in this case. I certainly placed the block on Js2Jo but there does not seem to be any outstanding autoblocks. Nor on the IP address. If someone could find out what's going on and unblock Agr723, I'm sure he'd much appreciate it. --Yamla 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... AOL proxies. That's your problem. I believe the following is to be used: Js2Jo(Autoblocks block log). Ryūlóng 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have one word for you, Yamal, "n00b" HP 50g 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hp 50, I'm going to have to point out to you that Wikipedia is not a game, please be civil.--Konstable 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If you were using the toolserver autoblock script then because of some downtime that wasn't being updated for quite a few hours, I've just restarted it. --pgk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'M GOING TO SUE USER JOSHUA 316!! (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

I don't think it's serious. I'm pretty sure it's just a guy in my neighborhood we call "Bobo" who's hassling me and my friends again. Could someone please tell him to stop being a jerk. Thanks.Joshua316 00:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems more of a username violation anyway. Recommend implementation of WP:USERNAME actions prescribed for these situations (in short, blocking?}. --physicq210 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, he/she/it is now indef blocked. --physicq210 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request granted HP 50g 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, an edit summery you made, "Go away, Bobo. You know my dad's a magistrate and would never let this suit get off the ground." is not appropiate. I kindly ask you two, to take your legal hassling somewhere else. HP 50g 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, report username cases like this to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response there most likely. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon user 82.32.80.231[edit]

I'm posting this here as it doesn't seem urgent per the instructions at WP:AIV.

82.32.80.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP address has been used to make a grand total of 16 edits, all in the last 2 months. Every edit appears to be related to "Jack Andrews" and appears to me to be vandalism. The user seems to have been adequately warned and appears to me to be someone who is just here to cause problems. --After Midnight 0001 02:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • With such a long time between edits, a block is unlikely to affect them. Please keep an eye on him so we can react immediately if they post again, or add the IP to User:MacGyverMagic/Watch (bottom of first list) and mention this discussion in your edit summary. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

New account created by blocked user[edit]

I was perusing the user creation blog and noticed the following:

"03:01, 26 September 2006 Asdon (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Hicking"

Asdon's user page notes:

"This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia."

--A. B. 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

However, Asdon was never blocked. I don't know why the {{indefblocked}} template is there though. --physicq210 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Update:
--A. B. 03:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is our friend in North Carolina. He just dropped a note on my talk page [4] asking me to help. I think he is genuinely "trying" to give up the vandalism habit, but doesn't quite get it, i.e. is not taking full responsibility for his actions, and is failing to recognize the harm he's done. Since I'm disinclined to be his babysitter at the moment I'm ignoring him for the time being, but do as you please. By the way there are probably at least a hundred "sleeper" socks of his around such as the one you found, and the one that moved his own MFD page just now. Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Some other personas I found; some have been addressed by admins, others have not:
I’ve run out of time to do anymore digging on this one.--A. B. 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Out "friend" is not trying to reform, but to continue to vandalize and then get some sort of recognition for it. He does this all the time, this is not reform. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Search engines catching protected pages[edit]

I have received a complaint from Josh Humphries that the deleted page "Josh humphries is clearly GAY" has apeared among the top Google results for his name. I don't think anything can be done about it now, but for the next time: when you protect a page with an offensive/attack title against re-creation by vandals, be careful to delete it after a few days before the search engines and/or Wikipedia forks catch it. - Mike Rosoft 08:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an interface to Google that allows removing individual pages from the cache. I don't have the link here, sry. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 10:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a broader issue, maybe we need a "temporarilly protected" template in addition to the longer-term {{deleted}}. The short term one could be deleted after 48 hours or so... just used to stop a vandal on a creation spree (which as I recall does happen quite a bit). Being vigilant is a good idea in the meantime though, but mistakes are always going to happen. --W.marsh 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I submitted the request, it my take a while to be actioned. Guy 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, it can be removed from the cache (which is really not the point because the cached version only contains the {{deletedpage}} notice) - but can it be removed from the Google results? - Mike Rosoft 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon user 141.213.210.108[edit]

This user, from his edits, is almost certainly a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user:LaGrange.--Brownlee 14:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

209.18.49.15 need to be blocked[edit]

the ip 209.18.49.15 is a high school computer network IP, the network has over 500 computer. there has been over 79+ and counting each day.... vandalism that i could count. Student (at least from the school) should NOT be able to edite. (or at least not without an account)

--209.18.49.15 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of the policy on school IP, but I put the repeatvandal template on the atlk page. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, already there. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request block of 64.8.175.8[edit]

I would like to request the block of 64.8.175.8 for recent vandalism on the Calling shotgun page. Further, his/her contribution history makes it clear that this is a repeat offender that should possibly be banned. -- Drostie 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidents like this should be reported to WP:AIV, you'll get a faster response there. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the vandalism rules being manipulated?[edit]

Take a look at this diff. The next diff on the article shows that in the same minute, the same user reverted his/her own edit. This isn't the first time I've seen this - maybe it's only coincidence, but perhaps it's getting more common.

Are users such as the one above aiming only to get their comments into the article histories, thereby avoiding vandalism warnings and possible banning, while knowing that their edit will remain pretty much unactioned forevermore, ever viewable in the history? --Crimsone 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could be just a user experimenting with Wikipedia; this sort of thing happens all the time. If the user or IP doesn't have a history of vandalism; best is to put a {{test-self}} on their userpage. I just did for the diff you mention.
It should be noted that the inappropriate comment left in this case (calling Chris Moyles an obscenity) probably is not a legal issue (you can't sue someone for libel just because they call you naughty words); plus, old article versions aren't indexed/followed by search engines (at least those which pay attention to robots.txt).
--EngineerScotty 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I've seen it, I've assumed it's someone seeing if wiki really works, and, when they find out it does, deciding they don't want their comment their after all. It still needs "test" warning. It seems to occur with new users. Tyrenius 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Another plausible theory (I don't know if it applies in this case) is that the edits are being made by two different users behind one router, such as in the case of a school's computer lab. One person taps the other on the shoulder and says "heh, heh, look what I did", and the second person reverts it. Neil916 (Talk) 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, for what it's worth, I haven't been doing as much RC Patrol as I used to, but in what I have done in the last week or so, I've issued an unusual amount of {{selftest}}s. Then again, if they are reverting it immediatly, I'd say it's less of a problem, if anything. --InShaneee 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam problem, a deletionist needed![edit]

I was wondering whether or not to deal with this myself, but instead of spamming up CAT:CSD, decided to put it here instead.

Over 40 (possibly more by now) user/user_talk pages contain:

Wikipedia is great!

The best source of information. [http://www.matei.org Dr.Matei] And it really is!

All these pages that link to the spam site click me. So I'd suggest blocking all these users, and speedy deleting all the pages that contain the link as they are obsolete and useless.

Of course, all the users which have placed the link is of course their only contributions.

I'd also suggest blacklisting the website. - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

Good luck!--Andeh 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Whoever the spammer is; he/she isn't going to get the affect she likes. I believe that URLs on user and talk pages are not indexed by search engines--all outbound links have the nofollow attribute set. Also, note that the site has been added to the blacklist; I've nowikid the URL above.--EngineerScotty 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, clean up is now over and pages deleted and spammers blocked. Might be able to find more about the spam via the remaining pages that link to the page.--Andeh 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Damn edit conflict - I blocked all (almost) the users and deleted all the pages (someone else got to a few before me! :D), so it should be gone now. Cowman109Talk 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is apparantely part of some college class at Purdue: www.matei.org/currants/2006/09/26/the-controversal-world-of-wikipedia/ (blacklisted) Naconkantari 20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The page belongs to one Dr. ScottSorin Matei at Purdue ([5]), perhaps an admin ought to contact the good professor and let him know that Wikipedia doesn't appreciate breaching experiments; and will treat them as vandalism in no short order. --EngineerScotty 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Given the choice between publishing his whois info and encouraging people to call, e-mail, or comment on his blog; versus ignoring him, I vote for the latter. (I expect there's nothing a blogger hates more than being ignored). Thatcher131 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

62.171.198.5[edit]

This user's talk page is full of vandalism complaints and threats to block. I've discovered another: to the Discussion page under Karst topography, which I have corrected (see history). Perhaps a check on this user's recent activity will reveal more vandalism to talk pages, which is more insidious than vandalism to articles. Ian mckenzie 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with at AIV. This is a school in the UK and the last edit was 7 hours ago, so the kiddies are probably asleep by now, so no action. In the future we can try longer anon-only blocks. Thatcher131 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Another thewolfstar sock[edit]

220.68.74.149 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) This diff says it all:[6]. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked, but I think in the future you shouldn't respond to his messages. Don't entertain him. —Khoikhoi 03:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And another: 211.192.251.157 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 03:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the IPInfo and Traceroute tools on the IP talk pages, it looks like Maggie's using Korean proxies. Maggie's obsession with disrupting Wikipedia is getting a little frightening. I really wish she had given up with WhiskeyRebellion. Captainktainer * Talk 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
She's been getting help and advice. After she got knocked off as Wolf Star, she was invited to go over to WR. That she's war dialing open proxies is not attributable to her genius. Geogre 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that I can use a resolution process to resolve my disputes? How am I supposed to do this without using proxies if you keep blocking my ip address? Also, Geogre, it would be nice if you didn't make personal attacks against me by saying things like "is not attributable to her genius". Okay. I'm asking for a mediation or an arbitration to resolve why I was indefinetley banned the first time for making a personal attack against RyanFreisling. If I had been (rightfully) blocked for a week or even a month, I would have learned my lesson, and I never would have made all these socks. The indef ban was wrong and I am asking for a resolution. Maggie
I don't know anything about why you were blocked originally, but your account Lingeron was headed for an indef block on it's own, aside from the fact that it was a sock. Even if you shouldn't have been banned the first time (which I doubt), your actions since that time more than deserve an indef block. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Users banned by the community can appeal their bans to the Arbitration Committee or (theoretically) to Jimbo. Such appeals should be by email. See WP:ARBCOM for a list of the people on the committee. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with Maggie/Thewolfstar's Wikipedia career[edit]

I issued the original indefinite ban in May of this year and here is the original ANI discussion of my proposal to do so. Maggie's the most abusive and unreasonable user I've ever encountered, for my part. She wasn't in any "disputes". Not unless you count it as a dispute that she would like to turn the encyclopedia into a political soapbox, and the community wouldn't let her. Each of her socks has been disruptive in and of itself; that, taken together with her rather narrow subject-matter, is how we recognize them. Here's an attack on Wikipedia posted on her site. Maggie, that you have a hatred of Wikipedia doesn't constitute a dispute, you know. How exactly do you see it being mediated? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

That malicious attack was ungrounded and unsourced, Bishonen, and doesn't speak well for you. I have a dispute, and that is that your indef ban on me was unwarrented. And since when do disputes get resolved on ANI? As for the accusation of how "abusive" I am, I find you the most abusive admin that I have ever encountered. The article I wrote was a direct result of repeated admin abuse to me, personally, and to others, and I delayed posting it on my site for a couple of months -- until it was obvious that nothing was going to change. The ANI smearfest speaks for itself.
I was never given the same opportunity through dispute resolution that any other user gets -- no rfc, no mediation, no arcom. Similarly, when I was banned, my page was protected so that I wasn't even allowed to defend myself there. And although I am ready to admit my part and my wrongs, I am also ready to dispute the indef ban, as opposed to a temp ban, and to show how it was done wrongly, out of process, and not a community ban at all.
Another important point, Bishonen, is that you told me that you were giving me another chance to edit, under another username, and promised me that you, yourself, wouldn't block me. And yet you have blocked me over and over again. What was your rationale, for instance, of blocking Buckyball-z your block Buckyball-z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? Or for the blocking of Laplander, or Leavesofgrass, or JesterBuster? Incidentally, four of these are not my socks. Maggie
Apologies to the community for feeding, this will be my last post on the subject, but that's a fine illustrative wolfstar "important point" for the readers of ANI. I didn't block those socks. FreplySpang blocked Buckyball-z and Laplander, Mackensen blocked Leavesofgrass, and Ral315 blocked JesterBuster. Block log entries here: [7], [8], [9], [10] Bishonen | talk 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
There was no reason for Whiskey Rebellion to get blocked either. Whiskey Rebellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Maggie
I have blocked the IP abakharev 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


User GreekWarrior[edit]

GreekWarrior (talkcontribs) was blocked for six months some time back (28 Jan per Tony Sidaway's comments on user's talk page). If the intention of the block was to produce a change in behaviour, it evidently didn't work. Today we have the editor trolling on Talk:Armenian Genocide (diff), attacking User:Adam Carr (diff), and trolling again (diff). Per this diff, the editor is editing anonymously as 86.140.42.192 (talkcontribs) and probably as 86.143.173.80 (talkcontribs). Some people never learn, and this appears to be one of them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well he admitted to be using sockpuppets and his language is already looking to foreshadow some disruption - I'd support indefinite blocking him and blocking those IPs if they appear to continue through his block again. Cowman109Talk 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I proposed a community permanent ban originally but this was rejected because it appeared that, at the time, he was interested in contributing and he was producing good work, albeit his anti-Muslim or anti-Turkish edits were beyond what can ever be accepted. Well if he has returned and started disrupting, I propose again that we ban him from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I also note that GW had the explicit opportunity to be unblocked if he promised to (and followed through with) avoid personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruptive behavior. Instead, he chose to wait out the block, possibly using sockpuppets. If he had any intention of reforming, he didn't have to wait 6 months to do so. Powers T 16:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I may have been waay off base here but nevertheless, we shall hopefully soon see Glen 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This was a second thread started below on same editor - combined for efficiency Glen 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GreekWarrior (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who has a long history of blocks for politically motivated personal attacks and nationalist hate speech and was blocked for 6 months in January, is back to his old ways. He got a warning for this [11] attack on another contributor two days ago, and he is now trolling talkpages as an anonymous IP, 86.140.42.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Self-identifying as GreekWarrior here: [12], further instance of hate speech here: [13]. Fut.Perf. 06:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I now see he's apparently also identical to 86.140.42.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who already earned a 24-hour block on 22 September [14]. Self-id as GreekWarrior: [15]; abusive edits: [16], [17], [18], [19]. I suggest an indef community ban. Fut.Perf. 07:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: Also 86.137.172.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.143.173.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same story, back in August. Fut.Perf. 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Update 3: Independently of me, someone filed a RCU, digging out some older IPs that take us back into May, showing that he was also evading his January block all the while. Fut.Perf. 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I endorse that. He has tested and stretched the communities' patience far enough with POV-pushing and personal attacks, as evident above. Daniel.Bryant 07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note that NickOfCyprus (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is evidently the same user, judging from his editing profile, though seemingly showing more of the Dr Jekyll than the Mr Hyde side. Fut.Perf. 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This case brings back memories of Argyrosargyrou (talk · contribs) (RfArb). Could the two cases, GreekWarrior and Argyrosargyrou, be linked? Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 10:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh happy memories... ;-) Okay, no, that was actually before my time. But I've heard of the guy. He was around after his ban as Thrax (talk · contribs) and got himself quickly in trouble too, but I actually think he's different from GreekWarrior. His style is all monumental stupidity and blustering; GreekWarrior is a tad more intelligent when it comes to actual content. Fut.Perf. 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, using VoA's comparison tool for GreekWarrior and his most active sock with this guy showed: Done: edit comparison between Argyrosargyrou (973 scanned) (5 block(s)) and 86.138.0.221 (463 scanned) (2 block(s)) finished. (no matches) Glen 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Per latest checkuser findings I have now indefinitely blocked GreekWarrior (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Socks are fairly obvious now knowing the pattern and spoken to CU clerks a bit more. I will keep my eyes open. Thanks all! Glen 23:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming for DRV[edit]

User:Kappa has been doing a great deal of internal spamming / votestacking related to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22#Finger Lakes Christian School as seen here [20] and here [21]. --After Midnight 0001 03:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Moly, that's alot of messages in a short amount of time. I'm dropping a message. Yanksox 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
He seems to have stopped for now. I will make a note if he starts up again. JoshuaZ 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I rolled them back: Aside from the spam of it, he accidentally put all of these talk pages in a category, and half of the users haven't edited for months. —Centrxtalk • 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did Kappa only post to a specific type of contributor to influence the result or did he inform everyone who was previously involved in it some way. As long as such a mass mailing has a fair chance at backfiring because he also contacted interested deletionists, I wouldn't oppose it. - Mgm|(talk) 08:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • He only contacted inclusionists and did so specifically using the category in question. He says so in the message. He also refused to consider contacting anyone but inclusionists. See his talk page. JoshuaZ 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • All I know is I "voted" to delete in the AfD, and no one was coming to my talk page to let me know about the DRV. At any rate, as far as I know we've never come close to establishing that "vote spamming" or what have you by itself is actually anything blockable... not really sure what intervention is required here from admins. --W.marsh 13:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That DRV needs to be closed and rerun without the spam. And Kappa needs to be trout-slapped. Guy 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take "Reasons DRV needs to move to a consensus-based model" for $400, Alex. DRV's the only place that vote-stacking would theoretically work, being the only pure straight-vote process on WP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Or we could just, you know, suppress vote-stacking. Oh wait, WE ALREADY DO THAT. I'll take "Process wanking" for $100, Alex. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No, this is a bit worse than vote stacking, as this is a long, long, long time problem with articles pertaining to only one subject. It's a ridiculous monomania. It's not Kappa's first foray into the darker side of astroturf for a high school. Geogre 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
George, that's a strong accusation. Do you have any relevant difs? JoshuaZ 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is rather extreme; he's just going past a long list alphabetically, and judging by his contribs he's about halfway there. Since the disruption is obvious, I'd be in favor of blocking him until the DRV is over. >Radiant< 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is too much lobbying going on with deletions. Articles for deletion are listed on wiki projects to get people to vote protectively, or worse this. Schools in particular have historically been the subject of much lobbying (Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch) for instance. I don't even bother anymore, it won't stop until every school in the U.S. and mispelled variations are stubs on Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 17:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Trans25[edit]

Is this someone's sockpuppet? I rolled back their first two edits ever here. An attempt to sabotage an RfA like this is very odd. I just left a blatant vandal warning. Grandmasterka 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead blocked indef after the user removed my warning. This is too strange. Comments? Grandmasterka 05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried checking further back. Are you 100% sure they didn't revert some blanking without mentioning it in their edit summary? If not, that block is fine. Posting comments using someone else's signature is something I have an absolute zero-tolerance for. - Mgm|(talk) 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a clear case of vandalism - compare the date when the adminship nomination started with the dates of the comments. Obviously, the user has copied them from another user's RfA. - Mike Rosoft 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I even recognized which RfA they were copied from. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TruthbringerToronto. Grandmasterka 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

J.D. Salinger requesting semi-protection[edit]

The J.D. Salinger (history) article has been the subject of repeated petty vandalism by anon IPs since the begining of August but especially since the start of September. Some of the vandalism has been more serious including on particluar unsourced claim about Salinger's sex life entered in a (poorly written) article style (i.e not just the usual chants of "He's XXXX"). Because of WP:BLP these sorts of unsourced claims must be removed. But the constant petty vandalism makes it hardeer to stay on top of. The last time this particular claim was made it stayed in for 5 days before being caught.

Could we get the article semi-protected for a while? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gwernol 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please use WP:RFP for future protection requests instead of here. Cowman109Talk 01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Political org editing[edit]

Please take a look at the edits by 65.118.45.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP has been making very politically stilted edits to several articles including ones related to the Viriginia Senate election and labor laws. This wouldn't normally peak my radar except that the IP is owned by "National Right to Work" (http://www.nrtw.org), which is a political action group. Does this make it to or cross the border of inappropriate editing? --StuffOfInterest 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits appear to have been reverted, I gave them NPOV0 on their talk page. Nwwaew 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User TDC Violating Content Revert Parole[edit]

Please investigate TDC for violating his content revert parole. This user is limited to one content revert per article per day due to past infractions [22]. TDC is reverting material he disagrees with from the Sandinista National Liberation Front article. Three times yesterday [23] [24] [25], twice today [26] [27]. Abe Froman 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohh please! The additions to the article, like comparing the research of a respected historian to the movie Red Dawn, is childish vandalism, and all of this was spelled out on the talk page. The above user continues to insert this ridiculous material, including the bad faith use of tags, also a defined form of vandalism, as an attempt to goad me into a block. If an admin does look at this, please take this into account. These were not content reverts, it was reverting vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the dispute here, but this is certainly a content revert by TDC.--csloat 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see you join in on the pile Sloat, but I am allowed one content revert per article per day and I justified it on the talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to argue on this board. TDC is limited to one content revert, per article, per day. This user had two today, and three yesterday. Abe Froman 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
We will most certainly have this conversation here if you are trying to get me rail roaded, and I self reverted myself to remove any sense of impropriety. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
TDC continues today to violate his revert parole of one revert per article, per day. [28] [29] This is the third consecutive day of violations. Please investigate this user. Abe Froman 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he is removing a lot of nonsense if you ask me...I say good work TDC.--MONGO 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

School Ip *MUST* be blocked[edit]

The following ip: 209.18.49.15 is the ip address of Parkland High School

Please take a look at his Contributions, there must be over 500 vandalisms that I can count for! every single edit is a vandalism or spam!

All of the edits including the one from today have been vandalism.

Please Act! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.18.49.15 (talkcontribs) 27 September 2006.

Has been blocked for six months Glen 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel good about this. I would be unhappy if I was blocked from my school with thousands of other attending students and faculty FOR 6 months. Isn't that a little bit too harsh?--Edtalk c E 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as account creation is enabled, I see no problem with blocking this continuing vandal IP address. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
But even if someone has an account, won't he or she still be blocked because he or she is using the said school IP? WhisperToMe 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
True...can we verify that subscribed users are not affected?--Edtalk c E 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Ipblocklist says the current setting of the block are: "* 01:00, 27 September 2006, Pilotguy (Talk) blocked 209.18.49.15 (contribs) (expires 01:00, 27 March 2007, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Please have an authorised represenative from your school contact me to have this block lifted)" --WinHunter (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As for those of us who wish to contact the school: Its telephone number is 610-351-5600 [30]; e-mail the Parkland School District at parklandweb@ParklandSD.org WhisperToMe 02:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No contact needed, unless the school has a student policy regarding logging on to an online community server. (Believe it or not, but Wikipedia would normally be included in Computer Use Policies)--Edtalk c