Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive143

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Am I misunderstanding something in these speedy delete images?[edit]

Image:CloudOpticalThickness.jpg, Image:Cincinnati-procter-and-gamble-headquarters.jpg and Image:Cord Front Drive Model 812 (1937).jpg are a few of a bunch requested for CSD because "This is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image" but they appear to be the images from commons, not just a duplicate. Am I misunderstanding something, or is the template incorrect? Gotyear 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ;). See the [1] vs. [2], and notice the odd question in the image description on the Wikipedia one. That's the bit that needs speedy deletion. 24.76.102.248 01:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history you will see it is a new user either being ignorant or malicious. I am trying to determine which. And 24, that is not enough to qualify it for speedy deletion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, look at this[3], I don't have time to fix this right now, but he needs a swift block in the pants. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The template is incorrect, he is a vandal, feal free to revert any or preferably all of his edits to images where he puts incorrect templates. The vast majority of his edits are vandalism if not all, so mabye an admin could fix it faster. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Not all his edits are vandalism. I sampled one lower down, and it does indeed have no license info, as the template he added indicates. Since I created none of those images, and I'm now pretty sure the templates with that reasoning and a "from Commons" description are incorrect, I'll remove a few, but he has 130 edits. If a majority of them are bad, I'll need help. If an admin can rollback, that'd be great. Gotyear 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
At least one of the images user tagged did not have an empty description page. Many of the blank ones have history that may be worth saving. The template was edited October 14; is this not in accord with I2 or should this be reverted too? Gimmetrow 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Many of these images were uploaded by the User:Aka - is a connection possible? Gimmetrow 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
With a lot of help from Grandmasterka, I believe all of the commons images are now off CSD. The rest have "no source/copyright info, delete in x days" tags, which I didn't scrutinize but generally look correct. Gotyear 07:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, how is tagging empty image description pages for commons images with the correct template vandalism? I thought we already went through this a day ago. - Bobet 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So deleting those pages will not affect the pages that link to those images? If so, then I admit I'm completely in the wrong, which is why I waited for more opinions on AN/I before proceeding. I and others who responded were concerned the images might be CSD'd incorrectly and lost.
Considering this incident and another you mention, the template should have a bold note so it's crystal clear slapping it on images with "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." is exactly what's supposed to happen.
While it's clear to you, it's not clear to the people who responded here, all in good faith. I had no knowledge of the previous incident and noticed this one when I browsed some images in CSD.
I apologize for my actions.
I'd be willing to revert the edits, though I'd be doing them manually. Is there someone who can revert all of ours in just a few keypresses? If not, I'll do my part. Gotyear 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the description page here won't affect the image in commons, or the description page there in any way. If you want to delete the actual image from commons, you'd need to log in to commons and be an admin there. Sometimes the description pages that are on wikipedia for commons images aren't useless, such as translations for longer pieces of text in the image description, but in these cases they were empty, and as such added nothing to the descriptions themselves. That's why the template says "[...]or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image". - Bobet 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm copying your reply on my talk page because it imparts useful info that your AN/I reply doesn't have, and I'm replying on AN/I so that a few more people might see it, even though it is Grand Central Station. Gotyear 09:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, don't worry about it, I'll probably fix (ie. delete) them eventually. And there's really no fault in what you did, you just happened to get unlucky by having people who weren't familiar with the subject answering at WP:ANI. As an example, I deleted the image page I linked above. As you can see, it's still a bluelink, but if you click on it, you'll see that it doesn't exist on wikipedia anymore (the "image" tab at the upper left corner is red). This is how it should be for the commons images. - Bobet 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad it's not a big issue and that you understand. I see the image is still there and that the Image tab is red, and "empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image" makes sense now.
See, I thought that "empty image description page" means that there'd be no image to view, just a description, especially given the other two: a missing or corrupt image. I wasn't sure if deleting the file "here" would delete it from commons or not, but I thought there'd be many missing images on the pages in "File links". Yes, some of the images had no WP pages linking to them, but in my mind there was a chance they'd be deleted from commons as well.
The other possibility was exactly what you just explained to me, that deleting these pages are fine. (How'd they come to exist on WP, since none of them had English translation descriptions?)
The wording is unclear since we all believed the incorrect option or were at least very unsure, and this is the second such incident. I suggest adding IMPORTANT: This will NOT delete the image from Commons, and if you see the image fine above, you will STILL BE ABLE TO SEE this image on any page it's linked to, at this exact address and with this description. In other words, Don't Panic!
I'm serious. It should be crystal clear that a good faith user seeing this 1. Shouldn't panic and 2. Why s/he shouldn't panic. I'd be bold, but Template talk:Db-noimage says Be timid. Or to be precise, "Please read Template talk:Db-reason before editing." That link gives me no help to understanding what I might screw up if I edit this template. Gotyear 09:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


SPUI[edit]

It seems SPUI has been trolling with the edit summaries of SQUIDWARD! for the past few days now. Any comments on how to deal with this? semper fiMoe 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked for this disruption before following a report on an arbitration report page. He is obviously ignoring that, he needs another block.--Konst.ableTalk 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You what? For inappropriate edit summaries to six edits in the last ten or so days? Erm... Thanks/wangi 05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked SPUI nicely to not do that? It's not like he's really disrupting anything, just being mildly silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes he has been asked not to do it a week ago by Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), he has ignored this. He is also on ArbCom parole for disruption on Highway-related article.s--Konst.ableTalk 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would give him a more mild block next time he does it then. Obviously 15 minute blocks don't cut it and, when warned, he ignores it, so maybe a 24 hour block he continues? semper fiMoe 05:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I just had a 24 hour block on him shortly after reading this, but I've shorterned it to 8 hours. I don't think this will affect him too much, he doesn't seem to edit too frequently, but could work as another warning.--Konst.ableTalk 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Most certianly agree with the short block. Since he's not frequently editing at this point, there stands a reason to give this block for this blatent disruption.. OK.. maybe his edits weren't all that too bad, but edit summaries copying a well known vandal isn't exactly what I would call helping. semper fiMoe 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hes SPUI. Hes a little silly, but really, hes a freakin genius. --CableModem 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He obviously does not care. Any thoughts?--Konst.ableTalk 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, he has 110 entries in his block log. Short blocks are perhaps business as usual. I don't know.... is it worth trying to force someone to not use silly edit summaries for otherwise semi-productive edits? --Interiot 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that, whatever positive edits SPUI is contributing, it's more than offset by his unacceptable behavior and he should be blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, others don't agree and will simply unblock him no matter how unacceptable the behavior is, and he will resort to sockpuppetry (with impunity) if blocked, anyway. --Nlu (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Or, hell, maybe we ALL should start taking breaks to vandalize and disrupt every so often, if it's going to start becoming an acceptable practice. --InShaneee 13:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandalize? As I understand it the complaint here is solely about edit summaries? How is that vandalism? If he used no edit summaries AT ALL would we be blocking for that? It isn't the preference, but hasn't normally been a blockable offense. Is "SQUIDWARD" so much worse than nothing that we must warn and then block for it? What exactly is it harming other than his own credibility? To me this seems like looking for excuses to inflate a trivial issue into an actual problem. Leave it alone unless he does something which would actually require a block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia... not because he is using silly edit summaries while improving the encyclopedia. --CBD 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sillyness is harmless fun. As soon as someone starts debating whether or not it's harmless fun, it's not sillyness, it's disruptive. Stop it or be blocked. That's how I feel. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you CBD. But, look at this diff [4] This is hardly what I think of when I think 'harmless' or 'silly'. To me, removing cleanup tags, blanking an article and adding the edit summary SQUIDWARD are not the kinds of things I expect out of an editor to behave. I wouldn't mind one or two of those silly edit summaries if he actually had a point to add the summary, but copying the vandal's edit summaries repeatedly after an extended period of time and after two blocks, whats there left to assume good faith with? semper fiMoe 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
With this many blocks he should be thankful that the ArbCom put him on probation and did not ban him for a couple of months. Instead he continues to make intentionally disruptive edits. If you look carefully, he was not just removing the tag once earlier, he was revert warring over it with that edit summary! (See [5], [6], [7]) This is almost vandalism. I see no reason to let him get away with it, especially while on probation.--Konst.ableTalk 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
But the stuff being removed is a bunch of unsourced original research... Disrupting attempts to re-add drivel of this sort seems morally ambiguous perhaps, but not disruptive to Wikipedia itself. The edits you cite are improving the article, in spite of the trolling done with the edit summary. Mike Dillon 00:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries are meant to explain your edit to help others understand. Edits removing large ammounts of content (wether it belongs or not) with the edit summary "SQUIDWARD!!" will be seen as trolling. When he begins edit warring, not explaining his edit at all, it is disruptive. An indef sounds perfectly logical to me.--KojiDude (Contributions) 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely, Mike. The article is unsourced nonsense and perhaps JesseW summed it up best [8]. This was discussed at length in #wikipedia IRC. I looked at the article and suggested it should be either deleted or the scarce useful content merged to Turnpike. At worst, SPUI is guilty of proving a WP:POINT, that some people will look for any excuse to block him. — CharlotteWebb 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the specific situation in the diffs above I agree (with Moe) that this is more than just a useless edit summary... those were extensive changes which could lead to confusion as to whether they were valid or not. The usual situation then is to communicate about the reasoning... I checked Talk:Shunpiking, User talk:SPUI, and the edit summaries in the history of that page, but it doesn't look like anyone even asked SPUI for an explanation. Others have since provided seemingly valid reasons for SPUI's changes here. Yes, meaningful edit summaries might have explained the changes up front and thus avoided the need for additional communication... which is why we strongly suggest that people use them. However, again... we have not to date blocked people for failing to provide that 'up front' explanation so long as they do explain when asked directly. SPUI seems to be 'acting out' in a less than helpful way... presumably because of the browbeating with which the road poll was pushed through (which, it should be noted, I supported, though reluctantly, given the wider disruption resulting from not settling on some standard). However, jumping to block isn't going to make that better. If he does something which seems strange without explaining it we should be able to muster the civility to at least ask WHY and only block if he doesn't explain it. Basically, the situation here is that we'd rather block than expend the effort to ask for an explanation. If SPUI were an actual 'vandal' who was unlikely to have a valid reason I could see that, but given that everyone (I think) agrees that SPUI is trying to improve the encyclopedia (as he sees it) why make a small problem into a bigger one? We should block people when we find we have to, not when we think we can. If SPUI wouldn't provide explanations for disputed edits then we'd have to block him... but if we don't even ask for explanations it doesn't seem like we're even trying to resolve things - just going straight to blocks whenever we think there is some reason that we can. --CBD 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering, what philosophy drives this block? An edit summary of "SQUIDWARD!" is not disrupting anything, nor is it any more useless/useful than a blank edit summary, which i don't see many other people being blocked for. If I chose to write SQUIDWARD or leave the edit summary blank, what difference does that make? atanamir 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously not aware there is a recurring vandal who vandalizes articles by posting pictures of squidward and leave the edit summaries of SQUIDWARD!!!, right? semper fiMoe 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I was not aware of that; my apologies. You aren't referring to SPUI as the vandal, correct? I havne't seen him doing that recently. In either case, unless this vandal is / is a sockpuppet of SPUI, the edit summary alone shouldn't warrant a block though, is my opinion. atanamir 21:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. No, I wasn't refering to his as a vandal, but his edits did look suspicious when he blanks article sections and tags and has the edit summary of SQUIDWARD! He clearly didn't vandalize, but the edit summaries just go beyond exceptable of what WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT say. SPUI shouldn't be blocked anymore right now. If warnings on his talk page continue to grow, I would call for a more stern block. semper fiMoe 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Help needed with copyvio policy dispute[edit]

I have been engaged in a lengthy correspondence with User:PM Poon. The history is as follows:

  • User posts three copyvio articles.
  • I mark them as copyvios.
  • They write back, unhappy about this. I explain why I did this, and explain why it is sometimes difficult to AGF in the case of multiple copyings, and express my relief that they are a good-faith editor.
  • User apologises, rewrites two of them, I rewrite the other.
  • I write back to them, thanking them for their good edits, and all is right with the world.
  • Some time later, the user returns to my talk page, arguing the toss about whether their edits were a copyvio in the first place, and demanding that I show them how their text resembles the original text
  • I show them, in a long and careful (and partially computer-aided) analysis of their text. (Summary: over 90% is either literally copied, with slight puntcuation changes, or lightly paraphrased from the original source)
  • They take this as a personal affront, and advance a number of impassioned arguments about why they are right and I am wrong, wrong, wrong. (The correspondence is no longer of my talk page, but can be found here: [9])
  • When asked for a second opinion, I invited them to take up my deletion of their content on Wikipedia:Deletion review, but they have not done so.
  • They complain about the "ABUSE OF ADMIN POWER". They complain about my "HALF-BAKED IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COPYRIGHT IS ALL ABOUT". They invite me to "Ask God whether you have indeed been honest to yourself, and had weighed the evidence fairly and squarely?" They claim to have "consulted my ex-company's lawyer" who has apparently told them that they are in the right.
  • So far, so normal.

However, they are now advancing a new and potentially dangerous argument, in which they justify their literal copying under the principle that, since they are only copying a small part of the original work (for example, "only" a few paragraphs from a longer work), and are not doing it for profit, this qualifies as fair use. They are clearly convinced that they are in the right, and seem intent on continuing with their behavior.

At this point, I feel that rational argument has failed. They clearly feel that they are now legally entitled to copy as much stuff as they like into Wikipedia, regardless of what anyone else says, and consider my attempts to stop them from doing this as persecution. They feel that they have the law, their friend the lawyer, God, right and truth on their side. And they won't be told otherwise.

At this point, I seriously considered just blocking them as a serial copyvio artiste, and being done with it. However, that edit was carried out before our lengthy discussion, and the user has not made any further copyvios since the discussion started. Indeed, they haven't done anything else other than carry on this lengthy discussion, in spite of my repeated attempts to bring it to a close.

However, if they are allowed to carry on with this, WP:COPYRIGHT enforcement will become impossible, since they no longer regard the copying of whole sentences, or even paragraphs, from elsewhere as being evidence of potential copyright problems. Short of blocking, the only course of action I can see would be watch their every edit like a hawk from now on, and to clean up after them, forever. I don't have the time to do this, and nor, I believe, does anyone else.

At this point, I feel that their announcement of their intention to start ignoring the copyright policy has become, in effect, an announcement of an intention to disrupt Wikipedia. However, I am reluctant to simply LART-and-go, since I don't want them to have any justification for them regarding this as a personal campaign against them on my part.

I feel that I have exhausted every possible avenue with this user, short of blocking them. I'd like to believe that I've done so whilst remaining civil, and assuming good faith as far as possible. I would appreciate it if other people (preferably several other people) could take a look at this, just to be sure that this matter has been properly dealt with. -- The Anome 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If he makes one more post which implies that he will continue violating copyright, whether on talk or posting copyvio, then he should be indef blocked, immediately, and told that until he promises to respect copyright policy he will not be unblocked. I'll do it myself if I happen to be around when that happens. We don't play games when it comes to copyright. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: Aaargh. After taking a second look, the fourth and last copyvio previously mentioned above, in Internews Pakistan, wasn't theirs: it was introduced in an earlier edit. I've removed that from the comments above: the remaining three are still valid, as admitted by the user in their earlier comments. I'm also going to remove my text concerning it from their talk page, since they do not appear to have read it yet, and the last thing I want to do is to mistakenly accuse them of anything extra that they didn't actually do. However, the rest of my comments stand. -- The Anome 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm myself not quite sure about this aspect of copyright law - does it make sense to distinguish between "copyright violation" (a legal concept) and "plagiarism" (a concept of academic ethics)? In the case above, it seems quite clear that, even if the guy should be right and it's not the one, it's the other. Does plagiarism automatically fall under copyright terms according to US law? And if not, should Wikipedia add to its policies that plagiarism is just as unacceptable even if it should escape the legal definitions of "copyright"? Just a thought. Fut.Perf. 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As a policy issue, this problem will probably get worse before it gets better. As the screws are tightened on WP:V and WP:OR, it becomes more difficult to add original writing to an article, especially on more contentious subjects. Everything has to be tied to a quote. If the quotes are too short, someone complains that the quote is out of context. If you paraphrase the quote, you're accused of original research. As one editor (a well known admin) has written, "We publish what the most authoritative sources on the subject have written. That is all we do." Thus, with limits on original writing on one side, and limits on copying on the other, it becomes difficult to write anything in articles where all the rules are very strictly enforced. Tightening up even further may make it impossible. --John Nagle 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Travb[edit]

This user has previously conspired against me off wiki by attempting to get in touch with users I have had disputes with [10] [11] [12] [13]. They are currently editing under two names Travb and RWV. They have begun an edit war on the article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and so far have not stated why they are reverting. They originally said to see talk page, however they cited a straw poll as reason why a section without sources should be kept. As I pointed out to them and want to make clear here, the sections have sources stating they happened, however they do not have sources stating accusations of terrorism carried uot by the US, per the article title. It was decided long ago that section would have to meet this criteria, containing sources that actually allege terrorism, however Travb has initiated an edit war without providing these sources. I making this note here because I want it on record that I attempted to discuss on the talk page with him, and he has instead reverted without even adding the sources, or continuing the talk page discussion of it needing sources that accuse the US of terrorism. --NuclearZer0 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The user has now attempted to intimidate me instead of discussing by mentioning my previous arbcom ruling[14], which User:Thatcher131 previously warned him of doing, stating Arbcom rulings are not act as scarlet letters. [15] --NuclearZer0 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This user has a long history of using Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard against other users, this is the third time he has reported me here on this same article, it would save a lot of people's time if he simply read the above:
This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.
Now that he has brought his complaints to the attention of ANI, I feel I must respond.
It appears like Nuclear/Zer0 is violating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults, which if this edit war continues, I will have to report him to the arbitrators.
There was a strawpoll which was mediated by a third party, User talk:Wikizach in which the consensus, decided by the mediator was to keep, these sections Nuclear/Zer0 is now deleting.
I am editing different articles under the name RWV and Travb, which is permitted under Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry, I made no secret about this change either, and was very open about the change (unlike this user). I started editing under a different account for several reasons, but one of the reasons was because of Nuclear/Zer0 harrasment, including deleting my newly created articles, which User:Sean Black called "trolling". Travb (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
May I ask, Zer0faults, although it is clear that there is no question of you trying to hide the fact, why do you use the "User:NuclearUmpf" sockpuppet? Its a little confusing. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
My attempts to hide it by linking my other profile in my name or by linking it on my userpage for NuclearUmpf? Or by it being included in my arbcom decision? Please stop your wikidrama. --NuclearZer0 15:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I specifically noted you weren't trying to hide it, yet it is still confusing that you, Zer0faults, use a sockpupped called NuclearUmpf. I was politely asking why? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Its noted above in my initial complaint, Travb attempting to ally people I disagree with via off wiki means, its been discussed already with an admin, and he has been warned about it. Please read the my first paragraph again if you do not understand. --NuclearZer0 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. I again ask an admin to look into the situation with Travb please. --NuclearZer0 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a valid question. --InShaneee 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[16], that covers the issue. Or you could ask Thatcher131. Again I ask for an admins intervention in this user threatening me with arbcom etc. --NuclearZer0 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Zerofaults adopted a new name to get a new start, offering on his talk page to tell admins privately his new user name. When he was called on it by Travb, and informed of his error by one of the arbitrators, he changed his sig and has been open about it since. That aspect of the case is a closed book in my opinion. Regarding his current allegations, I have previously said that arbitration provides remedies for disruptive behavior but is not a scarlet letter. The arbitration enforcement page specifically warns users against baiting editors who are under arbitration restriction. (For precedent see one of the [[Deathrocker cases, where Deathrocker was blocked for edit warring but so was the user who was baiting him.) Unfortunately I am at work and can not analyze the specifics right now. If any other admin can examine the facts (is NuclearUmpf editing disruptively and is he being baited) a third party review would be appreciated. I will return to this probably after work. Thatcher131 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly, while I went and had what passes for a life around here for a few hours, the problem took care of itself, largely through the actions of a third editor who provided sources for a disputed section. Amazing how things work out when you follow policies. Thatcher131 03:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about importance[edit]

An article Indian rock cut architecture, having inline citations from five different sources on the web, has been tagged unimportant for the following reason:

This looks like original research based on web-only sources. Aren't there any books or academic journals on the subject? If not, how is this important? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a valid reason for tagging an article as unimportant? Mattisse(talk) 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this shows signs of actions specifically directed at one user. User:Ekajati and User:Hanuman Das seem to be following User:Mattisse around, tagging articles User:Mattisse has worked on, reverting tags which M has added, and generally trying to stir up problems (see User talk:Aguerriero). This is linked to past tagging by M on articles HD worked on and lots of sockpuppet acusations. It seems to me they are on the wrong side WP:POINT and WP:AGF. --Salix alba (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You've got that backwards. It has been Mattisse stalking first Rosencomet, then 999, then Hanuman Das and to some extent myself. She used sockpuppets to stalk Rosencomet and 999, and is probably using Timmy12 now to continue to stalk Rosencomet. How long will the admins let this continue? I've put many of the involved article on my watchlist so can see the patterns. Have you looked? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a past event which has been resolved with administrator intervention. We are now talking about current events such as [17], [18], removing/moving citation tags on various blues artist. Basically anything Matisse edits seems to have Ekajati quickly doing a dimetrically opposite edit. Comparing contributions for Mattise [19] and Ekajati [20] show remarkable similarity. --Salix alba (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it is over. Check out these edits by Timmy12:

Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:BubbaJubba[edit]

Would appreciate someone else looking at BubbaJubba (talk · contribs). Appears to be leaving, and feels like s/he has been the victim of trolling, which is hardly the case IMO. Left a kind of nasty message on my talk page, etc. Not sure if deserving a block due to general incivility. I'm tired and cranky right now, so a 3rd opinion would be helpful. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a troll with few edits, I find it unlikely they were trolled. Anyway, check messages that have been left on their talk page. More than likely just a vandal unhappy with things.--Andeh 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Constitution[edit]

Can we please get a temporary user-protect on Constitution ?? Thanks for taking a look. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Serial vandal blocked for one month - no page protection warranted. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I left a similar message at intervention and another admin protected. By the way, the attack was coordinated by 3 or 4 IP's, did you get them all? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesús Gabaldón shenanigans[edit]

Ever since I nominated his autiobiographical article for deletion, a certain jazz/rock bass player from Spain has been giving me endless grief. Using a variety of anonymous IP's, Jesús has blanked my hilarious user page and my stimulating talk page 10-15 times each. Check out the edit histories[21] [22]--many of these IP's have already been blocked. Most recently, he signed up for an account, which plays on my own user name. After he resurrected the Jesús Gabaldón page in a foriegn langauge, I correctly tagged it for speedy deletion. In retalliation, he tagged my User Page for speedy deletion.

I admire his relentlessness, but his behavior is becoming exhausting. I don't want to ask an admin for broad protection of my user page and talk page, because I want any anon user to feel free to add his 2 cents about my edits. But is there a way to ban him alone from editing my talk pages--maybe a IP range block or something.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted it again. Someone want to block the IP till he cools down? Whispering 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing[edit]

There is some bad behavior summarized at this AfD that I would like someone to investigate. Rather than defending his behavior, Leinad-Z is accusing all the newer users there of being sock puppets, and I want my name cleared by somebody who is randomly appointed. --DixiePixie 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the user DixiePixie is talking about. I agree that the incident must be investigated. There are at least 3 apparent sockpuppets in that discussion, way too many for it being ignored. DixiePixie, who wrote the message above, is one of them. I have already tried to contact an administrator on the matter, but no response until now. Please help. --LeinadBRAlogo1.png -diz aí, chapa. 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Leinad-Z has not limited his accusations to users participating in that discussion. He had also failed to notify the new users of his accusations. I just found out today. One of the new users left Wikipedia out of disgust early in the discussion. --DixiePixie 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting or removing tags without fixing problem[edit]

User:Ekajati, along with her cohorts, has repeatedly reverted or removed tags placed on articles without addressing the underlying problem between yesterday and today. I have warned her (and her cohorts) politely, as recommended above, not to do so.[23]

In placing these tags, I am going by a long standing discussion with User:TomTheHand.Please see recently (yesterday) on my talk page and User:Ekajati was involved. :[24] and
[25] This administrator :has been very clear and consistent over time.

I was told above [26] that if this persisted, it constituted vandalism. I would like to report it has such. Mattisse(talk) 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My dear Mattisse. You are simply misinformed. I've removed an inappropriate tag "unsourced", from articles that listed their sources. That tag is inappropriate in that case. I've moved the appropriate tag, not removed it. Please don't mischaracterize what has occurred. What is happening is that you are tagging in an intentionally annoying and serial manner in violation of WP:POINT. You have annoyed several editors in doing so. They don't agree with you. You refuse to really discuss it with anyone, despite there requests for you to do so, but simply revert to "your way" right or wrong, without discussion. Then you try to tar others with your own brush. Why not do something more constructive? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that although Mattisse is acting with best intentions, this has been a problem in the past and a number of her sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse) have been indef blocked for mass tagging of articles. There have been two sockpuppet checks conducted ([27] and [28]) that resulted in blocks, and a third that didn't [29]. I'm not rationalizing any behavior on the part of User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati (especially removing valid tags), but perhaps it sheds some light on why other editors are wary of Mattisse's tagging activities.
Additionally, I would not group User:Anger22 in with the others. His involvement with Mattisse is similar to mine - we first noticed her when she began tagging a number of articles we have on our watchlists as part of various projects. Her replies to questions of her motivation/strategy for tagging have mostly amounted to "The rules say I can!" despite other editors making the point that it can be disruptive. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please check the edit histories of each article to see what happened. Again I ask you to check
[30] and
[31]
Also, please check comments under Question about importance above which relate directly to this issue:
[32]
Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would not normally raise it on this page, but tagging along with the discussion, I have found myself in conflict with the same user over a blues page. John Lee Hooker has a reference, to a book. After some other edits, and some edit warring over the addition of an "unsourced" tag, Matisse has added a swathe of "citation needed" tags, with the commment "added citation needed tags - please do not remove without addressing problem as doing so is considervanalizm as Ekajati, Notinasnaid [that's me] & Anger22 have done previously". I would remove them, because there is a reference and no indication that the reference does NOT apply, and no previous history before today (on this article) of inline citations. However, I don't want to do what would be considered vandalism. I would welcome guidance, in passing, from people already involved with or looking over this dispute (I realise content disputes per se don't belong here)." Notinasnaid 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check the edit histories of each article to see what happened. Again I ask you to check

[33] and
[34]

Also, please check comments under Question about importance above which relate directly to this issue:

[35]
Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I put User:Anger22 in the same category because of that user's involvement with my name over time. :e.g.[36] and because Anger22 makes assumptons about my behavior that are unjustified without evidence:

[37]
[38]

Furthermore, User_talk:Aguerriero is hardly unbiased. First, where is the evidence that I answered in the manner he characterized above? I have not had contact with any of these people for months, if ever. I don't believe I ever had a conversation with User:Aguerriero until yesterday. His talk pages contain conversations about his personal life to Anger22, so he is not neutral. Secondly, the following took place recently on his talk page:

[39]

So he is part of the "group". Mattisse(talk) 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, please consider the pattern of harrassment on User:Ekajati's part. The user was instrumental in disrupting my life with this incident:

[40]

and the user and his group have continued this pattern for months. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I have done nothing wrong since my original mistake. Please allow me to function on Wikipedia without constant harassment. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for repetitious postings but editing conflicts confused me. Please overlook them. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no cabal. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" in John Lee Hooker[edit]

About the many "citation needed" tags on this article, rather than fighting over where they're really needed or not, the best thing seems to be to actually provide the requested citations. It's not that hard, most of them seem to be on actual fact issues that should be possible to look up and cite. Here, let me do one, just to show you how easy it is. Note, though, that all that I know about The Blues is that they come after The Greens and before The Indigos. :-)

  1. Requested citation: "Hooker recorded over 100 albums and lived the last years of his life in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he licensed a nightclub to use the name Boom Boom Room, after one of his hits.[citation needed]"
  2. Google for: "John Lee Hooker" "Boom Boom Room"
  3. Get: lots of results that I don't know from Adam, but the first one is a link to the BBR page itself,[41] and on the second page of results is an excerpt from a For Dummies book.[42] That's a published book from a very well known series, a pretty good reliable source.
  4. And what do you know - reading the reference the sentence in our article is wrong. He didn't license a nightclub to use the name, he founded the nightclub!
  5. Rewritten sentence: "Hooker recorded over 100 albums. He lived the last years of his life in the San Francisco Bay Area, where, in 1997, he opened a nightclub called "John Lee Hooker's Boom Boom Room", after one of his hits.[1]"
  6. Ref: ^"Discovering the Blues of John Lee Hooker" Adapted from: Blues For Dummies, by Lonnie Brooks, Cub Koda, Wayne Baker Brooks, Dan Aykroyd, ISBN 0-7645-5080-2, August 1998
  7. External link: The Boom Boom Room San Francisco nightclub founded by Hooker

I'll go add that to the article. Not so hard - 7 steps, a few minutes each at most. And the article is clearly much improved, useful link, additional reference, correction of minor inaccuracy. It's not as if by adding the tags Matisse is deleting stuff, he's just questioning facts that really should be possible to verify. John Lee Hooker is a well documented person, so it should be possible to do the same for most of the other requested citations without making a fight out of it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Folks, there seems to be a continuing misunderstanding about what citations are. Read WP:CITE for complete information, but in summary, when claims are made it's necessary to cite the claim's source at the sentence in which the claim is made. I believe part of the misunderstanding stems from the fact that WP:CITE says that an article can use any citation method. However, a list of references is not a citation method. They are half of a citation method, but the other half is the notes within the text stating which source claims were taken from.

As an example, the citation tag on John Lee Hooker placed here was necessary and appropriate. Removal of the tag by Anger22, Ekajati, and Notinasnaid was wrong and shows a misunderstanding of WP:CITE. On the other hand, Sir Isaac Lime and AnonEMouse added citations for various claims, which was helpful. Mattisse added specific "citation needed" tags to particular claims that were especially in need of citation.

Mattisse has never tried to force citations for every sentence in an article. Rather, tags are placed on articles that have absolutely no citations. Often, a contributor will add some citations, and Mattisse will add a few specific "citation needed" tags to claims that are felt to be especially in need of citation. This is the way things should work, and if we can just get rid of this "freakout phase" of the cycle everything will be great.

I'll summarize. Articles need citations. References are not citations. Do not remove tags requesting citations without adding citations. TomTheHand 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE is a guideline, not policy, and there is apparent consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics that is inappropriate on (some of) those articles. This may not be applicable to the specific problem here, but WP:CITE is disputed in some contexts. I'm afraid TomTheHand is bordering on WP:NPA, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talkcontribs) 18:38, October 24, 2006.
WP:CITE is a guideline to teach people ways they can cite sources. However, citing sources is mandated by WP:V. I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines proposal, and it says this about not using inline citations:
There are a few cases when it is not necessary or helpful to provide in-line citations. Most commonly this is for short, technical articles which can be written using only two or three sources: a primary source and a review article or textbook. In this case, a short "References" section at the end of the article suffices. An example of this sort of article is scalar-vector-tensor decomposition.
That is not relevant in this case, and in other cases it encourages the inline citation of sources. The biographical articles in question here need to cite sources. TomTheHand 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because Ekajati is almost certainly wrong doesn't mean that the complaintant and TomTheHand are correct (or WP:CIVIL). But I don't know much about this sort of article. I have enough trouble dealing with situations in which the source material is in Japanese, and we pretty much have to trust the editor's translation..... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there seems to be a continuing misunderstanding about what citations are. — Yes, but it is not the one put forward. A citation is the raw information necessary to uniquely identify and to locate a source. For (say) a book it is (at minimum) the author, publisher, title, and date of the book. The links between the citations and specific content are matters of style. But they are links from the content to the citations. They are not the citations themselves. An article without such links is not lacking citations. The citations identifying the sources are there. It is simply that the article isn't spoon-feeding to the reader the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article. (Adding such links from sections, or even paragraphs, to the relevant citations in general improves an article.)

Wikipedia:Citing sources is a style guideline, discussing (in addition to the Wikipedia house style of citations themselves) the Wikipedia house style for such links, which encompasses <ref>, Harvard referencing, and others.

The policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which merely requires that sources be cited, somehow. The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion. The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case. Uncle G 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to insert a comment. I haven't read most of this conversation, so apologies if I'm abusing a deceased horse, but re: "About the many "citation needed" tags on this article, rather than fighting over where they're really needed or not, the best thing seems to be to actually provide the requested citations."
That's true. There may be legitimate concerns about the factualness of the article, and providing sources (inline or not) improves the quality of any article. However, I'd like to note that it's possible for an editor to be unkind strewing many [citation needed] tags all at once. The length of the tag, though relatively small, is still obtrusive, especially in great quantity. Partially, it's supposed to be obtrusive, to encourage editors to get off their backsides and source this one particular fact or sentence.
Instead of adding such a tag en masse though, a good faith editor should either add an Template:unreferenced at the top of the article/section (which may not encourage editors enough to source particular facts) or add a few [citation needed]s and at least make an effort to find some of the facts him/herself.
Nothing except derogatory material about a living person needs to be sourced immediately. It can be done over time. So don't do the easy, unsightly, unkind thing and strew the tag. Instead, add 3 or 4. If you want to source some yourself, do it. It shows you're willing to make the same effort you're asking of others. It's not necessary, but I argue that adding 3 tags and checking back in a week is far preferable to adding dozens and making it virtually unreadable.
Also, I'd like to prpose making it smaller. Some people said [?] (question mark) wouldn't be easily readable on all fonts, but something smaller and still differentiable from already sourced tags such as [1].
If there's a better place to discuss these aspects, let me know. Gotyear 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose indefinate block of User:TV Newser, and a look into his buddy User:Ponch's Disco[edit]

This has been going on and on. Newser was blocked on the 21st for repeated harassment of Tecmobowl, and continued it when he got off. He has therefore been blocked again. I'm getting sick of reading this. TV Newser is repeatedly adding sock puppet tags to Tecmobowl's userpage, and accusing him of being a vandal/sock without evidence and despite warning. His response to the latest block was far from dignified. While everything Tecmobowl has done hasn't necessarily been to code either, that still doesn't seem like a reasonable excuse for this.

As for Poncho's Disco, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Card Catalog, as well as Poncho's contribs. The user seems to be cooperating with TV Newser in this; Newser showed up in the AFD some 14 minutes after it started, and as his first contribution after the block. I'm guessing they know one another outside of the wiki.

I know there are discussions on this already. There is even a mediation (which only Tecmobowl has shown any interest in participating in). I don't think the hoopla is necessary; we should just block the troll and be done with it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both measures. --InShaneee 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Khoikhoi 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Three's the magic number, I've blocked TV Newser indefinitely. I'm not sure about Ponch's Disco. Clearly some highly problematic behaviour, but I'm not sure whether he merits an indefinite block either on account of being a sockpuppet or being completely intolerable. I'd be interested to see how he reacts to Newser's block. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I support the indefinite block. The block I originally instated was supposed to give Newser time to reflect, not time to plan more mischief. His last edits indicate he has no interest in building an encyclopedia. I am not certain about Ponch, though it does seem suspicious. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
TV Newser has needed an indef block for a long time, really. He's been little but trouble since I came across him, which was within a few hours of his account creation. There is, and I say this only tentatively, a possibility that in fact he is a sock himself of a well-establisher socket, since he share linguistic traits with a particularly unpleasant user who I blocked long ago. Add to this the fact that his 'recommendations' on who I should block tend usually to be the reverse of what I actually decide to do and well....I may have allowed us to be...you know whatted. I've had my eye on Ponch's Disco for some time, and if he puts the outside edge of a toenail wrong, he'll be gone for good. -Splash - tk 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff. I'm glad we came to a solid agreement here; it's been long enough. I'll also keep an eye on Poncho, just in case. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Or I won't. He's been indef'd as well. Can't say I disagree too much; the creation and subsequent AfD'ing of self-created articles (the American Card whatsit one) actually fits the "MO" of the very vandal that TV Newser was accusing Tecmobowl of being. Odd, that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gardez Bien and Washington, D.C. related articles[edit]

Gardez Bien (talk · contribs) has been waging a one-man POV edit war on Washington, D.C., Maryland, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Prince George's County, Maryland, insisting on placing in the introductory paragraphs of all of these articles that the state of Maryland donated the land that is now D.C. A discussion on Talk:Washington, D.C. has shown a consensus against including this information in the introduction as opposed to purely the history section, based on the current relevance of that information. Gardez Bien has nevertheless continued to unilaterally edit war, and accused those who disagree with him of being POV Virginia and Southern boosters on that talk page, as well as in edit summaries.[43] Edits such as this and this show how absurd and non-constructive his position is, as he is insisting on defining the Maryland topics by the connection to D.C. Someone with no prior involvement with these topics needs warn him against disruption and POV trolling, watch him for 3RR violations, and block accordingly. Postdlf 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again.[44],[45] Postdlf 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User unwilling to accept messages or discuss on user talk page[edit]

Mikkalai (talk · contribs) apparently refuses to accept messages or discuss issues on his talk page. Here's a revert of a recent message I left [46], with no followup on my talk page or the article (which might be acceptabel if he just wanted to keep is talk page clean). To me, this level of non-responsiveness is uncivil. I recall a discussion about this practice a few months ago, but don't recall the consensus. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User adding content to XennoBB talk page[edit]

Lately, XennoBB talk page has been "cluttered" with link spam by User:Draky, bad comments regarding some GPL violations which never occured (we're in process of identifying the user and pursuing legal charges against him), and the only "sources" he quoted are a forum he uses currently (no problem in adding content there) and a blog. Surely, this is not the case where I can add something on my blog then quoting it on WikiPedia for example, right? The comments must come from a legitimate and verifiable source, right? Well, this is not the case with our vandal. If the Wikipedia admins' idea of democracy is that everybody can add whatever content they wish to a software talk page(a free GPL redistributed software, which doesn't get any money from it) well, I'd say it's a serious problem. Hopefully the messages can be removed. Thank you. - Osgiliath 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the user has done nothing outright 'wrong' and is certainly not a vandal, although his comments may certainly be incorrect. However, there are far better ways to deal with incorrect comments than suggesting they are "full of ####" and removing the comments you don't agree with. Leave the comments there and try to start talking things out in a civilized manner. Additionally, legal threats against wikipedia users such as the one you made above are absolutely not allowed, and if you make any more you will be blocked from editing. --InShaneee 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Okey so If I understand correctly, I can add ANY unverified content to any wikipedia talk page and the owner/editor of that page must prove that my statement is wrong? Good thing to know ... And my legal threat was not concerning wikipedia since it's not regarding this comment, it's because the user tried to hack our website on numerous occasions. And it wasn't even a legal threat, but heh, who am I to decide ... -Osgiliath 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody bothered to reply to my last statement, I consider it correct. I think that's a violation of the "somebody being innocent until proved otherwise" principle; I wonder if such content was added to an administrator talk page or a page monitored by him, any measures would have been taken against the editor. I bet there would be, but clearly, trashing the name of a legitimate GPL software does not qualify for the same measures. It's a pretty sick sight to watch ... Don't bother telling me I violated the WP:CIV rules or such, any administrator who read my first complaint clearly violated the WP:NPA and WP:AGF rules, which you so dearly "enforce". I kindly ask such a "neutral" administrator to block/remove my account because do not want my name associated anymore with Wikipedia and its unjust decisions. - a disgusted ex-user -Osgiliath 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. As I'm involved, I'm telling some words. 1st, excuse my english, I'm French not English... (Osgiliath told me he didn't understand me so I'm excusing myself again). 2nd : I recognize that I was too rude and that I didn't respect exactly the "civility rule" of WP so I apologize for this point. The rest of the discussion is on the talk page of the article XennoBB where I was saying something that is sourced with blog and forum assertions (like source code comparison) so it might continue on the XennoBB talk page ! I do not wish to attack personnaly Osgiliath, I'm just telling that is "program" is not OK. So... thanks for reading me. and I apologize again for breaking the "civility rule". Draky 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz[edit]

User:Kilo-Lima blocked User:Kilz's IP address for 48 hours due to it being "used to avoid 3RR detection". I have two problems with this block, which I've brought up on the talk page but since the user appears to be offline I'll mention it here too. Firstly, Kilz made one non-logged in edit (to Swiftfox) and acknowledged responsibility for it 6 minutes later, without any prompting that I can see, so it hardly counts as attempting to avoid 3RR detection, or even using a sockpuppet. Secondly, it was that user's first edit to that page for more than 24 hours, so I cannot see how 3RR comes into it at all. If there's something I'm missing here I'd be glad to hear of it, but otherwise I cannot understand the reasoning behind this block. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue needs further attention as it looks like a larger issue with User:Kilo-Lima. He is very fast to close Sock reports and tagging the accounts as blocked. But he does not remove the tags if he changes his mind and unblocks, or as in one case even does not block the account in question. Just doesn not make sense. Agathoclea 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Please have faith. Firstly, I do not add the tags to suspected users, the accuser does that. Secondly, in case you do not know, I am the only one (of 1,035) administrators who take care of WP:SSP. This means that I have done this for about four months, closing and checking these cases. Because of this, and due to this page being backlogged easily, I have to quickly check, close, block, tag and report on all of the user accounts here; this cause me to, because of the pace that I do it at, to make mistakes. And, yes, I will admit it. KiloT 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That does explain things. Maybe you could do with some help. Agathoclea 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Another IP puppet of User:Zarbon[edit]

Zarbon (talk · contribs) was blocked for 2 months for 3RR. Only a few hours after his block, he used an IP adress to continue his POV pushing, and that adress was also blocked for 2 months. Now he has another IP; 149.68.168.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If you look at the page histories of Dodoria, Zarbon, and Kiwi (Dragon Ball), you'll see other socks (ex: Recoome (talk · contribs)) that he's using. This kind of behavior has been going on for months. I think an indef would be suitable here.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He's also using Recoome and 149.68.168.159 to avoid the block. Nemu 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Time to take it to CheckUser. --InShaneee 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you block the current IPs while the chekuser is being done/filled out? I'm trying to have a decent meal here but I have to revert all his edits.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverse dictionary attack?[edit]

Between 19:56 and 20:13 Wikipedia time, 169.204.238.174 (talk · contribs) requested that my password be reset over 150 times, at times around once every two seconds. I'm concerned that perhaps the new password is not generated randomly enough (and so collisions could be found with a bot), or maybe there is a plan to mailbomb people using this facility. Either way I thought that this should be brought to your attention. Dave 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mass e-mails happen all the time, and we already know about them :) You don't get a new password everytime you get one of those e-mails. You have to autoconfirm this by clicking on this link in the e-mail, then it becomes your password. If you never confirm these e-mails and you delete them, you never change your password. semper fiMoe 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The emails I receive are like this:
Someone (probably you, from IP address 169.204.238.174) requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org.
The password for user "Dave" is now "********". You should log in and change your password now.
If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password
Dave 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I got 200 of those in one minute once :\ I think you'll find in those e-mails a thing that says to confirm this 'click here' kind of message, right? Well, as long as you donn't click it, and do as the e-mail says ("you may ignore this message and continue using your old password"), you should be fine. semper fiMoe 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, I was wondering if someone has found a loophole such that they can make a reasonable guess what the password will be changed to. Not being familiar with the mediawiki software, there may be some kind of attack possible. I can't think of any other reason to do it, except as a bizarre attempt at mailbombing. Dave 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe it has been previously established that one request overwrites the previous one so no matter what at any one time you only have two usable passwords. – Chacor 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, but if you do a reset, then try a password, then another reset, and so on? Dave 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this keeps coming up, why not throttle the password request function down to once a day/hour/fortnight? -- nae'blis 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk to the devs. I've been told such a fix has been created, but not implimented. --InShaneee 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hot off the presses mailing list - [47]. This has now been fixed. Hooray! the wub "?!" 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs): knowingly filing a false 3RR/sock puppet report[edit]

This reports Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) as knowingly filing a false 3RR/sock puppet report re the Republic page (and what was verging on a 3R war), based on what he has made to appear as such (in a Checkuser report), but which is refuted by viewing that page's history. Therein, all will note that I failed to realize that I had signed out, subsequently resigned in, and made a new edit with a notice to that effect. He had to know and indeed knew all this, and chose to file a false report.

further, this user is falsely accusing abusive language by leaving out the words surrounding the alleged abuse, i.e., context. none of this is 'abusive' anyway. this user is also relentlessly badgering and otherwise harrassing me, which can be noted on the Republic talk page. i'm requesting a block of this guy, until he can be made to act like a civilized individual. Stevewk 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, the RFCU seems to have been unneeded as you claimed that edit, but there does appear to be a 3RR violation there on your part. The same changes are made 4 times. What is the falsity in that claim? Georgewilliamherbert 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I found it. The first listed should properly be:
Stevewk edits a version by Francis
The first edit listed by Francis is:
00:26, 23 October 2006 (as Stevewk)
is really:
your non-edit of ArmadilloFromHell's revert
Which was...
a vandalism fix revert
Ok. Got it. The first and last edits Stevewk actually made in the four sequence are greater than 24 hrs apart. The cited "first revert" skips several intervening posts which place the actual time outside 24 hrs, and the first edit in the sequence (first listed above) isn't a revert.
I don't know if Francis' selection of the skip-several-edits first comparison was on purpose or accidental, but the 4RR claim is bogus.
Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:The Ministry of Truth[edit]

Ok, I was just looking through recent changes and saw this user. I went to his contributions and found that every edit is to his userspace and his userboxes, even some of which I find offensive or not in good taste. I find it strange that this user's first and only edits this far are userbox creation and too his userspace. Does anyone else think this is very suspicious? semper fiMoe 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock of a userbox fan created to store userboxes probably, only thing they could really be violating is WP:POINT, other wise unless they edit else where you can't really do anything.--Andeh 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I was going to wait and see if, as a new user, he did anything productive, but it does appear that he is not actually new. —Centrxtalk • 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He is doing all his edits at User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes. On that page, he says This is a userpage directory of "beliefs" userboxes. It is intended to track migrations to and help archive and organize userboxes in userspace. The corresponding directory, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs was deleted.
I don't see any violation here (perhaps it's subtle?); he's clearly only playing around in his own space. He could be preparing for something, I suppose; my sense is that wikipedia administrators don't often do preemptive strikes. John Broughton | Talk 15:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not so subtle. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. He's playing around not really in "his" user space, but in everybody's. Way back when, we discussed how to make rules governing those people who don't do anything but build in user talk space. No one could figure out a rule, but it's pretty clear that you've got to be working on Wikipedia in some way to get that lovely storage space. If he's an unlabelled alternate account, then he's a user who isn't editing Wikipedia. That's not good. Geogre 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The rule is it's not allowed, but if someone were a new user they are given a chance to make productive contributions. —Centrxtalk • 19:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I've warned him that I will delete them unless he comes up with a good reason for having them. Let's see what he has to say first though. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Rexisfed & Wicky woo[edit]

Can someone monitor Rexisfed (talk · contribs) for me? Ever since the article Wicky woo was put up for deletion earlier today, he has continuously removed the AFD tag, replacing it with angry messages. I have already warned him up to {{drmafd4}}, but I will be signing off soon, so I probably won't be around to watch his next action. Scobell302 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do the best I can to moniter it. :) semper fiMoe 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

After I proposed his article for deletion, he vandalized my userpage, and then did it again with Rymysterio3 (talk · contribs) --Sbluen 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cmr924 (talk · contribs) and 24.7.214.28 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Cmr924 (talk · contribs) and 24.7.214.28 (talk · contribs) these two or same users are on my talk page "demanding" I explain why they can't remove cited criticism. Cmr924 (talk · contribs) removed warnings on his page. They appear to be the same users it you look at my talk. An adminstrator should step in and deal with his issues as he doesn't want to listen to me. Arbusto 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo has not helped at all. I want to know why the last edit I made, as user Cmr924, is in violation of vandalism. I clearly had good intentions. As the article stands, it is very biased. It is very one-sided, and reflects negatively. This is not something Wikipedia is about at all. White washing? So, trying to fix its inherent bias is now white washing? It would be white washing if it was a BALANCED entry. Also, I simply did not login, although I thought I had. This is why my IP Address showed up first.

Arbustoo also claimed I was a bunch of different users. I invite you to investigate that, as I only have one username and that is Cmr924.

Dralwik (talk · contribs)[edit]

Dralwik (talk · contribs) is going through wikipedia and changing [[Chicago, Illinois]] to [[Chicago|Chicago, Illinois]] or [[Chicago]]. Chicago, Illinois is a functioning redirect and does not improperly reflect the city. The user has been told twice to stop changing, but continues. [48][49] Think someone could make a swing by the user's talk page and add an admin voice to stop with the pointless changes.;) --Bobblehead 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? He's not doing any harm. If you have an editorial dispute, discuss it with him. Administrators aren't content police. --Slowking Man 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a content issue though. The issue is the server cost of making these changes. The cost in server load of making the changes is thousands of times more than the cost of letting them stay and just letting the redirect work like it should. Changing functioning redirects is completely unnecessary and wasteful. — Scm83x hook 'em 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, right. Of course. Where did the developers provide those figures? Or did you do profiling? Morwen - Talk 10:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I haven't researched where that information comes from, but it has been stated like Scm83x says on WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken for a long while. Fut.Perf. 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Still, I'm not aware there's an actual server performance problem being caused by all these people making minor unnecessary style edits : this page seems mainly there to explain that if you are doing it because you think it helps server performance, you are wrong, not to tell people not to do it for aesthetic reasons. Morwen - Talk 11:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of no logical situation where the right side of a piped link would be longer than the left one. However, changing [[Chicago, Illinois]] to [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]] would be quite logical, as it gives the reader the benefit of an extra link, with no sacrifice on the wiki-text end. Generally speaking, don't ever pipe a link just for the hell of it. If you think a redirect should be bypassed, rephrase the sentence to accomodate an unpiped direct link. If that can't be done, you might be better off canceling the edit. —freak(talk) 11:37, Oct. 25, 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats from user:Diane S[edit]

Diane S (talk · contribs), in real life a moderator of the forums at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, wrote to an administrator:

  • Yankee Gal, you are being reported for the locking of an article that contains links to libelous websites, you have locked the article after including former edits of atheists/ propagandists, and liberal/atheists linking and editing this article. We will proceed with legal recourses, no not a threat, a factDiane S 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[50]

This appears to me to be a clear legal threat. I posted this note to her talk page:

  • You may be aware of WP:NLT. In any case, it'd be best if you do not engage in further edits to Wikipedia until your legal recourses have been completed. I'm sure you understand that it would not be appropriate to be participating in this project while you are involved in legal action against it and its members. -Will Beback 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[51]

Does this merit a block? -Will Beback 02:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I'll take care of it. --Yamla 02:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Legal threats screw everything up, and should be treated fairly strongly. The user is also an SPA, repeatedly trying to push her own obvious bias on only a couple of articles. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, good call on your part. Snoutwood (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Please everyone keep an eye on related topics (e.g. Matt Slick) and sock/meat puppets, several of which are still active on both articles as whitewashers/criticism-removers. Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this your card? No? How about this one? Still not right? Then maybe this one is!—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to ask about this one, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And it looks like Matt Slick's article may also need protection soon if "they" persist. Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And now another. I'm catching just a whiff of checkuser upwind. Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
May need to look under this card, too! Justin Eiler 04:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

I have been drawn into a sockpuppet, etc. mess I want no part of surrounding User:Timmy12. Said user, who has an apparent history of tagging articles for various reasons with little or no reason, and has aggravated various people with said actions while refusing to read anything associated with the article in terms of references, rather simply posting annoying tags, etc. The article in question is Joseph Byrd, which Timmy12 has repeatedly tagged despite the fact the article has numerous inline citations and references listed at the bottom of the article from a variety of sources. After disputing Timmy12's tagging, they have labelled me as part of some cabal of people they've had an ongoing set of issues with I have nothing to do with. Timmy12 has now crossed any sense of good faith by reverting a significant number of inline citations I made to the page earlier today, just to attempt address an issue they raised I felt never existed in the first place, merely to repost their own citation tag that was inappropriate to begin with. I and others, from reviewing the history of Timmy12, have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with this person, who may or may not be a sockpuppet. The last revert by Timmy12 can be seen as nothing but vandalism, and this person should be suspended from continuing this kind of behavior. I read commentaries on cites, etc. from a link Timmy12 left on my talk page, but they don't follow what they insisted I read. Any and all assistance/advice you can provide would be helpful, this kind of behavior is absurd. I'd add, in this particular case, the material on the page has been verified not only via the numerous sources cited, but by Joseph Byrd himself, who has commented directly to me and others on the material provided, is a person I have known for some years and have published material about. I should also add I write for a major newspaper group and am a professional writer and researcher by trade. Thank you. Tvccs 04:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Request roll-back anon's multiple spamming[edit]

Hi, could an Admin consider doing your "roll-back" option on User:203.45.150.147's dumping of external links into multiple pages for a single website's articles on acupuncture please (counts as WP:SPAM). Thanks David Ruben Talk 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --210physicq (c) 07:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) LOL I started at the top and Physicq210 started at the bottom of the contributions list and we met in the middle. Done. Grandmasterka 07:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the time spent writing a paragraph of text (and waiting for somebody to read it) would be much greater than making 15 reverts. — CharlotteWebb 07:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No big deal, is it? --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of us have slow dial up connection, so yes 15 reverts does take time, and any way I did not think there was any race to perform the reverts (also I did rather need to leave to get to work). So yes, if a nice Admin such as Physicq210 (thank you) can do this with a single click, so much the easier is the overall effort on the wikipedia editorialship. If at any point I gain Admin or rollback privelages, then even easier too :-) David Ruben Talk 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Enormous sockpuppet army wiped out[edit]

After seeing some vandalism tonight, I ran a checkuser on an account and discovered an *enormous* sockpuppet army massing. Come to find out it happened to be the range used by Blu Aardvark (72.160.0.0/16). I blocked over 100 of the easily recognizable ones (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark - almost everyone one of them was one I blocked tonight). I blocked that range for 6 months - anon editing and account registration, but not regular users.

Here's another 45 or so accounts that may or may not be Blu's. I suspect the vast majority are, but didn't block them for fear of hitting a bystander:

I would appreciate someone keeping an eye on them. Raul654 09:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Modified list to display talk/contribs encase any get any messages.--Andeh 09:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Cmuniga (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Dt61 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Currently unblocked vandals from above list.--Andeh 09:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, tagging them and making sure they were all blocked sure was fun - took myself, Raul and aksi forever to do it! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reran through the list and I found a few more probables Raul654 10:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You should probably post the diffs of this conversation to Blu's arbitration cases. Thatcher131 11:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and blocked a lot of the obvious ones that follow the typical pattern of Blu Aardvark's sockpuppet names. Some already had vandalism but weren't yet indef-blocked. --Cyde Weys 20:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on Gymkata - does anything need to be done?[edit]

I just blanked the plot synopsis of this movie because it is identical to its IMDb entry. Does anything else need to happen? Anchoress 11:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You could leave a note for the person who added the copyvio material, or go through his contribs to see if s/he's done it in other articles. (Sometimes people go through and add IMDB stuff to a whole batch of movie articles at once.) In this case, though, he hasn't contributed since August, so I wouldn't bother with the note. And I looked at his other contribs, and they look okay. :-) FreplySpang 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, cool. I was wondering if it is supposed to be purged from the history? Anchoress 13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
We do that if the copyright holder asks us to, but not by default, in cases like this. If the entire article was copyvio, we'd delete the whole thing. FreplySpang 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
K, thankx.Anchoress 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalking, vandalism, possible sockpuppetry evasion of block by Timmy12[edit]

Timmy12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appears to be stalking Rosencomet and vandalising Rosencomet's additions of citations by removing the citations. In the past, Mattisse also stalked and tagged articles by Rosencomet. There is reason to believe that Timmy12 is a sock of Mattisse currently being used to evade a block for 3RR. -999 (Talk) 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm Rosencomet, and yes, it seems that Timmy12 is actively stalking me, following behind me and eliminating the citations I post on articles I have either created or contributed to. He characterizes them as commercial, although I have asked respected Wikipedia editors who have been here much longer than I if I am doing anything wrong, and they say I am not, and have in fact reversed his efforts several times. Evidentially, I am not the only person having problems with this individual.
The most recent examples have been elimination of citations for speakers and presenters appearing at an important event, one that constitutes a credit for them, that is three years old. The web page referred to advertises no new event nor any product, although one could visit the rest of the website from there if one was interested, but the purpose of the citation was to support the fact of the participation in the event, not to promote anything. In fact, they were mostly reactions to others (if they were others) claiming that I must provide citations when I state such facts in an article.
Except for the declaration that he has "taken down a commercial link", he has given no justification for his actions nor attempted to contact me or my talk page, yet the moment I reverse his actions he repeats them. I see that he has done similar vandalism to others, yet I find little or no contributions by him among the articles of Wikipedia. I'm relatively new at this, yet I've created and/or contributed to about 100 articles, revisiting most of them often with additional data. I've encountered several very helpful folks in this microcosm, and have been pleased to see stubs grow and expand into useful and informational articles. People like Timmy12, it seems to me, ruin it for the rest. I'm not sure what I should do at this point. Please advise.Rosencomet 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a need for a CheckUser on User:Timmy12 and User:Mattisse. The previous sockpuppet enquiry Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd), which was negative but inconclusive. Some users still beleive these to be sockpuppets, and are spreading the acusation around, which is not condusive to a plesent community. There is a chance that they are actually socks, in which case Mattise is looking a a ban. --Salix alba (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite. The place for sockpuppet checks is WP:RFCU. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Although not really comfortable doing so, I've filed a checkuser here. If anybody could contribute further evidence or support the need for the checkuser I would appreciated it. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations". --Calton | Talk 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

77 links -- that's a lot! I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. --A. B. 04:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for barging in uninvited. I do RC Patrol, and it is common practice for me, when I see vandalism, to check the contributions of the user involved to determine if there is more vandalism to be reverted. I do not know whether that is Wikistalking or not, but it is my practice, and as far as I know it is standard practice for many RC Patrollers. It would seem to me quite non-sensical not to follow up on the users contributions.
User Rosencomet has an extensive history of editor's complaining about his/her link spamming or otherwise promoting his/her festival. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. So, all in all, I think looking at this users contributions is an appropriate way to protect Wikipedia. --BostonMA talk 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that two of those complaints were from confirmed sockpuppets of Mattisse, GBYork and NothingMuch. One is from me, and after discussions with Rosencomet and my own research, I no longer consider the links to be spam. I've struck out the three comments above. —Hanuman Das 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Harassment by Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati[edit]

I am reporting this now, having spent time gathering evidence. There is much more I can get.

User talk:JzG replies: You assert this as fact, but CheckUser suggests otherwise. Guy 10:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

and User:Netsnipe said on many such pages that User:Ekajati and User:Hanuman Das should use Check User before sockpuppet accusation. I have not gathered the talk page mentions, but I will if necessary. Nor have I gathered the rude and uncivil edit summaries that are routinely entered. An example is below: