Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive152

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

Noticeboard archives



This user being an admin was engaged in rewert-warring in Josef Stalin with other users. Seeing he is in minority, he indefblocked all his opponents (including me, who did only one edit), falsefully accusing them in meatpuppetry. He later refused to unblock me until I change my political views [1] and confess my edits to be wrong. Your comments.--Nixer 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not require any further admin intervention, but I do take issue with Zoe's misuse of the rollback tool. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I for one do not. "Being in the minority" hardly applies when the majority consists of a load of socks. "To a certain extent through heroic figures like Klaus Fuchs, the brilliant activities of the Soviet intelligence service resulted in the early loss of America's monopoly on the destructive atomic bomb." is clearly POV pushing that should be cut. Other edits by Zvesda clearly suggest a virulently pro-Stalin POV. [2] is perhaps the best example. Zoe was entirely correct in reverting, with rollback or no rollback. Allegations of near-3RR on behalf of Zoe are just plain wrong. Admins should be able to do their job without getting whacked over the head by a lynch mob at ANI, especially when dealing with individuals with block logs the length of your arm - quite literally. Moreschi 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean admins have special rights to push their POV? And how many sockpuppets do you see there?--Nixer 15:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC) is one, for starters. Indefblocked as such. Moreschi 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify - whether the Zvesda account is related to you I do not know, but I assume not - AGF. However, the presence of such socks rather debunks your assertion of a majority agreeing with you. Moreschi 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What socks do you speak about?--Nixer 16:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
These edits are so POV they arguably constitute vandalism. Use of rollback tool was fine. JoshuaZ 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Edits of user Zoe was simply mass deletion of sourced information, which is much more arguable vandalism.--Nixer 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Zoe has shown commendable behaviour in preventing Wikipedia from being hijacked. --Folantin 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe's reverts have been proper and there are strong indications of sockpuppetry usage in this article. Admins are required to use their best judgement in contentious situations, and Zoe's judgement appears sound. Doc Tropics 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again: where do you see sockpuppets? I see only one sockpuppet of Zvesda user, but he used it after being unjustly blocked (in violation of all rules)--Nixer 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not true. I blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely for performing the 3RR, and only then did I block Zvesda for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No evidence that Zoe has abused anything here.--MONGO 18:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that our blocking policy states Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.? Shouldn't he have simply contacted another admin to take a look?-Localzuk(talk) 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, taking a look through the history, I cannot see any more obvious sockpuppetry (other than the user mentioned above). The information, whilst it has POV issues, also contained a variety of sources to back up sections. Zoe appears to be removing this information. This seems like a content disupte and as such should follow our dispute resolution process, not unilaterally blocking editors such as Nixor.-Localzuk(talk) 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Note also that Zoe did not post any message in the talk page where the initial changes by Jacob Peters detally explained.--Nixer 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
When engaged in a content dispute, yes, that is the policy. However, Nixer's Block Log is the most extensive testament to disruptive editing that I've ever seen on WP, and his last edit before the block was to restore deleted material that had been posted by a sockpuppet. Under the circumstances, Zoe's actions were totally appropriate, and the block was justified. Doc Tropics 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Now I know that admins have right to block me when they want. One more question though: by which sockpuppet was posted that material? Who of the users is sock? Give us the knowledge!--Nixer 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Excluding Zoe's recent block, Nixer has been blocked thirty times, for a total time of almost two months. At what point do we say enough is enough? Although I don't think Zoe should have blocked indefinitely a user with which she was having a content dispute, the indefinite block was not exactly a bad idea. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Other blocks were the same. POV-pusher admins feel free to block those who do not agree with them in circumvent any rules.--Nixer 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
But my point is that as an involved party in this dispute, Zoe should have gone elsewhere for admin intervention. If admins are able to just block users regardless of their own involvement in a dispute it starts to give them carte blanche to do what they want, and opens up the floodgates for increases in users crying foul of admin actions (which, having looked at this page for several months are common enough anyway). In a case such as this, even though the block may have been justifiable, outside opinions should have been sought.-Localzuk(talk) 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
How would you justify a block for one edit?--Nixer 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have been consistently disruptive and appear unwilling to stop, a block can be legitimate. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you decide that I am distructive from the blocks? For example, once some users added information into article Comparative military ranks of World War II, which was perverted and vandalized by a vandal Roitr. I reverted them to a consensus version which was edited in a temporary page for more than a month by a number of users, explained the situation, but the users continued to add the info. Then I was blocked for a week. Their edits were completely perverted by Roitr and when unblocked I added manually all their info into non-vandalized version (and now I was supported by even those users). This version continues without sufficient changes until now. But nobody asked me to excuse. After such blocks admins feel free to block me whenever they want.--Nixer 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone who is classing this as a content dispute must have far better eyesight than I do. All I can see are edits so obviously POV and trollish in nature ("brilliant and heroic" for some spy???I'm not saying I disagree, but most of America would!) that they desperately needed reverting, and blocks for the users involved. My compliments to Tariqabjotu for counting all those blocks: I gave up halfway through. Enough should have been enough a long time ago, and Zoe's indefblock was entirely correct. Moreschi 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
And why we should have here American bias?--Nixer 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud. Look, to describe somone - uncited - as brilliant and heroic - is awful POV that the only remedy for is cutting. There was no American bias before that edit - I don't think that person was even mentioned. Even if he had been, provided he had been described in a neutral manner that is not American POV and should not be tampered with.
In fact the article was very biased. But I did not revert to support the "brilliant" wording. In fact I reverted the deletion of the material I've added.--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and your blocks. I don't think you can claim that in each instance of the 30 you were dove-pure innocent, specially when they all seem to say the same thing - 3RR violation. After 30 blocks - no, I don't trust you. Does anyone? Moreschi 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Now any admin feels free to block me.--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This was not a content dispute. Nixer has clearly violated policy, and it was perfectly justified for Zoe to block for those violations. I agree with others that an indef block is long overdue. I would suggest we begin discussion of a possible community ban for this editor; it would certainly seem justified, just on the evidence of his Block Log alone. Doc Tropics 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Which policy did I violate? And if it is violation then why not to block other users who also reverted to the same version (Humbabba, Mista-X, Jacob Peters)?--Nixer 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I would enthusiastically support a Community ban, something that should have happened a long time ago. Moreschi 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Are there identified puppet accounts? Tom Harrison Talk 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that a ban is appropiate, but it was not appropiate for User:Zoe to administer it because it was a content dispute she was involved in, she should have asked another administrator to do it. Dionyseus 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That "content dispute" thing at Stalin's page was ridiculous. Its like haveing a "content dispute" with neo-nazis on Hitler page. Just one perfect example of Nixer's propaganda from deportations part: During World War II, the Soviet government conducted a series of deportations. Treasonous collaboration with the invading Germans and anti-Soviet rebellion were the reasons for these deportations., isnt it nice wording, especially considering the fact that first deportations were conducted before barbarossa at the time then USSR and Germany were big friends.--Staberinde 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It was not me who inserted this. Though the sentence seems right.--Nixer 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the more I sense something odd going on. User:Jacob Peters and User:Zvesda have eerily similar contributions. Secondly, both accounts have already been blocked for revert/edit/move warring. Deja vu, anyone? [3] Here Zvesda pops up pretty much out of the blue to support Jacob Peter's version in the move wars, which is just a little odd. Zvesda, as we know, has definitely used sockpuppetry. User:Humbabba has an equally suspicious contributions list. I would suggest CheckUser on all of these accounts. Moreschi 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I would support the checkuser.--Nixer 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way I have to point out that we still have one question we did not answered yet. As said Staberinde, he views defenters of the USSR to be similar to defenders of Nazi Germany. If to accept this point of view, then in fact all those who defend the USSR are disruptors and vandals. But would this be NPOV?--Nixer 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, putting words in my mouth is not effective strategy, if you didnt understood what i meant i suggest to read my comment again.--Staberinde 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that Zoe should have asked a non-involved admin to review the case 'just to be on the safe side', it is rather obvious he did the 'right thing' by blocking clearly disruptive users.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well. Nice little kerfuffle here while I was out Christmas shopping. Nixer had reverted the ridiculous Soviet propaganda that Zvesda had inserted three time. I warned Zvesda about a three revert warning, and he immediately created User:Karl Fuchs, whcih I immediately warned was going to count as a violation of the 3RR if it was used to attempt to revert the article. Instead, Nixer did the revert. I was planning on blocking Nixer for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but once I saw his block log, I figured that 24 hours would mean nothing to someone who's blocked all the time, and so I initiated an indefeinte block. Remember, please, that indefinite is not permanent. If Nixer had agreed not to re-insert the vandalism, I would have immediately unblocked, but instead he decided to whine. I see that Nixer has been inappropriately unblocked -- a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation. I had nothing to do with any sort of conent argument over this article, all I was trying to do was to get rid of Zvesda's silly additions (see the addition to Gulag that he also added, which I also reverted). I told him not to add his personal opinions into articles, and he immediately did it again. I warned him not to 3RR, and he did it with his sock puppet, which I have also indef blocked, and I blocked Zvesda for 24 hours. I have now re-blocked Nixer for 10 hours, which is probably about the length of time his block should have continued. Although why this should have to be discussed, I cannot fathom. Wheel warring over blocks is never appropriate, especially without discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation, whether performed by one person or by a group of people, and all are to be blocked if they are involved in the violation. - What? I am confused - I thought WP:3RR stated an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period. and Using sock puppets (multiple accounts owned by a single user) to avoid this limit is a violation of WP:SOCK, but the policy does not apply to groups.? Doesn't this directly contradict that? Just so we are clear on this. Yes, Nixer's actions seem to have been inappropriate, but 3RR doesn't apply across groups - unless you can show that Nixer is the same person as those other editors. (I would support a checkuser in this case).-Localzuk(talk) 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
So, in other words, if a certain trolling organization, or Wikipediawatch, or some web forum decided they didn't like a Wikipedia action, all they have to do is to coordinate an attack on an article so that each member only performs three reverts, and we can't do anything about it, even if it's pure nonsense? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that is not my point. You stated that they were blocked for 3RR - and shouldn't be. It is a bit of an assumtion of bad faith to state that they are all part of the same group with no evidence (especially in this case where Nixer is shown to be a seperate editor, and was adding sourced information into the article).
With your attack analogy, if it is pure nonsense, and the users are obviously meatpuppets/sockpuppets then they can be blocked for vandalism (they don't have to have the full 4 warnings), or the page can be protected/semi-protected.
My point here, all along, has been that 1) You had a conflict of interest on the article (which I seem to be in the minority in believing) and 2) your label of the block as a violation of 3RR was incorrect. I am not trying to be persistent, just trying to make sure that you don't think you can block different people for reversions under the 3RR, and to make sure that you don't think it is acceptable to block people you are in a dispute with (it still looks like a dispute to me, as the user was adding information that was sourced so isn't simple vandalism or simple pov pushing).-Localzuk(talk) 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So a user comes along and adds "George W. Bush" is the biggest war criminal in history" to the Bush article. And I remove it, and warn them not to add their personal opinions to Wikipedia articles. And they add it again, and I remove it again. And they add it again, and I remove it again and warn them of 3RR. And they add it again. I can't block them or remove the edit because "I am involved in the dispute"? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
While it's true that admins should never block in content disputes, I sometimes see a worrying tendency to call something a content dispute in order to challenge a block. (I remember that in the case of Mel Etitis, too. He became involved in something as an administrator, the user continued the disruptive behaviour, Mel blocked, and hey presto, a thread was started on one of the noticeboards about his "abuse" of blocking powers.) I've looked at the history of the Stalin article. Zoe's last edit before 2 December was a rollback of vandalism in August. How does that make her "involved"? I'm particularly concerned that Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington put in the block log that it was a "ridiculous block" and that the blocking admin "was involved in editing dispute". Block log entries need to be worded very carefully, as errors cannot be corrected later. AnnH 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly concur with AnnH's assesment; the charge of "content dispute" is simply a red herring to distract from Nixer's ongoing habits of disruption. Doc Tropics 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to this - Zoe had been removing the posts of 'Zvesda' - but Nixer disagreed with this, obviously thinking that some of the information was acceptable. This is a content dispute - another editor, seperate to the revert war between Zoe and Zvesda had made it obvious (by means of a revert) that they don't think it should be removed. How is this anything but a content dispute? I just can't see how it isn't one. And it seems a couple of other editors (2 admins) agree with me too.-Localzuk(talk) 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Why can't you understand what I am saying? Adding 'George W. Bush is the biggest war criminal in history' to the article on Bush is a violation of WP:BLP and would be simple vandalism too. Revert warring over it would not be necessary - they are being a vandal. In this case, the user was adding information that was partly sourced. Please try and see what I am saying - we have policies governing blocks and I do not see how you can say that what you were reverting was vandalism or that Nixer was breaching 3RR. Yes, there were problems with it, but lots of edits are a mixed bag of good and bad things.-Localzuk(talk) 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Her's the CheckUser result, without wading into the middle of the discussion. Nixer is probably not Zvesda,, Jacob Peters, Victor Serge, or Klaus Fuchs. However, I can say fairly certanly that all of those accounts are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, DMC. I have permablocked all the sockpuppets and gave Jacob 1 week block for his sockpuppeting and block avoidance (on top of his 48h for Holodomor move and edit war). Alex Bakharev 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Humbabba linked to any of those accounts? Best, Moreschi 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Also how about User:Mikhail Frunze, User:, User:, User:, User:, User: Alex Bakharev 10:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Humbabba looks distinct and Mikhail is too old to check. I can't really make any comment regarding the IPs since I'm not comfortable giving out personally identifiable information yet. If you suspect an IP is being used for block evasion, I'll look at it. Dmcdevit·t 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Gibraltarians[edit]

The article has gone thru 2 Afds so far. Although i am not accusing Mackensen of acting in bad faith when closing the 2nd Afd, i am just questionning here the validity of the argument presented as a summary of the closure. Presenting the article for the deletion review once more would be viewed as a WP:POINT or as if i am acting in bad faith. Is there someone who can review this and comment about it? Cheers -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the place you are looking for is deletion review. Sandstein 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
... or if you just disagree with the closing comment, not with the AfD outcome, you could discuss it with the closing admin on their talk page. I'm not sure what you expect us to do here. Sandstein 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, first I've heard of it. I find it useful to explain my reasoning when closing complex deletion discussions. By all means if he has a beef he'd do better to talk to me, or take it to deletion review. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you talk about "beef" i just find your comment so beefy Mackensen. I haven't though you'd consider it personal especially that i remained objective. I explained above why i posted it here and your comment is an example of uncivility from an ex-arbitrator! -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Mackenson's comment is here is hardly uncivil, it sounds like you are the one taking this personally. And yes, he is an "ex-arbitrator" and that was a cute but failed attempt to make those words an insult somehow. Nice try though. Next you can tell us how horrible his behaviour is because he's an admin. pschemp | talk 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"Hardly uncivil" is a POV as it is the way i considered it. Have you had something related to the comment i had made above about the Afd closure or are you here to defend people? -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I am an ex-arbitrator, and I wake everyday grateful that I chose to resign! Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing I dont understand is why the article, which had been undeleted after a votation, was then deleted by Mackensen without a clear consensus to do so (9 votes to keep out of 19). Is this not against wikipedia rules? --Burgas00 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision policy At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains.

Where is this rough consensus?? I seriously feel that the page should be undeleted since Mackensen has blatantly flouted wikipedia policy.

--Burgas00 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. I think the forum you're looking for is deletion review. I saw no consensus to keep--none that was based on policy, at any rate. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy guidelines. A consensus is needed to delete not to keep. Its simple enough.--Burgas00 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There's nothing in your statement that invalidates the close. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand your reasoning, Mackensen. It is against wiki rules to delete an article without a rough consensus to delete. You have done so. In what way does my statement NOT invalidate your behaviour?--Burgas00 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Chempep's inappropriate username[edit]

Chempep (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s username is inappropriate because every edit he makes will insert linkspam for into the edit history of pages. My report concerning this user on WP:AIV was removed with an explanation of "Husond has handled" -- however, while User:Chempep might not engage in further creation of spam pages, there's no reason to allow him to employ his username for the purpose of linkspam. John254 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what there is to do, beyond what is done:
  • He's been reverted.
  • If he repeats his spamming, he'll be reverted and blocked.
  • The existence of his talk page affords so little spam benefit that we needn't worry about it. And a bit of deleted spam isn't a good enough reason to delete a user talk page.
  • We're not going to take up a bureaucrat's scarce time changing the username of a user with three surviving edits.
Ironically you've aided his spam campaign by repeating his username on this page several times, together with the link to the site - there's no link to the site anywhere else on Wikipedia, I think. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Users with inappropriate usernames are normally blocked indefinitely. If we don't block him, then any further edits will insert linkspam into the histories of the articles he edits. We can't then decide to change his username, because an involuntary username change violates the GFDL by not attributing his edits. I'm well aware of the irony of this post affording this user further publicity; however, the posting on WP:ANI wouldn't have been necessary if this user had been indefinitely blocked for having an inappropriate username when he was first reported on WP:AIV. I see no reason not to enforce Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames against this user. John254 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the indefinite blocking of users with inappropriate usernames is a standard practice, described in Template:UsernameBlocked. John254 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As noted, it violates the section of WP:U dealing with "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website", and as such should be blocked. If he'd like to change it to something meeting policy, that'd be fine, but either way it shouldn't stay as it is. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:Cute 1 4 u[edit]

I think that Cute 1 4 u has made another sock, User:PumpkinPie. The reason I say this is because User:Pumpkin Pie (notice the space), who is a sock of C14u, welcomed User:PumpkinPie. PumpkinPie also only has on word on her main page, and that is the word "testing". I am reviving this because this discussion was lost in archive 150, and there was only one person that responded, saying that the last edit PumpkinPie made was in July. I can't remember what else that person said, I think it was that we didn't need to worry about it since the last edit was way back in July. I think we still need to block PumpkinPie if it is a sock. If it's not, then sorry for any trouble I may have caused - The RSJ 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, PumpkinPie is basically an abandoned account, and even if it was a sock, there would be no way to determine whether or not it was a sock through checkuser as the account is way too old. We can't even compare edits at this point.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. The RSJ 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (news) disruptor is back again[edit]

Was using anon IPs, but is now using newly created, single purpose accounts, with objectionable attack-based account names. Consider this dif [4]. You have to hand it to this guy for his perserverence. Perhaps, however, he needs a new hobby. --Jayron32 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The linked user appears to be blocked now. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I thhink it is way past time to take this to the foundation.--MONGO 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Range-block had been placed on the IP ranges. (no edits from the IP, but account creation allowed) The ISP has been contacted repeatedly regarding this, but no reply yet. If I don't hear back from them today. The next step is Range-block with account creation not allowed. Of course, this may (regretfully) affect other customers on that ISP. Until the ISP chooses to respond, this may be necessary. I can get the foundation to attempt a contact to the ISP. Unfortunately, we aren't federal disinformation agents as has been accused and can't wield our magical powers and secret technology. --Aude (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Geh, this noxious dude was also responsible for creating the Wikipedia:Clowns to further his trollery. 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Still On Duty. Just stormed again. Could you please go on w/ your suggestion Aude? -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

King Shadzar and his court of sockpuppets[edit]

Can somebody do something about King Shadzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets? He's been vandalizing the Naruto and Naruto Uzumaki articles, adding complete nonsense and creating new socks each time his new accounts are blocked. Is an IP block at all possible? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He's now vandalizing as The Master Of Mario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Can somebody please deal with this user? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I blocked his accounts before and I'll continue blocking if he comes back. I semi-protected Naruto yesterday and I just semi-protected Naruto Uzumaki. If you guys see this guy again, report to AIV or message me on my talk page and I'll deal with it asap. Nishkid64 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of pictures clearly under fair use[edit]

The user Chowbok is removing a large number of images of political leaders under a faulty legal premise (that portraits of state government officials cannot be shown non-commercially on the Wikipedia). This user isn't a vandal, but these actions are causing considerable harm to the integrity of Wikipedia. Can anything be done? --JesseBHolmes 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use is not the same thing as the U.S. legal doctrine. If there are images being tagged for deletion that do not fail Wikipedia:Fair use criteria (usually numbers one and ten are the problem), you can tag those images for further review. Jkelly 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears the benevolent dictator agrees with what Chowbok is doing. From my viewpoint it is tough love...--Isotope23 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Our Glorious Leader that Chowbok does a lot of necessary work; I'm just saying that he's removing a good number of images under a faulty legal interpretation. How can this issue be addressed generally, rather than on an image-by-image basis (which would be very hard, Chowbok is quite prolific). --JesseBHolmes 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The first step is to get over the idea of a "faulty legal interpretation" -- you will only frustrate yourself and others if your interest is in opining upon U.S. copyright doctrine. If you want to argue for liberalising Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, the place to do so is at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. If you think that Chowbok is incorrectly applying WP:FUC, that's probably best discussed at User talk:Chowbok or at the RfC. Jkelly 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

nuke this[edit]

Could a friendly neighbourhood Admin nuke this - I tagged it, but a mixture of identifiable persons and locations plus god know what future additions means it should be taken out sooner rather than later. --Charlesknight 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Coredesat 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bowser Koopa[edit]

A few things look odd at this category, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bowser Koopa. I really feel like the creators of the category are, in fact, sockpuppets of Bowser Koopa (talk · contribs). The Showster (talk · contribs) and You're The Man Now Dog (talk · contribs) were both registered 6 minutes apart, within 10 minutes of the registration of Bowser, King of the Koopas (talk · contribs) a Bowser Koopa sockpuppet. Anyone else seeing this? Metros 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about those two users being socks of Bowser Koopa (though the way it was written makes it seem likely), but that category had to go. -- Steel 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The page was recreated, I deleted it and warned The Showster not to create it again. Metros 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on WP:V[edit]

There is a dispute on WP:V, over the difference between these two versions. In particular, the debate appears to be about exactly how many "content policies" Wikipedia has, and whether it's important to cite this number on WP:V. If I understand correctly, one party asserts that there are exactly three content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) and that this number must be listed, and the other party asserts that there are several more content policies (such as WP:NOT and WP:GFDL) and that the number '3' is either incorrect or irrelevant. Some other people, such as myself, fail to see why this is such a big deal either way, but since WP:V is an important page it would be nice if some outsiders chimed in, on the talk page. (Radiant) 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like another example for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. The two editors should be given a heavy dose of perspective, and perhaps sent to an article that needs improvement so they can use their powers for good and not evil. --Jayron32 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Author promoting book in refs/ext.links?[edit]

User:DASonnenfeld (contribs) has been linking his own book, available for $77.50 or $25.95, in references & external links sections in, so far, more than a dozen articles in one day. Or perhaps (good faith?) someone else has assumed the author's name for this mission. Either way, I'm aware of no wikipolicy approving this practice. Athaenara 01:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't stand this self-promotion spam. The editor did not much else but spam various articles, so I, not an administrator, reverted them, and posted a spam warning on his page. And administrator should feel free to do something if it warrants it, but this is actually a farely common occurence on Wikipedia, nothing special--Sonnenfeld may just not know the rule. KP Botany 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Fast work there, KP—good job. –Æ. 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of image violations by User:Wikimania2[edit]

User is repeatedly performing this reversion in the Kobe Bryant article. The original picture is free; the one the user insists upon putting in is copyrighted. User originally claimed that copyright work is fair use because the using the picture generates no profit. User has been explicitly referred to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair_use_considerations and explictly told to note that fair use requires there to be no free alternative to the copyrighted work. (In this case, obviously there is a free alternative, so fair use cannot apply.) User ignores this and continues to put in the copyrighted image, offering no justification beyond putting "refer to Wikipedia:Copyrights" in their edit summaries. It has been explained to the user that under the above mentioned fair use polilcy, Wikipedia:Copyrights actually contradicts, not supports, the user's position. The user has offered no response, either on user talk pages or the article discussion page to further justify the user's position. Further reversion of the user's edit by myself will just be a continuation of an edit war since the user seems interested neither in explaining their position, nor in backing down, and would further put me in violation of WP:3RR. So perhaps it's a situation best handled by an admin. Mwelch 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mwelch, your position is absolutely right, and well handled so far, too. I have rolled back Wikimania2, and deleted the image as not free use per your observation that we already have a free alternative. Post here if further action is needed. Hesperian 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. Please know that it is very much appreciated! I'll advise if there is anything further. Mwelch 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I know where all those missing socks went[edit]

There are socks popping up all over the place regarding the great "federal officials using Wikipedia as propoganda" conspiracy. Here's some to keep track of, although they seem to be shedding their socks quickly:

More to come I'm sure. Just a heads up. —Doug Bell talk 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed you missed a couple ;) Glen 20:58, December 4, 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Someone who knows the underlying IP should just give it a hard block, even if only for a day. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Has a checkuser/IP check been run at RFCU? I would scan the page or archives myself, but I wouldn't even know what name to look under. (For more socks, check the history of MONGO's question page for the ArbCom election.) Newyorkbrad 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He's on a dynamic IP. The ISP has been notified and when myself and my accomplices of A.P.E. track him down, he's going to get a free ride rendered to his new home.--MONGO 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a range-block (including on account creation) until the ISP chooses to reply, and this followed up on. It's unacceptable that pages such as Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for MONGO need to be semi-protected. --Aude (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, please review[edit]

Per this and previous discussion
I have temporarily blocked these IP ranges, including account creation.
These are my first range blocks. Please review they are done correctly. Though these ranges were previously blocked a few days ago and are the same ones now. This situation has been going on for almost two weeks now. --Aude (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me..if it stops for 48 hours, then we know. Hopefully enough users that may be using that range will complain to the ISP and they will do something about the problem.--MONGO 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we get a list of all the accounts created on the blocked IPs in the last day? Might make it easier to find any other socks. —Doug Bell talk 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been adding these names to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot as I can trace them down. Some of his previous IP addresses are on the page as well. I'd still love to see a Checkuser on Cplot just to confirm that he was in this same range. --StuffOfInterest 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is linked above and confirmed. My wonder is why the posts mentions the ban of Zen-master...pattern certainly fits the storyline.--MONGO 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, great. Thanks. I'm going to add a link from the sockpuppet page just to help any future bumbling admin like myself. Actually, wait, make that a bumbling federal agent. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Be might also be accused of being a secret agent.--MONGO 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Either they switched to a new IP range, or the blocks didn't hold[7]--MONGO 22:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

HitTheRoad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another unblocked puppet.--Tbeatty 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another one: SoColdTonight (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) MER-C 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page protection policy[edit]

yes, yes, I know it's policy, so there's no reason to request semi-protection, but what is happening to Down syndrome on the main page isn't good for anyone. Sandy (Talk) 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In exceptional cases, people have rarely had problems with semi-protection. And with 5 vandals in a minute? Something reealy needs to be done. -Amarkov blahedits 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not quite that bad, but still bad. Please protect it admins? I'll give you a smiley face! :) -Amarkov blahedits 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It's apparently been vandalized about 50 times in 80 minutes. I've semi-protected for now... I will unprotect soon per the status quo. --W.marsh 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Sandy (Talk) 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A template on the page has apparently been vandalized... help needed ASAP. --W.marsh 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

a lot of the vandalism seems to be the work of one user, albeit working from different Ips- notice the oversized signature in all the vandalisms. Borisblue 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is as bad as I've seen - can we get a longer protection period, in spite of the policy, considering the offense that may be created? Sandy (Talk) 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am going to unprotect in about 10 minutes... I've found that for whatever reason a brief protection is surprisingly effective at calming down the vandals, plus some have been blocked now. But if it continues... we'll just see what happens. For whatever it's worth, some discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. --W.marsh 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
>.< Can someone protect the templates on the page? Today's FA concerns shouldn't apply there. -Amarkov blahedits 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't figure out what template keeps getting vandalized... if anyone knows I will full protect it and block whoever's been vandalizing it, if possible. --W.marsh 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
{{featured article}}, I think. -Amarkov blahedits 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It was {{Infobox Disease}}; W.marsh has protected it. Melchoir 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the vandalism is the work of the same vandal operating from a dynamic IP from Reston, Virginia. If we block that guy on sight the problem should be averted. Just check the WHOIS of the vandal IPs when this goes back onlineBorisblue 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The attacks are coming from public proxies; try Googling or Apparently we need to do a better job of blocking them. Melchoir 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone unprotectd already - fun. Sandy (Talk) 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gah. This is the first article on my watchlist that's been on the mainpage. I'm glad to know this isn't normal. God, people really suck sometimes. But when you unprotect, rest assured, there's folks on the case. I'm ready to revert this article for hours. One of the things that keeps happening is that so much vandalism happens in a brief period, that the reverts end up keeping some there. I was thinking about copying a good page into my clipboard and then just pasting into any vandalous version that comes up. Is that kosher?Dina 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now it's been protected again (not by me). Hopefully we can discuss rather than wheel war this time. --W.marsh 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Something is happening at Template talk:OMIM Sandy (Talk) 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow this page (AN/I) has a template that's been vandalized similar to OMIM...? --W.marsh 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell what happened at OMIM, but it's part of the disease infobox, and it popped up on my watchlist as vandalized. Sandy (Talk) 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely need to protect the templates trandscluded on the down syndrome page. Borisblue 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The {{ICD10}}, {{ICD9}}, and {{ICDO}} templates have been semi-protected (this first was vandalized severely). I'm okay with leaving the main article unprotected if others feel the vandalism is manageable. -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone might as well get PMID as well, before "they" find it. Sandy (Talk) 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the culprits have been blocked, a remedy with a lot less collateral damage than sprotection. Let's see if the blocking and warning worksBorisblue 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Before someone thinks I'm going overboard, see what happened to {{ICD10}}. It went undiscovered for a couple minutes because it took awhile to discover the template that had the severe vandalism. I can't imagine much collateral damage from (temporarily) semi-protecting templates that shouldn't really need editing anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, no probs there- new users should stay away from these templates. Anyway, the blocking and warning seems to have worked- the vandalism in the main page article seems to have stopped. Borisblue 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Template vandalizing isn't new and it can be effective. When Bulbasaur was up on the Main Page, someone vandalized the {{pokenum}} template with a picture of the male reproductive organ. Quite effective. Hbdragon88 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeat offender on image copyvios[edit]

Native Boy (talk contribs page moves  block user block log) has (again) re-uploaded some of the same images (and mis-tagged them as being {{GFDL-self}}) that were deleted last month. Image:Aerial okc.jpg is clearly a copyrighted image with a watermark that points back to the owner [8]. The user in question has uploaded this particular image to wikipedia at least three times now. Multiple image copyvio warnings have been left for the user by OrphanBot, Meegs, and myself. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the third time around for most of these uploads. I've taken the rest of their images, all of which are suspect, to PUI and left them another message. No further action is needed right now. ×Meegs 09:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


This user is making some strange changes to sock notices. Please see [9]. --BigDT 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. -Amarkov blahedits 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not really... he's been past the point of anything even resembling humour for about 3 days now. I've reverted all the WP:POINT violating edits, personal attacks, etc. Amazingly enough, he has 2 or 3 minor edits that weren't vandalism. --tjstrf talk 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC) in unbelievable, or funny that your fellow editors are being personally attacked?--MONGO 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username[edit]

See User:VANDALBOT007 Jams Boond. (Apologies if already taken care of). Regards, Asteriontalk 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Glen blocked him. You can post these on WP:AIV in the future. --Coredesat 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Delete the link to my six-year-old resume[edit]


In the discussion/vote about the possible deletion of the entry about me (, the user timecop has chosen to link to a six-year-old resume of mine that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Also he's wrong at his slander towards me on two points.

He claims that I hadn't held a job for more than one year, when, if you look at the resume is clearly untrue (it's just a poorly written resume written by a friend of mine).

The debate is whether or not me or my blogging is notable. Something that I didn't start doing until 8/2001. Therefore how is a resume that ends in 2000 of any importance?

Further he claims that I am the "self-proclaimed blogfather." Although it's true that some call me that, including whoever wrote that line in my Wikipedia entry, I've always said that that term belongs with Glenn Reynolds, who has been also blogging since 2001, and whose politics I totally disagree with, but who has spawned more new bloggers than probably anyone. Any search of my 5 year old blog can back me up that I've never claimed to be the blogfather (http://tinyurl .com/yjaypw).

I am a big fan of Wikipedia. I think that large groups of intelligent people discussing things rationally are better than individuals. I think that you guys should stick to whatever you guys have done to get to this point. Obviously I disagree with those who have agendas against bloggers going out and trying to delete Wiki entries about bloggers, not just because I am one, but because it goes against one of Wikipedia's fundamental principals of only editing things that you are neutral toward (, which timecop and some others are clearly the furthest thing from neutral.

Not sure what you can do about that, or if you guys still feel strongly toward that fundamental, but if you can, will you please delete the link to my olde resume if it isn't too much of a bother.

It happens on this entry ( and he wrote it on 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, Tony Pierce 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Link removed, left message on your IP talkpage.--MONGO 08:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Land of Bosoni[edit]

Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (a.k.a. Ancient Bosoni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), a.k.a. Bosoni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) has been causing considerable disruption via:

The user has been warned about the above, in some cases repeatedly. It seems that every time he's warned about a particular disruptive behaviour, he goes on to commit a completely different one. It may be useful to block this user until such time as he confirms that he has read and agreed to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:N, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SPAM, WP:MINOR, WP:POINT, and WP:COPY. —Psychonaut 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd account listed was blocked indefinately for copyright fraudulence, so that might be grounds for blocking all the rest of them. 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any prior blocks for any of the accounts. Perhaps you're confusing this user with someone else…? —Psychonaut 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to add high incivility (a near-personal attack against me and User:Duja) on my talk page. --PaxEquilibrium 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You're entirely correct, I was thinking of Bosna 101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), see "serial copyright violator" section above. Sorry to everyone for confusing the two. 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Has this report been considered and declined, or has it been overlooked? If it has been declined, some confirmation would be appreciated. —Psychonaut 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea - I filed another report over at the Personal attacks (ALoB attacked me at my talk page) and they directed me to here, saying that it's being resolved over 'ere. --PaxEquilibrium 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Either username or vanity...[edit]

[18] But Johnnybriggs (talk contribs) is editing Johnny Briggs (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not vanity, well, unless he's a revenant. Maybe that should be added to his article. Jecowa 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
*face palm* How embarrasing for me. - 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
They can edit their own articles, must be a Famous Wikipedian. Hopefully not an impostor. Terence Ong 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You might have missed the revenant comment. Johnny Briggs died in the early 1900s according to the article, so it's ehm, probably an impostor. --Jeff 10:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Celebrity usernames are only blocked for living or recently deceased celebrities. As such, this one's probably OK. Just a fan. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

changes on my userpage[edit]

user:Kronecker keeps changing the language setting on my userpage from 3 to 2. I dont think thats consistent with an alleged IQ of 135. Could somebody please tell him to stop?--Tresckow 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I've left him a message asking him to stop... and might I add that incivility about someone's IQ while reporting something on the administrator noticeboard probably isn't the best idea. If he keeps editing your page, try reporting it here.--Isotope23 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience says that Ian is on probation for science articles. Reliable sources are important for many of the articles we edit. Yet I'll note this edit to Wolf Effect had Ian including sources from a variety of unreliable sources, none of whom were basic researchers in the field. This included a science writer (not a scientist): Jeff Kanipe, a self-employed crystal technician C. F. Gallo, and employees of Xerox Corp. How are these reliable sources for basic research into quasar redshifts? They don't study the material. Ian knows this, but he continues his tactics anyway, in violation of his probation. I ask that he be banned from editting Wolf Effect. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably want WP:ANA (the ArbCom enforcement noticeboard) rather than WP:ANI. --ais523 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Arab scientists and scholars[edit]

Dear Admins, I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post, I don't know where else. This list was created on 4 April 2006 [19]. To avoid sensitvites regarding ethnicities, the following disclamier was inserted; taken from List of Iranian scientists and scholars and List_of_Russians#Scientists. The Disclamir is:

This is a list of scientists and scholars associated with the Arab World and Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus) that lived from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age. In some cases, their exact ancestry in unclear. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names and work are linked to the words "Arab", and "Arabic".

This happened with the guidence of two neutral admins: User:Alex_Bakharev and User:InShaneee. Now, 8 months later, a newcomer, User:Beit_Or, simply deleted the disclaimer [20]. This triggered a new ugly ethnicity war and the whole article started collapsing.

My apeal on you: is to put back the disclaimer and warn those who try to remove it.

Thank You, Jidan 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi has already raised the issue of Jidan's behavior above. This posting indicates that Jidan keeps edit warring and defying consensus. Beit Or 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shamir1 for a clear case of RFCU abuse by Jidan. Beit Or 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer seems to be an important explanation for the list itself, so I've replaced it and commented on the takpage. Doc Tropics 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting the edit warring aside, i concur w/ Doc. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Account is a single purpose account for the purpose of promoting thier site The ULC Monastery. See thier contrib list 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Greier was blocked recently for a week for edit warring. This block was his fourteenth distinct block for edit warring and incivility. [21] He was given a one month block after his eighth back in May, and since then has received multiple blocks of a week or more, but shows absolutely no inclination to modify his unacceptable behavior. Atypically, the blocks don't seem to have been escalating in any order, and so he's now racked up an atrocious block log with no end in sight. He should have been banned log ago, in my opinion, and I have extended his current block to indefinite, expecting that no one will object, and the community's patience is (well beyond) exhausted. This is up for review. Dmcdevit·t 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Repeated infringement of 3RR shows that he has no intention of abiding by the rules. --Srikeit 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Reviewed and also support this indef block. --FloNight 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support indef block.--MONGO 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support block for one year with 1RR probabtionary period to follow.—Doug Bell talk 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Long overdue. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I have seen this guy toeing the 3RR line more than often; and he has been gaming the system in the past. Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Unambiguous case, he can maybe ask to come back when he's accepted that edit-warring is wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Really see no problem with that one. 14 blocks is edging into the ridiculous. ViridaeTalk 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
While he's had a veritable crapload of blocks, not one has lasted longer than 2 weeks. I don't really have a problem with an indefinite block, but I'd have given a 3 month (or 6 month) block, to give him time to think about his behaviour, and why it is not acceptable. If that doesn't work, then block him indefinitely. Proto:: 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason he's not had longer blocks is because of the excessive leniency with which he has been treated (and I share considerable responsability in this). Few editors have shown more contempt of the rules of wikipedia, and behaved with more uncivility; for this I fully endorse the indef. block.--Aldux 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, but looking at his history, I have to agree, it was long overdue.. Maybe there should be a set 'template' on how users should be blocked. start with 24 hours, then 48 hours then a week, then a month, and at that point, the user goes up for review to see if he's improved in attitude and edits(of course this is somewhat subjective), or if he should be blocked indefinately, in which case he could always apologize.--Vercalos 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Intervention regarding Sweetest Day Images debate[edit]

For those familiar, this is more Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) stuff. About a week ago I nominated a bunch of his low quality images that were used (or tried to be used) in the Sweetest Day article: nomination 1 and nomination 2. The main issue here is that these are low quality, grainy, skewed photos taken of a newspaper article from a webcam or something. They also are orphans. Anyway, Miracleimpulse has turned the debate into more of his POV-pushing (see deleted The Sweetest Day Hoax) rhetoric. Consensus is clearly against him. I guess I'd just like to have an administrator enter the discussion to try to get it back on track to be about the images, adn not the larger debate. Thanks. Not a dog 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Having just perused Miracleimpulse's contribution history, the user's edits are certainly prolific, persistent, and highly focused topically. Is this a textbook case of a single purpose account in action? --Kralizec! (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Having no other edits outside of the various deletion discussions of the articles he's involved with, as well as POV pushing at two other semi-related pages, I believe I brought it up earlier, but Miracleimpulse is definitely an SPA.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the editor's continued hostility (disrupting an IFD is just icing on the cake) and POV pushing, I would be willing to certify a user conduct RFC or give a statement in an ArbCom case if needed. Some form of action (perhaps the community or topic ban proposed earlier) needs to be taken given his persistence, and his status as a single-purpose account is absolutely unquestionable given his unwillingness to contribute to any other subjects in the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This needs to stop, immediately, though.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to do something about it. He has been doing this persistently, it's very disruptive to the IFD. I wouldn't mind helping out in any RFC, Mediation or AC case. Will keep track on his contributions too. Terence Ong 08:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Those interested can see Talk:American Greetings for more background relevant to this situation. Newyorkbrad 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I like how he calls registered users anonymous in trying to get his way.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
We being called anonymous users??!!! It's quite lame though to call us anonymous users, we have accounts and stuff. Definitely not the other meaning of anonymous i.e. Anonymity. Terence Ong 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, is this a personal attack or is it just too late for me to be up?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is certainly a bizarre one alright. In the end, if MI were able to cite reliable sources for his "hoax" thesis then he might have a leg to stand on, but I don't recall any such, and this is not the first time I've looked at this article. The images are certainly of pretty poor quality. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The whole problem from the beginning has been that there are not reliable sources that absolutely verify this contention of a hoax. It's conjecture and Original research based on the primary sources that User:Miracleimpulse has found. WP:AGF, but User:Miracleimpulse would appear to have an axe to grind with American Greetings and Hallmark Cards, and apparently Sweetest Day which he attributes to them (on a side note, it's been insinuated that I and or others are the person User:Miracleimpulse has been arguing with on that message board). He basically edits just those 3 articles. I've never really been involved in an ArbCom or user RfC before, has this gotten to the point where it would be considered for one of those?--Isotope23 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hoax or not, POV or not, sourced or not, these images stink, and that's what the IFD is supposed to be about. MI can argue that they provide source material to back up his claims, and that can be debated elsewhere. But uploading such crappy images isn't the way to provide citations, and I can't seem to get that through to him. Not a dog 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I've blocked Miracleimpulse for a week while this discussion concludes. Regardless of what is decided here, I think we can all agree that his current behavior needs to stop now. --InShaneee 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am considering an RfC or ArbCom, but I'm going to hold off pending User:Miracleimpulse's return to see if this continues (and because it is pretty unfair to initiate any proceedings while he is unable to respond to defend himself).--Isotope23 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think his history shows pretty well that he will continue, and I will support any action against him (I recommend ArbCom). --InShaneee 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, WP:AGF but I hold little hope he's going to come back substantially reformed.--Isotope23 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And there reason to be concerned he migth even try to evade the block, since he has a history of using multiple account in other forums related to this passion of his (see User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?) Not a dog 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


This user has been engaged in trolling, but due to the nature of such users I would rather not issue a block myself. Among issues was [22] where he called another editor mentally unstable, various things in an AfD he's involved in [23] [24] [25] (namely: accusing myself and another editor of reasoning in an unjust emotional manner, accusing myself of emotionally corrupting the other user, accusing the other user of blind acceptance of my argument, etc.), talk page nonsense [26] [27], and so on. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This editor's comments and insinuations on User talk:Consumed Crustacean (see recent page history) are totally unacceptable and warrant a block. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You're not wrong. I've given him 24 hours to cool off. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Arguably lenient if it's a static IP, but it's a first block, so we'll see. I might have used different wording in the block log summary, though. :) Newyorkbrad 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Also of note, his user account is User:Tcdoom [28], which has a bit of a history of this [29]. We'll just have to see what he does off of the block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has it all[edit]

I want to report User:Brandon Sheley also posts with User talk: for a couple of things:

I have tried to level with him, I have tried to meet him half way by saying that he can open up a straw poll to get his website linked, but then I checked his edit history and found that he has been placing his links on other articles, as well as vandalizing others. Hope you guys can figure something out, because I don't want to continue this. Havok (T/C/e/c) 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked once(24hrs) for disruptive editing.. But most of his edits seem to be spam or vanity.--Vercalos 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
m:Talk:Spam_blacklist may be a last resort here. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:I luv JH forever[edit]

This user (I luv JH forever (talk · contribs)) Has only edited her? Talk and User pages. I asked them if they were planning on actually participating in the encyclopedia, and they deleted my question and continued with the chatter on their Talk page. I'd like to suggest they start actually participating in the encyclopedia or they'll be blocked and their Talk and User pages deleted and protected. Any objections? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Social networkers are delete on sight, IMO. Best to nip it in the bud before they get too settled in. Friday (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So this actually violates policy? Huh.. All I really noticed was a bunch of incoherent chatter.--Vercalos 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Policy? All we need in this case is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". I'm sure some policy page somewhere says this, for those that like the written down version of policy. Friday (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Gonna have to s-protect her talk page too, since that's all she's editing, and she's able to edit it, even if she's blocked.
Just as a note, it seems I've noticed more and more of these lately, many appearing to be from teenagers or younger. I saw one comment that their school had blocked chat sites so they were using Wikipedia. Fan-1967 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User page is only a guideline, not a policy, but under Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?, it specifically says, A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities, Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The goggles do nothing! I support a blank, block and protect. Melchoir 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I attempt to read the incoherent ramblings, it looks to me like two or more people talking to each other, which would make it a group account, and that does violate policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:NOT covers this (and is policy too) - 'Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site' and 'Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.'. I'd say block and maybe contact the school to ask them to say something to the kids?-Localzuk(talk) 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User name[edit]

The user Irish guy is a vandal account created a few months ago with a name identical to mine. Can this editor be blocked to avoid anyone thinking I am responsible for his edits? IrishGuy talk 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They haven't made any edits since July, and it does seem like a likely name somebody could come up with without any evil motives. If they continue to edit, then we can deal with it, but I don't see a problem right now. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:The Charter School[edit]

There are some extremely unpleasant arguments (including swearing) going on here. Unfortunately it is difficult to work out who is leaving the comments as most are IP address. Can an admin have a look? Thanks. Regan123 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. Giving warnings out....--Vercalos 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've warned all the IP addresses that actually made personal attacks(which, ironically enough, turns out to be all of them), and warned poorcharterboy for incivility, due to sarcasm.--Vercalos 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. Regan123 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There were only four or five, just a whole lot of edits.--Vercalos 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Windows Live Mail Page[edit]

I'm a new wikipedian and I would like to report an act of vandalism on the Windows Live Mail page. I don't know how to report this but if this is read, please take the neccessary sction. Thank you.

Taking this one. Fut.Perf. 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

High School Musical 2 - under attack[edit]

There seems to be a lot of vandalism on High School Musical 2, I have reverted back quite a bit, but I can't figure out what's real and what's fake, it seems to be a number of users who need immediate blocking. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the page should be protected? RobJ1981 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That may not solve it, the last piece of vandalism was by a registered user who seems to be mostly adding valid info, but inserted some obscenities and has a so-so history. Another was a registed user who is vandal only, but not enough to take him to AIV. A lot of IP addresses but some edits are ok and some are clearly vandalism, and a lot of reverts and changes that may be correct, or hoaxes. Even though I reverted back quite a bit, there still may be problems in the article. It would help to have someone who knows the subject. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 02:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I fully protected it. None of the participants adding the disputed info were admins, as far as I know. Sort it out on the talk page. Grandmasterka 03:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, removing all that questionable stuff was good --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attack/hoax page requiring immediate deletion[edit]

Could someone please speedy Tyler divelbiss, close the Afd, and deal with the author. Note that per Google, there is a real person by that name. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done within one minute, either coincidentally or quickly, thanks Guinnog. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

The edits from this IP [4 so far], 2 of them were vandals. I reverted the edit on Westlife's article but would like someone to look into the other 3[Pagham is also a vandal] for actions.

--Cahk 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Both others rolled back. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of a user I'm involved in.[edit]

There has been an anon editing from a semi-dynamic IP on the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident who has been repeatedly warned for making personal attacks and engaging in major civility violations. his latest personal attacks [30] [31] [32] and [33] I've therefore decided to block the anon for 24 hours. Since I am involved on the page I have submitted the block here for review. JoshuaZ 06:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The block was appropriate. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued reinsertion without sourcing[edit]

An IP, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has continually inserted the same unsourced sentence to Daily Illini (see the history or his contribs for the edit warring). despite explanation and warnings on his/her talk page and repeated directions to explanation at Talk:Daily_Illini#November_controversy_and_alleged_email. The IP has violated the spirit (though not the letter) of 3rr. Please block it.--Kchase T 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah, and did I mention rank incivility? No? That, too.--Kchase T 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on the user's talk page; it appears the user is edit warring against the talk page consensus, and not waiting for a reliable source to come out. Perhaps this could be considered a last warning? Anybody, feel free to add to my comments, or block as you see fit. Use appears to have been warned a lot before; perhaps a block is warranted. -Patstuarttalk|edits 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've warned the editor a couple of times, but he appears to be disregarding any attempts at reason. He's posted the university chancellor's phone number (presumably the office number) and told us to verify the assertion by calling. I don't know if he'll come around, but no sign of it yet. -Will Beback · · 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete posting of minor user's personal information?[edit]

At [34] one "Kristi" posted a phone number, vague location (and we reveal the IP address) and a birthdate. I deleted it from the talk page, however, given the concerns addressed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Proposed decision, which concludes "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." should this be deleted from the edit history and the user cautioned?--Prosfilaes 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that rather highly publicised case just closed minutes ago is a complete coincidence. Teenagers are interested in Petrarch all the time. That talk page is clearly the ideal place to post declarations of love. I would never, ever suggest this was a troll baiting us. But, even in all assumptions of good faith, let's caution the user just a bit. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
True enough, however user was an anon. Removed this using oversight. Thanks for the heads up. Fred Bauder 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
When I clicked on the diff provided by Prosafiles, I got an "Error" message, which I instantly realized had been produced by Fred's "oversighting" of the information in question. It's always good when the system works. However, when I read the Error message, which looks like a generic message covering several possible reasons why the diff is unavailable, one of the things it says is: "Revisions that contain personal information disclosed without permission may have been permanently removed." Without permission. Whose permission? One would think, the subject of the information. However, here anonymous "Kristi" posted what purports to be information about herself, so presumably she had her own permission. Maybe the message should be made just a bit more generic, maybe by replacing "disclosed without permission" with "that has been inappropriately disclosed." In that way it would cover all information that has been disclosed inappropriately (with that word being partly defined in the recent ArbComm case, with further development possibly to follow), not just information that is inappropriate because it is "disclosed without permission." (I do realize that things like Error messages may be written by a very small number of people who may or may not regularly read pages like this, so if there is a more appropriate place to mention this, someone please let me know.) 6SJ7 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Whose permission? I'd say the answer is her parents' or legal guardians'. ptkfgs 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, unless I missed something along the way, there is no requirement for minors to have parental permission to edit Wikipedia, although any responsible adult would discourage a person from publishing a personal telephone number here. I think 6SJ7 has a point, though, because I had had the same passing thought a few days ago. A more generic message would be useful. Risker 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that's the generic message when one tries to look at an oversighted edit. It "may" be that a revision that disclosed personal information without permission has been removed, or it may be that information was removed for another valid reason. There is no need to be overly specific with regard to the oversight explanation. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
NewYorkBrad, having now looked at Wikipedia:Oversight, I think you are correct. That page lists three situations in which Oversight is authorized to be used, and the sentence I quoted from the error message seems to be based directly on the first of those. However, the sentence from the ArbComm decision quoted above, regarding when Oversight may be used, seems to go beyond the language on Wikipedia:Oversight. The language on Wikipedia:Oversight addresses information posted without "permission", while the ArbComm says that personal information may also be Oversighted if it has been posted inappropriately by the subject of the information. (That's my paraphrase.) I am not sure where to address such a request for clarification... on the Oversight talk page? 6SJ7 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Crap...I may have violated 3RR :([edit]

Was on RC patrol and encountered a questionable edit of Paltalk by Uae0707 (talk · contribs). Here's what happened:

1) I saw this edit and reverted (I think the reversion of this content is OK, as it's pretty much an obvious POV rant). 2) The user re-added it a few minutes later. I reverted and gave a {{content2}} warning. 3) Same thing again: [35]. I reverted. 4) Then the user added a toned down version of his previous additions: [36]. I didn't look closely at it, and thought the user was just readding the same material, since it seemed so similar, so I reverted and gave the user a content3 warning. :( 5) The user readded it, and I then saw that the obvious POV was gone.

Anyway, do what you must :(.

As far as the content goes, I still think the material the user added does not belong in the article, but I feel some other editor should probably look into it, rather than me. Gzkn 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, if it was a good faith mistake there is no reason why you would be blocked. I can also understand you reverting that content, very highly unsourced. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the spirit of WP:3RR allows this. The initial edits being reverted were sufficiently bad that they fall within the scope of sections 3.6 (vandalism) and 3.7 (libel). Morwen - Talk 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what type of edits you were reverting. If you've stopped now and promise to stop, then nobody will block you for 3RR. --Deskana talk 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
(Do you want a bet?) Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 13:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Try using some common sense and figuring out that I don't speak for every single administrator on this website. --Deskana talk 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but that's his point. It only takes one. Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. Such things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but the general rule is to unblock if they promise to stop. There may be exceptions of course, though I can't think of any. --Deskana talk 13:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well that's heartening...thanks! Gzkn 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandal was also duly warned but carried on, I have blocked him so the risk of further reversions should be small. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, WP:3RR has instructions on this: if you self-revert after a 3RR violation, then, in fact, you've reconciled. But, as it stands, it was 3RR, so I'm going to have to block you for 12 hours. Ha, gotcha; just a joke (trying to bug Fys; I'm not even an admin anyway). Patstuarttalk|edits 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A WP:POINT/WP:SOCK case[edit]

A bunch of socks, IP, IP, IP and later under User:Uifan, has been edit warring originally on Universal Image Format for weeks now. He/she has been removing the {{advert}} tag which was put by User:Revragnarok. Many other established editors like User:Delldot and User:Jesup were reverting back to Revragnarok version. I had semi-protected the article on November 14th, 2006. The IP's commented on the talk page a few times but the message was always " 'HOW can MicroSoft be a GLOBAL Player?' - please choose Micro or GLOBAL!" and then created a section under the title of discussions with deafly wikipedians is totally stupid!. I had to semi-protect the article yesterday leaving a note at the talk page inviting the IP to engage in a serious discussion and try to reach a concensus. I received only silly arguments and nothing serious. I informed him/her that he/she is in the breach of a few wiki policies and i am still being patient. Now, he/she was found tagging a few articles (i.e. NTFS, Microsoft, Global Television Network) with the advert tag. This is w/o any doubt a breach of WP:POINT.

Could you please help on how to deal w/ this case as it is difficult to execute a range block in this case. Cheers -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

after triggering you explicitly to RevRagnarok's NONsense & STUPID arguments with one word Bullshit i must determine you do NOT see RevRagnarok's Bullshit and my given answers... therefore: FiRST interprete RevRagnarok's Bullshit seriously AND then talk with me... 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You are the one who should discuss the matter w/ editors at the article. I got nothing to do w/ the content as i am not involved in the article. My jugdment is that Rev gave his reasons why he tagged the article and you haven't yet countered his arguments. Instead you have been reverting non-stop using the socks i mentioned above. In conclusion, you should have been blocked by now as per the non-respect of the Sockpuppetry. I explained this to you and waited your counter-arguments. I haven't received any so far. I didn't want to block you as i've been thinking you are a newbie and not a vandal. However, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (tagging other articles) using the socks is warranting a block. So, once for all, please use your registered account above and discuss your issues using better arguments to win your case. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Could this have anything to-do with this? Agathoclea 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)