Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive217

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:03Z

Watex has spammed Club Penguin with the same link to a wordpress blog and alters existing links to link to that blog in the same manner and with the same link as the follow blocked users:
Peelers (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Peele (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Squids'and'Chips 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No he isn't. IrishGuy talk 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Now he is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Odd. No idea what happened there. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

False Accusations By Other Editors[edit]

I added info to the article and I am being accused of "disruptive" and I'm being told I have to "persuade" others before I edit. I already took it to the talk before I edited. I fixed the wikiboxes, added more detail, and added more sentences along with references. This is a very serious matter. Removal of info back up by sold references without justification or validity could be preceived as vandalism too. I want administrative assistance into this matter. Is this behaviour by other editors allowable? :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article's talk page speaks volumes on this issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, I explained on your talk page to please take it slow. there are 7-10 different editors all RVing you heavily with all the aggressive changes... it's not a race. your suggestion was posted on Talk under 70 minutes before you put it in. Be BOLD... but given the article history, and the desire of so many to stablize it, you need to work with them too. - Denny 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... you kinda missed the point of taking it to the talk page. The point is to discuss, not simply state things on the talk page as if they are established fact and then say "but I did go to the talk page!" And even then, you have to wait for people to comment. The time span being a day, not an hour. -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

note that User:QuackGuru has been brought to WP:ANI on this article four times previously. here, here, here, and here. I want to AGF but I think that for some reason Quack wants to WP:OWN this article heavily and I don't understand why he is not working well here with others. perhaps an enforced break from the article for a week? probation? - Denny 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Amerkov I should wait a day before editng the article after discussing on the talk. FYI, most edits are made without any prior discussion. I seriously like to know if any other people agree with Amerkov. Also, is there any policy you have to talk before editing. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Amarkov. As for policy, please see WP:CONSENSUS SWATJester On Belay! 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA canvassing[edit]

Resolved: Canvassing rolled back, user blocked

It's been noted at the RFA page, but thought I should mention it here. Comments like this have been going around by User:JohnHistory in attempt to garner opposition to User:Clawson's RFA. In fact, he's canvassed nearly 50 users regarding it.

It's not even a good opposition, he's just bringing up some content dispute they had over whether the red baron was jewish or not. SWATJester On Belay! 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue has been resolved on his talk page. John Reaves (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think JohnHistory knew it was the wrong thing to do, since he's now brought it up on the RfA talk page after I asked him to. – Riana 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Possibly, but "Maybe you will support the opposition too??? JohnHistory 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory" has me wondering if he actually got the concept of not canvassing. SWATJester On Belay! 09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that kinda made me bang my head against the keyboard a little bit. Just a little. – Riana 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the disruption caused by canvassing, I remain of the opinion that people who do so should be blocked until the relevant discussion (RFA in this case) has ended. Despite possible ignorance of our guideline pages, I find it hard to believe that anyone who canvasses is not aware that this is deliberate distortion of the process. >Radiant< 10:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also note that as an anon (yes, he's obviously the same person) this user disrupted the talk page of Tuskegee Airmen. He's a winner, through and through. That he's somehow garnering support makes me sick to my stomach. I'd support a block. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Support block, at least throughout the duration of the RfA. I feel bad that Clawton is not being given a fair go because of this user's disruption. – Riana 10:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Fully agree with the above 3 statements - he's still going for it on the Rfa talk page, this has biased the whole Rfa, support block Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The user's canvassing is disruptive. If he continues to canvas, a block is a no-brainer. If he's stopped canvassing, it seems to me that a block would be punitive, as it cannot dampen the impact of the canvassing already done. If checkuser show he's otherwise disruptive as an anon, he should be blocked for that. I'd also strongly support admin roll-back of as much of the canvassing as possible, to prevent more users from seeing it. --Dweller 11:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The point is, he's still disrupting it on the Rfa page, seams he has more of a personal vendetta against the candidate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the user's talk page, asking him to stop. --Dweller 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He's gone to bed for the night, ([1]) possibly before seeing my message. Can I request rollback on the canvassing? --Dweller 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd support roll back, and I'm more than happy to it is there is support to do so Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thirded. >Radiant< 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And done. Wow, that was even more canvassing than I expected. Since he seems unrepentant I would endorse a temporary block to prevent further disruption during the RFA. >Radiant< 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah thanks, I'm actually more concerned that he created an account yesterday and almost all his 150 edits have been to go against Clawson and try and bias his Rfa, there's minor disruption, but this seams like a disruption only account so far Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I have blocked User:JohnHistory for disruption for 24 hours, after many warnings he preceeded with this, if anyone feels I was wrong to block, I am more than happy to review it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. – Riana 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

not simple vandalism?[edit]

Can someone help with the sneaky vandalism from[2]? There doesn't seem to be a place to report and I haven't time to clean it all up. I've done Gulf War but there could be other pages - some edits look good, some aren't (example changing the start and end dates of the Gulf War which didn't get picked up for one month[3]). - Ctbolt 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a policy for this?[edit]

Do we have a policy for dealing with edits such as this [4] - personally I rather resent it - I spent a great deal of time an deffort on that page - do we remove it - or are we forced to look at it for ever. I don't think it is the time or place to start a thread on the subject there. Giano 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as what? Please provide the diff of the edit that concerns you. Sandstein 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Very good point Sandstein, I forgot to include it I ammended now. Giano 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
seems a very sensible suggestion to be me - I'd fail any student who used wikipedia as a source - it's a good starting point but that's it. --Fredrick day 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
See cite .. dave souza, talk 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the comment in question is violative of Wikipedia policy, and so should be allowed to remain (perhaps marked with a {{unsigned}} tag). --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the comment that Giano links to: of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be cited in a scientific paper. Jimbo said as much also, I think. That's not a slight on Giano's editorial abilities, but simply a reflection of what we are - a general encyclopedia. And of course we don't delete comments in a discussion; that would be vandalism. Giano, if you disagree, just make a polite reply. Sandstein 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not by our standards, nor the standard of most academic groups. This is not a bad thing, we are an encyclopedia and thus should only be the starting point for research. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem, and considering the poster is a sixth grader, it's good advice; it is an accurate statement of fact, and most teachers don't accept Wiki as a source. We don't accept ourselves as a source :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The particular article may be very good (for sure!). All Giano-heavily-worked-over articles may be very good (right?). Other individual articles may be very good (of course). But it's still much too early in the day for teachers to treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference work, as opposed to a useful research aid/starting point. The quality is much too variable for that. Metamagician3000 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable" It is the "extremely" I object to, even in light of recent events, I do not think the project is that unreliable. Giano 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just another case of people whose imaginations and understandings extend from A to B, I'd say. No, Wikipedia is not extremely unreliable. In fact, it's extremely reliable. It is not totally reliable, of course. As the Science editorial review showed, Wikipedia can be the best source of information available to a student. Professors who allow no citations to Wikipedia are morons or think their students are. Those who allow Wikipedia to serve as proof of anything are as bad. Wikipedia is an invitation to research more, but it is research. It can never be the last word, but not allowing it at all is foolish. The "extremely unreliable" edit is vandalism, Giano. It should be treated as vandalism. It would be no more to the point than someone going in to the Pol Pot article and inserting, "a very evil man." He may have been a very evil man, but we're NPOV, even about ourselves, in article space. Geogre 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are just plain wrong - there is no other way to describe it. In no way, shape or form is that comment Vandalism. --Fredrick day 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A comment on a talk opining that Wikipedia is not a reliable source cannot possibly be construed as vandalism, seeing as vandalism is defined, narrowly, as a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Personally I wouldn't cite WP any more than any other encyclopedia, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation for it. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No it is not vandalism in the traditional sense, but it is certainly undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If the whole project is "extremely unreliable" because it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - what are we all doing here? - What is the point? Why bother with text at all - why not just print a catalogue of suitable published references under each title and leave it at that. Of course there will always be mistakes - that is a risk everywhere in anything - but if we think and believe the project is extremely unreliable - then that is very concerning indeed. Giano 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's adding it that looks like vandalism. There are already pages that say that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable. We already put that in footers. To then go in and add "extremely unreliable" looks like an opinion being inserted, not a modification of a policy page. I'd read that as an insult to my article, if I were writing it, myself, and a bit of spray paint that I'd have to scrape off the walls. Imagine you were writing something on Goobers, and someone comes along and adds, "Really, really, really, really speculative" to a statement that said, "The origin of the word is speculative." Maybe it's a clueless edit, but I can see it being highly unwelcome and insulting (hence vandalizing). Utgard Loki 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A clearly well intentioned comment is not vandalism, even if it hurts your pride. Wikipedia:Vandalism says almost exactly that: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." A slightly thicker skin, or stiffer upper lip, is advised. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think AnonEMouse - you are rather missing the point. It is not question of putting up and shutting up - it is a question of - is there any point at all writing a page, if the second it is finished complete with references etc, someone can come along and say on the talk page this is "extremely unreliable" - if it happened anywhere lese the editor would be asked what specifically is unreliable? If we the people writing this are happy to be branded "extremely unreliable" then there is little hope for the project. Giano 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, I looked for "Giano is extremely unreliable" in that edit, and couldn't find it. I merely found "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable". Taking a look at the number of articles which have been edited to consist of the equivalent of "Eric is gay" in any given 24 hours, I'd have to say that's pretty much correct. Despite that, most of us still, somehow, find the will to live, and soldier on. Sigh. It is a hard and lonely road we walk, we few, no more than a million or so of us, Wikipedia editors. So defamed. So troubled. So misunderstood. On that last point, being misunderstood, I didn't mean to write anything about shutting up (and, in fact, can't see where I did - but heck, that's two things I can't see. I must need a new prescription. Do you know a good optometrist for mice?). If you wish to rebut on the talk page, and mention the Science study, or a dozen other good things about Wikipedia, go right ahead, and you'll find lots of supporters. That's why they call it an Article Talk page. Just don't call people who disagree with you in good faith vandals. At most, visigoths, please.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh well, you're probably quite right. Wikipedia is for the most part completely unreliable. Giano 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's just say it's a work in progress. I'm going to go and check our article on the Visigoths, now. They were a very interesting Germanic tribe. Metamagician3000 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is pretty reliable because of people going around trying to make sure that it doesn't tell the world that Eric is gay. Therefore, having that insertion is an insult to the vandal hunters, the deletion hunters, the information adders, the editors, and the writers. An Alan is not going to welcome a Vandal saying that he's a barbarian. Utgard Loki 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, sorry: wikipedia is not a reliable source.--Vidkun 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam via mass image upload[edit]

If you look at the contributions of Anantashakti (talk · contribs), you will note that this user uploads lots of cc-sa images owned by Himalayan Academy Publications, with an added pious commentary and of course a link to his organization. None of the images has any noticeable encyclopedic value, and since they are unfree, we are not keen on having them. Still, the user is not directly violating any policy, and I am not sure how to deal with this. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If the images are non-free, they're clearly violating image copyright policy. But they claim to have permission from the organization. We should have them follow up with OTRS. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently User:Himalayan Academy Publications already did so and gave permission to the user in question. All we need now is a response from the wikimedians tending that address that confirms this notice is indeed true. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like a role account, though. I left a note. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • the problem is, even if the permission is genuine, the images are basically advertisement for this publisher and devoid of encyclopedic value. They should all go on Ifd as UE, but I cannot be bothered to Ifd them individually as long as they keep getting uploaded. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The images appear to be clear and often of high quality. Whether the subjects are promotional I could not say, not having much experience of Indian religious art. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think they're all unencyclopedic. Take for example Image:CowHA.jpg which is being perfectly useful on Sacred cow. The fact most of them haven't been added to an article, doesn't make them spam. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • true, some may be useful as illustrations, provided we can cite the artist. Random illustrations of random concepts are not encyclopedic in themselves, but I agree such images can be at home on commons. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Barry Ley Afdbanned & related issues[edit]

This is an on going dispute and general mess. A, very, short version is that a new editor user:DrParkes made some sweeping changes to the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu article, these were reverted with a requests for discussion by several users, including myself. It turned into an edit war & DrParkes and User:Loudenvier were banned for 3RR violations, DrParkes was then re-banned for attempting to bypass the block. After reaching my 3rd revert on the BJJ page, I decided to look into the other articles edited by DrParkes, and I added citation requests & removed some POV comments, these edits were reverted again without discussion, then when sources were added my attempts to format were reverted, can't be sure of the exact order but DrParkes 3RR ban came into force and the same patten was followed by an IP [[]. At this point other editor involved in the BJJ article had also looked at it and edited, as some of the edits DrParkes had made to BJJ had linked to them. At this point user:Kentkent started editing in a similar manner to DrParkes, but with comment on talk pages, claiming to be a friend, an edit war to maintain the AfD tag started. There are now a growing list of possible sockpuppets User:Kentkent, User:Kbenton, User:Jamesthorburn, User: and User:Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk) who have only or mainly edited the Barry Ley (or deleted Blaggers) articles. I requested the admin that banned DrParkes to look at this and he has refused. Some help is needed however to sort out the mess. --Nate 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not intending to state the obvious but users with a long history of constructive edits are having their work targeted which is affecting a number of well developed articles. This is becoming a real problem.Peter Rehse 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you time, hope it calms down now--Nate 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


A sockpuppeteer who has recently been recieved a community ban (see here) has evaded his block and started to not only vandalise articles and upload possible copyvios but is starting to threaten me on my talk page. The admin I usually report this to (User:Yamla) seems to be offline at the moment but could I please have an admin look into this. The evading sockpuppets are BatistaTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Sebastian P 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Oakster Oakster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Oakster 11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:479240555_l.jpg "Back of Verdict" pretty much settles it: Oakster Oakster is clearly a sockpuppet. He admits to it. Not very opaque, is this fellow? Looks like someone already did the banning, though. Adam Cuerden talk 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've just noticed a fellow Wikipedian has reported him for banning as well. Thanks anyway and I apoligise for any inconvenience. -- Oakster  Talk  12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
All blocked. – Riana 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
With approximately 80 known sockpuppets and many more waiting in the wings, I've started fully protecting articles this banned user targets. If he is threatening you, I advise that you simply delete the threat. If he emails you, don't respond. He starts with minor intimidation, moves up to threats of physical violence, then eventually he'll express a desire that you die or maybe even threaten to kill you himself. He was also caught violating privacy (an action for which oversight was required). He will also likely claim that you are stalking him but note that WP:STALK does not apply if you are following submissions of a banned user so you can undo them. --Yamla 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proxy IPs from India blanking citations[edit]

Resolved: Both articles semiprotected

There are different proxy IPs from India blanking out cited material from Aguirre, the Wrath of God shown [5], [6], [7] (some examples) and Apocalypse Now (shown [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Could some admin take action and semi-protect the article? Thanks. Real96 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Riana 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:01Z

Just like the note above, I'm not sure where the appropriate place to report this is, so I'm putting it here. Denny Seiwell (talk · contribs) is either knowledgeable about a suspiciously wide variety of topic, finding lots of little errors and correcting them; or he is making nothing but sneaky vandalous edits. I can't figure out how to determine which, other than to ask experienced editors such as the admins here to take a look. Thanks. Deli nk 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism. Some are hard to tell without specialized knowledge, but this edit is clearly minor vandalism, this edit is highly unlikely, and this edit is directly contradicted by this official source. However, just as a stopped clock is apparently right twice per day, this edit seems to actually have the correct information (It was one of the earlier ones I decided to research, so I was conflicted at first - I think preponderance is vandalism after all). I see TedFrank (talk · contribs) has already reverted all of DS's contributions and warned him. I'll second the warning, but will ask about the University of Yazd bit. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Denny Seiwell is a semi-famous musician, so there are probably Wikipedia:Username policy issues as well. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, other than the University of Yazd date, which I honestly think was just luck, I can't find a single undisputably worthwhile edit from this account, and it's been around since June 2006. Rather than warning, I'm going to block per WP:U#Blocking "inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames that are coupled with vandalism". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Since admins rarely get enough thanks: Thanks everyone for looking into it! Deli nk 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Curious Gregor SSP counter-accusation[edit]

Curious Gregor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) responded to my opening Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor against him by making the counter accusation: diff from my userpage, "Pete Hurd had accused me of being a SockPuppet. I thought in the manner of corporate law I would bring a countersuit." Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd. I don't want to revert his accusation against me on my userpage myself, but I invite an admin to consider doing so. Pete.Hurd 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd fall under some CSD? If so, it should definitely be deleted.
Although not an admin, I've removed the notice about sock-puppetry from your page. The other part, though, I've left - I think it should be responded to, not removed. Od Mishehu 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll move his rant to my talk page, but it's a bit too laughable to merit a detailed response. Pete.Hurd 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Definitely needs to be blocked for a while, for repeated vandalism. anonymous6494 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You will probably get a faster response at WP:AIV. MastCell Talk 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been taken care of. Thanks though. anonymous6494 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Death threat[edit]

A death threat was left on User talk: As such, I have blocked this IP address indefinitely and forwarded the information along to the high school in question. Once this matter has been dealt with by the high school, we should unblock the IP address. It is currently blocked anon-only, though, so it should not affect users who are signed in. This address was previously blocked by another admin for six months. --Yamla 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing; I've seen some pretty nasty messages, but never one like that. I've seen IPs where they've threatened to have my account deleted, but death common are they? Acalamari 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
From schoolchildren? Probably not that uncommon. Genuine death threat? I hardly think so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much - some of our less mature vandals will make death threats the minute they are blocked, but real threats are (thankfully) few and far between. Natalie 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably not genuine, but we should treat all such threats seriously, regardless of their likeliness to manifest. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Sockpuppet of JINXTENGU.[edit]

Resolved: blocked

JINXTENGU has given himself away again with this edit to Persian Poet Gal's talk page. Acalamari 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Blocked. Natalie 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; that's the third one I've reported here in less than five days. Acalamari 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kataraisdabest (talk · contribs) - block review requested[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:59Z

I've just blocked Kataraisdabest (talk · contribs) indefinitely. S/he has not made any constructive edits since registering the account, and instead blanked Adult Swim twice. S/he apologized, but then created Katy&inuyasha three times and the talk page four times (all were deleted as either nonsense or G8). After getting a level 3 warning, s/he left for a month, but came back and started making posts on his/her user page and various user talk pages (the user page had previously been deleted in a MFD). After Kataraisdabest posted on my user talk page, I left him/her a final warning, as Wikipedia is not MySpace and the user seemed uninterested in contributing (I posted a reminder that this is an encyclopedia) - this incivil comment resulted, and Kataraisdabest was blocked, and here I am. Could someone review this? --Coredesat 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. I'm sure Wikipedia will cope without him/her. – Steel 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. Veinor (talk to me) 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The block seems to improve Wikipedia, so I support it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. IrishGuy talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me...the only thing I might suggest is apply a {{welcome}} tag with any lower-level warning, to give the user a better chance to figure out what/why/how they were doing wrong and perhaps get them to become useful contributors. -- Scientizzle 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming Talk:Main Page linking to possibly explicit content[edit]

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: [16]. I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

Signing post so that this will be archived (it's been here over a week), since Brian uses a non-standard timestamp. Ral315 » 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

disappearance of the shadowbot thread[edit]

Apologies to those who contributed to the new shadowbot thread: this edit by Irishguy for some reason deleted eight days of threads. -- TedFrank 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What the...? I have no idea how that happened. My apologies. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Not your fault... It happens a lot lately. My theory is that the code that catches edit conflicts occasionally lets one through. --Edokter (Talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if it's a glitch from trying to edit at the same time a bot is archiving? -- TedFrank 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
A bot is just a user. When someone hits the Edit button, he gets a copy of the current revision. When someone else hits Edit at the same time, he gets the same. The problem occurs when both editors try to save their revision; the database gets two different versions based on the current revision. The first is accepted, the second editor gets a warning that there is an edit conflict. Now... Databases can be slow. That means it takes time for an edit to be fully entered into the database. If the software sees a second edit being presented, while the first is not yet completly saved, it might not see the edit conflict and try to save that revision as well; overwriting the first edit. --Edokter (Talk) 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that's the problem, at least not the database's fault (but maybe a bug in MediaWiki). The main function of databases is guaranteeing this kind of thing doesn't happen. See also Database transaction, Isolation (computer science), ACID. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:23Z


Hi, I'm having problems with this user. Recently, I closed an AfD which he started as keep. He didn't like that, and left me a rather rude message saying "Just letting you know that you failed your duty as a wikipedia administrator today. Not only did you not care to acquire an overview of the debate, which would have lead to no consensus, you also failed to really read it." I didn't particularly like being told I "failed", since I didn't, and no admin can "fail" since we're all volunteers. I told him this, but despite that he continued telling me I "failed", even though I explained my reasoning he wouldn't have it. This discussion is located here. I told him to take it to deletion review if he was unhappy with the result. I thought that would be the last of it.

I then came across this page. I saw this AfD closing had been logged, and I had been labelled as "incompetent" (here's the original adding of it). I removed the word incompetent, then told him I had done so on his talk page. He replied informing me yet again I had failed greatly (even though we'd discussed I hadn't failed), then he altered the wording to say "Incompetent decision to keep was made by User:Majorly" - which I still count as an attack on my judgement. I again removed the incompetent part, but then the wording was changed again, this time saying the decision was incredibly competent, but was against policy... since it was following policy I removed it, only to be reverted by popups. I asked him to remove it on his talk page, twice and responded neither time, so I removed it one last time, only this time I was reverted "as vandalsm"! He left a message on my talk page asking me to stop vandalising the subpage. All I've done is removed the attacks on my judgement, and throughout he's been really unhelpful and uncooperative. I'd like an opinion of what to do about this. Thanks a lot. Majorly (o rly?) 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Either put it up for deletion review or drop it. Sniping at other editors because you didn't get your way is uncivil. —bbatsell ¿? 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, the above comment is addressed to Twsx (talk · contribs).
I did drop it after trying to convince him to at least explain his decision for. I have lost my temper in the first message and acted uncivil to a certain extend. This is unforgiveable and i apologized for it 5 minutes later and once again yesterday. All of this happened within a timespan of 3 hours [17], after that, for my part, the topic was done. I "log" my actions and participations on a subpage for later use (comes in hand with a couple of things, such as re-created speedy'd newpages as example). I understand that as with every other page, personal attacks are not welcome, so with some reluctance, i removed them. As it is now, the "log" reflects pure fact without any personal attack, which is why Majorly's last edit definitely constitutes as inproper. I would also like to note that Majorly did not behave perfectly innocent himself, such as calling me a whiner (which is relatively irrelevant, as i never made any move to have his decision evaluated or similar) and saying i was "making ad hominem attacks" while the only person pushing the topic was he himself.
In conclusion; Majorly made his decision, i accepted it right away, but told him my opinion about it anyway, which lead to a discussion that kept going on for 3 hours. Eversince i was fine with what happened. The person keeping the discussion up, is Majorly. I will give my comments to whatever may come up in this discussion here, but for now, this is everything i have to say. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Twsx should definitely try to be more civil from now on but we should also let bygones by bygones. However, in the future, I would suggest before you post your opinion of other people's actions, I would seriously recommend you consider whether it is constructive or not... Sasquatch t|c 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem of his "Log" remains. He insists on retaining the language, "Incredibly competent decision to keep against policy." ("against policy" being the key words, and the dripping sarcasm notwithstanding). He has reverted to keep the language in there while identifying their removal as "vandalism" (which is, of course, laughable). If you believe the closure was against policy, open a deletion review. As above, it is not acceptable to take the course you have taken, namely: insulting the closing administrator on their talk page and denigrating their closure in your userspace. If you continue to refuse to have the deletion reviewed, you must stop immediately. I think we all know why you won't do it — you'll find out that it was an acceptable closure and an accurate reading of consensus — so you continue to snipe from afar. It's uncivil and incredibly inappropriate. —bbatsell ¿? 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
To be entirely fair here, the vast majority of 'keep' arguments were specifically based on criteria which were listed as "dubious" notability criteria at the time, and which are now explicitly listed as outright "invalid". The remainder of the 'keep' arguments weren't backed up by anything other than personal assertions, or the desire for journalists to treat porn more seriously.
In short, no actual valid arguments for 'keep' were really made.
Consensus isn't supposed to be counting the numbers (10 keep, 7 delete, in this case); it's supposed to put significant weight on the strength of the arguments themselves.
I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with the decision anyways. I'm mostly an inclusionist that thinks that the policy is too strict. However, it's pretty hard to deny that notability was not proven in that afd, as defined by the policy at the time, and that it definitely wouldn't pass the test if it were based on today's current notability criteria.
Nobody is obligated to take it to deletion review unless they wish to reverse the action taken in the afd. But a person is more than entitled to say that it was a wrong decision. Wikipedia doesn't support the level of censorship that you're proposing.
The 'incompetant' arguments were uncalled for. I think even twsx admits that now, right? However, he certainly seems to genuinely believe that the decision was contrary to policy, and, objectively, I tend to agree. I'm allowed to say that: It was against wikipedia policy. Big deal.
The 'incompetant' (and 'competant') problem: that was a serious problem. But arguing about whether or not a person is allowed to say they think a decision actually followed policy? That's just silly. Bladestorm 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The relevant notability guideline is WP:PORNBIO, which allows for more subjectivity in determining notability than I am normally used to because of the genre's general lack of coverage by normally reliable sources, and the keep votes were in line with that guideline, unless I'm misreading something. At any rate, this isn't deletion review, so this isn't the place to debate that. Saying, "I don't believe the result was an accurate reading of consensus" is different than "KEPT AGAINST POLICY" (especially since notability guidelines are just guidelines) and saying that the administrator is incompetent (which, until earlier today when he removed it due to this thread, his Log page stated clearly). —bbatsell ¿? 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure it's clear: All accusations of 'incompetance' were entirely inexcusable. Not arguing about that part; only whether or not a person is allowed to believe that something was 'against policy' or not. (basically, the extent to which wikipedia should be censored)
As far as the guidelines are concerned, the primary arguments were based on the number of google hits, the number of films, and the nomination for an award related to her chest.
The google hits and # of films are explicitly declared "invalid" criteria for notability in the current draft of the guideline, and they were labelled as "dubious" at the time of the afd. The award that was cited in the "keep"s wasn't even notable in and of itself, so even if she'd won, it wouldn't really have mattered. But, in this case, she didn't even win. She was merely considered for a non-notable award. Bladestorm 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
About that edit i made after this entry here has been made: [18]. I didnt mean to cloak anything, all i wanted to do is remove whatever insult there was left, as i do agree and regret that i did make inappropriate namecalling. Bladestorm found good words for the case; my behavior was under the belt. However, while i believe it is my right to express my opinion about an administrators decision, this topic seems to be about my logpage, which does represents a short personal memo about my opinion without any attack, and nothign more. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, there is some interesting, at least tangentially related discussion of whether it constitutes a personal attack to call an administrator's decision something like "incompetent" (as opposed to calling the admin himself or herself that) in the workshop of the InShaneee arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD close = valid; I would have done the same. Even if it ended up as no consensus, I would have kept the article by default. The personal attacks by Twsx were uncalled for. The user is allowed to comment on admin actions, but it really shouldn't resort to namecalling and such. In the future, I advise Twsx to be more careful with his words, and to politely discuss a situation with a user. Nishkid64 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jiaur Rahman: general mayhem[edit]

Can an admin take a look at what User:Jiaur Rahman has been up to? Things like moving his user and user talk page to article namespace, etc. I'm getting confused just trying to follow what he's done. --Minderbinder 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He created his user page, then moved it to Watercolour Artist. I have tidied this up, and will ask the user not to do so again. He also tried to add "© Jiaur Rahman 2006-2007. All rights reserved." on WP:ICT as a copyright tag to be used. Hmm. Neil (not Proto ►) 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've db-empty tagged Jiaur Rahman (talk · contribs)'s creations JIAUR RAHMAN & -- Scientizzle 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind about deleteing Template:Ph:Diff, I guess it's used at Help:Diff... -- Scientizzle 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out his false copyright tagging of a copyrighted picture tagged as "wikipedia screenshot". SWATJester On Belay! 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians[edit]

About: Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians:

This appears to be an unapproved WikiProject of sorts. As placement in Wikipedia namespace would appear to misleadingly imply official Wikipedia status, I was tempted to speedy delete it, but I'd like input on this.

Also, the page was created by AINW (talk · contribs), whose only two edits were to the page. Based on its claim of use of items created by Wikimachine (talk · contribs), I am suspecting AINW to be a sockpuppet of Wikimachine. Opinions wanted on this as well: is this block-worthy on AINW? (I don't think that Wikimachine should be blocked, but he should be warned for doing this, I think.) --Nlu (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but, as far as I know:
  1. WikiProjects don't have to be "approved".
  2. Using sockpuppets ("alternate accounts") non-abusively is generally permitted.
(The group is a rather bad idea, of course—it's entirely redundant to the regular translation projects—so I have nothing against deleting it. But it ought to be done for a legitimate reason.) Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It probably belongs in meta, see m:Category: Wikipedian associations. That is, in any case, where my association is, the m:Association_of_Incremento-eventuo-darwikian-delusionist_Wikipedians Bucketsofg 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, "approval" may be the wrong word, but it bypassed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Nlu (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Creating it here instead of on Meta is a newbie mistake. I don't think it's block-worthy. Even if it were a WikiProject that wasn't "officially" proposed at WikiProject Council it wouldn't be a blockable offense. I would just transwiki or MFD it. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:57Z

rather unorthodox method to speedy delete articles[edit]

Hi, I noticed a user recently moved an article into a user's namespace recently as a way to avoid needing to suggest the article was a candidate for deletion (See here). Is this an acceptable practice? --Rebroad 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While very much good faith move, I dont know about it. I think it opens the doors for alot of possible bad faith. If it needs to be deleted, it needs to be deleted. There have been many proposals for expiremental deletion but i think the way ti stands, regular deletion is the current acceptable practice. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not acceptable. 'Userfying' an article is only permitted once a page is about to be deleted once it has followed proper procedures, usually for the purpose for improving the article. Moving it for the purpose of (speedy) deleting, bypassing WP:CSD, WP:AFD or WP:DRV is simply not done. I would revert the move and speedy-tag it. --Edokter (Talk) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please. This article would stand less than no chance of surviving an AfD, userfying and leaving a message on User talk:Walljordan it was just someone trying not to bite the newbie. I would simply have changed it to a redirect to person, probably, but Miss Mondegreen went to more trouble. Why would we discourage that? Guy (Help!) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:51Z

User TruthComesOut (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has vandalised the article Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford with offending and unsourced material at different times (see [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]), which contradicts WP:NPOV, WP:LIVING and WP:ATT. He was warned four times not to do this (see [24], but has removed these warning and uses now his talkpage instead to spread this material (see [[25]]).

It is only speculation, however I think, he could be a sockpuppet of User Ghost rider1000 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and User Oracleatdelphi1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who have shown similar behaviour on this article. ~~ Phoe talk 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

I've deleted the talk page as it clearly breaches BLP policy. If anyone thinks he should be blocked, feel free to press the button. -- Nick t 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, having spent time going through all of the edits, they're exceptionally controversial (some also included edit summaries which could be considered libelous in their own right) so I've deleted all of them. I've indefinitely blocked the user until we can decide on a suitable length of block or whether a community ban would be more suitable. -- Nick t 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No further action required, I'd say - the username is a dead giveaway. WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:Israelbeach mounting concerted AfD POV-push?[edit]

Joel Leyden (who used to edit as User:Israelbeach and numerous other sockpuppets) appears to be canvassing off-wiki support for a concerted push to "send Arab propaganda anti-Israel news groups and blogs to AFD", apparently in revenge for the deletion of the Wikipedia article about his own website. He's using his Yahoo group to coordinate this push with "several Israeli and Jewish groups." It would be worth keeping an eye on AfD for a week or two to see if this amounts to anything much. I'm not going to dignify his rants by linking to them, but look on a certain kooks' forum (which I think we all know!) for "Arab Propaganda Sites to be Deleted - AFD's, Israelis To Create AFD for all Arab propaganda sites". -- ChrisO 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to recognize suspicious AfDs that might pop up...--Isotope23 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This may be related to the recent spam blacklisting of his site. Leyden is not above petty spite, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of message[edit]

I had posted an in-good-faith message to User:FeloniousMonk/Talk. An anonymous IP (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) user removed this message and in the edit summary claimed I was a troll and "chronic" history of PA. Well, the "Attacks" he's referring to probably include those that FM accused me of making earlier this week, or the ones Guettarda accused me of over a week ago -- both of which were misunderstandings and through which my posting was attempting to resolve:

I feel this would let me recover lost faith, and of course, bolster my arguments that my other pages were done in good faith. (me)

Since this IP user has several warnings on his page (one of which is from me, but that was made after his above removal, before I noticed it. It was a warning to another removal of his, but one that I cannot complain about here.) and since this move was blatanly vandalism and required experienced use, I propose he blocked for at least 48 hours. --Otheus 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking would be the correct thing to do, but I don't think the IP's actions are suitable either. Even if someone has made a personal attack in the past that is not a reason to revert every talk page edit from that editor afterward, unless they are personal attacks. What might be relevant to one edit is not always relevant to another. Yuser31415 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of full disclosure, is this what you're talking about, when you refer to his first infraction for which you warned him? Because this really seemed unnecessary, and I can certainly see someone watching everything you say afterwards far more carefully.
Ultimately, I did regret posting that; I should have and ultimately emailed my condolences privately. --Otheus 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't to say that he was right to remove your comment from FeloniousMonk's talk page, but it certainly suggests that he is not a simple vandal. I'm not entirely sure what you think a block will accomplish here. There's no (supplied) proof of a desire to disrupt wikipedia... so... what's the point? Bladestorm 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. I was careless in not noticing the correct sequence of events here. I only noticed that the removal from FM's talk page came before my warning on his talk page, so I assumed the removal from FM's talk page occurred before the removal from Guettarda's talk page. I was careless. I apologize to all. Furhter, my repost to FeloniousMonk's page still stands, so I guess no real harm done. --Otheus 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Read all of Geuttarda's comments to Otheus' talk page over the last few weeks. He's been trying to get Otheus to stop making personal attacks. Then when Geuttarda leaves in disgust Otheus removed the redirect of his talk page to his user page Guettarda made and left an oblique personal attack in which he gloats at his leaving: [26] Guettarda was one of the few admins who's bothered to stand up to Otheus' chronic subtle trolling and abuse of the system, so it's not surprising I suppose. I stand by removing it and the "comment" from FM's page in which he trolls FM, again gloating over another perceived victory over someone who has stood up to him and won. Otheus has been one of the least honest editors I've come across, as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated. 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this is the same user. Many of his criticisms above are factualy incorrect, and at best, assume very bad faith:
  • The only attack Guettarda complained to me about was one he mistakenly thought I made toward him and nonetheless apologized for. (There is a caveat to that; FM AfD'd several user pages I created, which I intended for evidence pages in an ongoing dispute, "attack page"; Guettarda repeated FM's claim these were attack pages, a claim I fully contend is invalid. The pages have since been deleted per his nomination.)
  • Second, I did *not* remove the redirect of Guettarda's talk page. It was still there and intact and functioning.
  • Third, there was no chronic trolling! I don't know where this user gets this idea, and frankly, that's very offensive. I'm not even sure what he means by trolling here; the WP policy page on trolling certainly does not apply to me.
  • Fourth, there is no abuse of the system. Wow, that's pattently offensive!
  • Fifth, how can I gloat over someone who (paraphr) "stood up to me and won"?
  • Sixth: "as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated [his being one of the least honest editors]". An anonymous IP user removes two messages I had left on User_Talk pages, and I had just been on the scalding receiving end of something similar. Removing one page was offensive, but doing it twice to different users is a pattern.

--Otheus 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, just to reiterate, I drop the dispute request. I agree with Bladestorm's response. --Otheus 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Also in the interests of disclosure, User:FeloniousMonk has filed a checkuser request on me. CHECKUSER#Otheus Thus, if the user above also believes it to be the case that I am the IP users in the checkuser case, his descriptions (trolling, disruptive, dishonest, etc) would be rational. (I know checkuser will come back negative, but of course, what good is my word?) --Otheus 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User creation flood[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:50Z

Does anyone else find it odd that the user creation log is flooding recent changes? Or is this a fluke of some kind?--VectorPotentialTalk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, nevermind, it was just a database crash, for some reason the only thing that still worked was the user creation function, thus the appearance of a username creation flood--VectorPotentialTalk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, all the logs do. They just aren't noticeable usually. Prodego talk 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I hate to sound like an idoiot here but has it always been that way? I have done RC patrol for several months and dont remeber it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's been like that for quite some time (Well, I think you can change what you see in Recent changes if you want to). Logical2uReview me! 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Only since around 2004 or 2005, I forget the exact date, there didn't always used to be a visible log for user creations, which is why some older accounts don't show up on the user creation log at all, take for instance Jimbo Wales, no entry in the creation log--VectorPotentialTalk 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That must explain why I dident see it. I have a custom link to RC on my tool bar that shows only anons and the such. Thanks! I know there were user creation logs but I did not think it shwoed on recent changes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Oh not again[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:50Z

A new editor, Oh not again has appeared with the stated intention of harassing me [27] [28]. He has already made a bad faith AfD on Tobias Bamberg claiming it is unreferenced, even though the article has a reference section. These actions mirror an editor who has used multiple abusive sockpuppets against me, User:Stopthepowermad34. His sockpuppets can be seen here. IrishGuy talk 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was watching it unfold. Obvious sockpuppet/troll/harassment account; it's now blocked. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted another admin's opinion rather than simply blocking him myself. As I said above, I'm 100% positive it was another sock of Stopthepowermad34. IrishGuy talk 00:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User Calton[edit]


Reporting negative COI, WP:VAND, WP:CIV - WP:EQ, WP:NPA - WP:ATTACK, User Calton. History of WP:POINT, WP:CREEP, WP:BITE. COI, with users and re: article Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. From edit notes, (cur) (last) 15:57, 19 March 2007 Calton (Talk | contribs) (Nope. Obnoxious boxes? Obnoxious article.) Thanks. Telogen 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That's quite an alphabet soup... can you tell us what did he actually do wrong? Doesn't look like personal attacks or true edit warring. --W.marsh 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Diffs... Everyone loves diffs. Natalie 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
He's talking about this. I had a dispute with Calton in the past about pushing tags onto an article repeatedly, but seriously... Let's just AfD the damn thing. It's probably notable enough. Everyone should just try fixing the article rather than putting a million tags on it. It's not really worthy of attention here. Grandmasterka 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See this report as well. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. —bbatsell ¿? 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I found Calton's forcing tags and comments, especially "obnoxious article," to be pushing various letters of the WP alphabet a bit too far. Admins decide, I just report. As for as User Antaeus Feldspar, you find what you need in the User's talk and history. I think the admin response was good on that. Thanks. Telogen 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User Calton has had a history of antisocial behavior, dating to atleast October 2006. See this AFD: [29] where he verges on personal attacks against me and against User:VivianDarkbloom and comments left at my talk page: [30] on the same subject. Regarding these attacks, an NPA warning was left on his talk page, which he deleted see: [31] While these are from a long time ago, they may show a long-term inability to play well with others. Also, on February 16-17 2007, he reverted more NPA warnings on his talkpage. See dif: [32] (get a pattern?) Not sure if any of this is relevent, but take it as you wish. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron32. Very helpful. I'm witnessing the same pattern. User Calton has since taken charge to revert the edits, and override decisions, of admins, see Jeanne Marie Spicuzza history. Reverted tags removed by admins. Added article to his personal AfD list, which was around for years, before I even arrived. I'm sensing COI all right, from User Calton. Other Users experienced this problem (see history) and have left it, probably out of sheer frustration. So, a bunch of editors get deterred from fixing an article and then the article gets dumped because it can't be fixed. Not much you can do if you're getting blocked and accused of this or that because you simply disagree, on principle. Call on admins for assistance. I've done all I can. Thanks. Telogen 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Admins dont' really have any additional say in what goes in articles, however, his continued re-insertion of hideous tags to game the system and avoid the trouble of an AFD is troubling, especially when coupled with a lack of response to discussion efforts on the talk page and rude edit summaries. Milto LOL pia 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I protected the page. This seems like the best solution for this. See my protection summary for details. I think it's fully deserving of an entry on WP:LAME and I have added it. Also, Calton technically violated WP:3RR, but any block now would be purely punitive. Grandmasterka 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, attempts were made to improve the article and justify tag removal, but to no avail. Perhaps I called in the Spanish Inquisition too quickly, my apologies- I'm pretty new at this. Anyone here wanting to help with another edit dispute, see Ralph Nader history and talk, esp. Atlantic Monthly. Various users have attempted discussion and compromise. The reverts have gotten out of hand. Thanks. Telogen 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru & Wikipedia community[edit]

User is again making unilateral moves that are very WP:OWN. He created this article and feels he has control over it moreso than others. He tried to speedy it, and was advised that it can't be a Speedy canidate. Then he Prod'd it, and I asked him to AfD based on policy if he felt it needed to go for legitimate reasons. Then he redirects it to Wikipedia in response, puts a speedy tag on Talk:Wikipedia community, and removes every single link from a variety of articles back to Wikipedia community. To cap it off he solicits a new admin here to delete the complete history. I want to AGF but User:QuackGuru has been brought to WP:ANI on this article four times previously. here, here, here, and here, and yesterday here for similar very aggresive, speedy aggressive acts. Can someone please look into this? his idea of concensus is to throw a hand grenade, and its getting tiring... multiple editors have complained. - Denny 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC) An administrator redirected it. I did not. I removed the the links to the redirect. I believed the talk was indistcriminate information to speedy delete. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And you solicited him for that... after being checked by a couple of other users. His status as an admin as Conti told you on your talk page gives him no special rights/authority for content... so you instead asked him to delete the history... to cover tracks? All your edits have been repeatedly checked by others and stopped for over a week, because you are being hyper-aggressive. Why are you unwilling to compromise to the community wishes/concensus? - Denny 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Silly dispute, really, since that article contains nothing which is not inherently obvious from Wikipedia plus community. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Everything QuackGuru is involved in is a silly dispute, but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious of him. He has no understanding of consensus, his idea of a discussion is to go and declare things as if they were royal edicts, and he claims we're "locking him out of" articles if we revert him. I can't even figure out what his motives are any more, beyond just wanting things to be his way. --tjstrf talk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I came into this because I came across the article. Regardless of how silly he is, it's a pretty mediocre article and deserved to be redirected, which is why I did it. There's nothing on the article that isn't already in the main one and the AfD was only no consensus because a handful of people wanted to give it a chance. It's not looking any better so I redirected. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't solicit me, I was the one who put the merge tag on the article in the first place. He removed and then readded it, then mentioned that he realized none of it was worth merging, which I agreed with. No one posted on either talk page to disagree. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I mean he solicited you to use your admin powers to "erase the history" to discourage people from recreating the article, in that cited diff, or he wanted to use your admin powers to aide him in a content dispute. attempted admin abuse by proxy, I suppose... - Denny 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment of editor Philip Gronowski[edit]

See [33] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AZJustice for full the backstory. Basically, Don Murphy or someone acting on his behalf harassing User:Philip Gronowski and me and asking people who frequent his message board to attempt to identify me. Any suggestions? --BigDT 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In view of the implied threat of real-life harassment from what appears to be an identified, publicly known individual, this situation should be brought to the attention of the WP:OFFICE immediately. The conduct promoted in the blog thread you have quoted is completely unacceptable.
However, I will add that although in no way should Mr. Murphy (or the person misusing his name) derive any advantage from his reprehensible threats, Don Murphy is a sad excuse for an article and clearly raises serious BLP and undue weight issues. Newyorkbrad 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuos Vandalism After Many Warnings[edit]

Resolved: blocked

User is vandalising wikipedia severely, after being given '7' warnings, and has not yet stopped. I request he should be blocked. Wikipedian64 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been done. See his talk page. Next time use WP:AIV for this. Daniel Case 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reversion of removal of unencyclopedic, nonfunctional xlinks[edit]

Resolved: blocked

User:DJvac has been adding a list of links to MSN Search Live's bird's-eye view of every store in the upstate New York Tops and Wegmans supermarket chains to the respective articles (even if they were relevant to the article, they all redirect to the main MSN Live search page, making them useless for their intended purpose).

He has not responded to any of several users' (myself included) efforts to discuss this on his talk page. I have never had a problem with a user like this before. I have exceeded three reverts on the Tops article and requested it be protected; it may happen on the Wegmans article as well. At this point I consider him a vandal but I would like some guidance as I don't want this to degenerate into mutual accusations of 3RR violations. If there is any administrative action that can be taken, please don't hesitate to do so. Daniel Case 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to protect the articles when only one editor is causing the same problem on both. If he doesn't get the point now, he can be blocked at any time for disruption. He's been warned. - Taxman Talk 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I only made the protection request because I didn't feel like having to explain a 3RR violation and felt that was a better solution. Could some sort of clear warning, cease-and-desist or be blocked, be made on his talk page by an admin? There isn't any such warning now. Daniel Case 03:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If he is being disruptive, he can be blocked, regardless of whatever 3RR. —Centrxtalk • 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. —Centrxtalk • 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will keep you posted if he returns afterwards. Daniel Case 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism en route[edit]

Checking the creation log, I watched the following get created one after the other: WikiHistoryReader, WikiHistoryReview, and WikiHistoryReviewer. Three names that similar doesn't bode well. IrishGuy talk 02:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

D'ye suppose, as with calculating the area under a curve, he's trying to reach just the right username by a process of progressive approximation? -- BenTALK/HIST 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This could also just be someone with a similar name setting up doppelganger accounts to prevent impersonation. Worth watching, but may not be anything nefarious. If it is a doppelganger, of course, they should add the appropriate template. --TheOtherBob 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it may very well be benign. The thing is...most doppelganger accounts I have seen made were created by the original account. These were all created anonymously within about 15 minutes. Hopefully, it is nothing. I just figured if one causes a problem, now other admins will know which other two will most likely be immediately activated when one is blocked. IrishGuy talk 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting vandal-only account[edit]

Resolved: blocked

This guy's a blast. He made 21 un-deleted contributions, plus the creation of one particularly... tasteful page. From sodomy, to sedated pedophilia, to sacrificing humans, to necrozoophilia, to sexy puppies, to sadomasochism, to hermaphrodites, to wikifying, he's got it all. It makes me sick, frankly. And the funny thing is—he was warned once. I was hoping that

  1. An admin could block him for maintaining a vandal-only account. Blocking policy states that vandalism will lead to blocking, and this is clearly the case. Let's think preventatively here.
  2. Also, a suggestion that people should warn vandals, especially bad ones. If you notice that someone isn't warning vandals repeatedly, please use {{subst:uw-warn}}. Of course, don't do this to bots :)

That's all. GracenotesT § 03:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have reported him to WP:AIV and made clear it was a vandalism-only account. That would merit an indefinite block.

As it is I think his username is inappropriate and will report him on those grounds. Daniel Case 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as vandal only. Daniel's right that WP:AIV is generally faster. Natalie 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Psst... I'm pretty sure the reason Gracenotes posted here was for item #2 on the list (plus the general observation itself). —bbatsell ¿? 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right :) "The Parable of the Unwarned Vandal" GracenotesT § 04:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued attacks from aged accounts at Armenia[edit]

The banned user Ararat arev (talk · contribs) has managed to get the Armenia page semi-protected today, although this hasn't really worked, since he's now using very old accounts to bypass the protection. Does anyone think it's time for full protection? He doesn't seem to be giving up. Khoikhoi 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough, I've fully protected the page. Khoikhoi 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not sinply block the old accounts as abusive socks? Eventually he would run out of accounts. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been blocking all of them, but he seems to have an endless number of socks. I'm not sure how he got them as well, some of them appear to have been registered in 2005, but he hasn't been here that long. Khoikhoi 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
perhaps he has but we didn't know. Seems like semiprotection is a good way of drawing them out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Coulter fiasco[edit]

User:Tuben seems intent on disrupting this article as much as possible, as there are two Robert Coulters one of which is his boss which he states here.

His Robert Coulter was speedy deleted as NN on 11 February, after being moved from Robert Coulter to Robert I. Coulter.

Since then he's blanked the page of the other Robert Coulter, and on two occasions changed the article to his Robert Coulter.

He's then decided that his Robert Coulter should be at Robert Coulter and moved the other article accordingly, but hasn't created an article for his Robert Coulter yet.

User:Weggie has since moved the article to Robert Coulter (politician) creating a double redirect.

I'm tempted just to move Robert Coulter (politician) back to Robert Coulter to put an end to this ridiculous saga, but I can only imagine there will be more problems. so could someone with a mop please move it back and delete the redundant redirects, and possibly move protect it please? One Night In Hackney303 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I did just that. The organ builder is described as promising or up-and-coming or some such weasellery - we can wait until he's up and come, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Message on my talk page[edit]

I have received the following message from User:The pink panther. Could anybody make any sense of it? - Mike Rosoft 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential targets for vandalism[edit]

please keep an eye put on these pages:they have been named as users in a steroid scandal and edit wars and vandalism seem likely.

the list:





Pro wrestling

A quick google news search for steroids brings up this ABC article as one of the results. Linked articles above. MER-C 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I found THIS. Anchoress 10:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint moved from WP:AIV[edit]

Request on WP:AIV and WP:RFC/NAME for User talk:I Want it that way[edit]

This User made the following comment on Backstreet Boys discography "Note2:Hi: I want speak with you I don't think black and blue sale just 15 million and this not with mind seven years just sale 15 million and they best boyband in the world, And your digit not true ever . take care before I wiping you from Wikipedia and I ravage your computer because you nuisance just here This user is also appears to be using multiple names Micheal-Nicks, Batguy, Richard Jone, Kmnmo, and has been extremely disruptive over the past two months (daily). All attempts to warm him of his/her errors and repeated removal of edits has not worked. Can someone please look into this and please take action. 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User is referring to [36] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I Want it that way (talk · contribs), Batguy (talk · contribs), Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs), Richard Jone (talk · contribs) & Kmnmo (talk · contribs) do all have a very similar editing pattern... -- Scientizzle 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a npa4 warning at User talk:I Want it that way, the account that made the attack statement. -- Scientizzle 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonawiki and sockpuppetry[edit]

The person who registered the Jonawiki (talk · contribs) account is causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies and Talk:Star Wars Galaxies, where he is using his sockpuppet Magonaritus (talk · contribs) (and vice-versa) to circumvent policy and influence an RfC. He has previously done the same at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. His demeanour is generally abrasive, and confrontational. All-together the user has violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the pages being locked. Evidence has been outlined here. This user needs to be blocked. --G2bambino 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Jonawiki is now causing issue at Monarchy in Canada to make a point. --G2bambino 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am now looking into this — One of these has contacted me concerning wiki-stalking with regards to the complainant. Will post my findings. WormwoodJagger 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't mean to sound suspicious here, but User:WormwoodJagger is not listed as an administrator. Nor am I sure how anyone has contacted him about possible wiki-stalking, as I see no evidence of such, unless the intervener has contacts with the user(s) in question outside of Wikipedia. --G2bambino 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was contacted inside Wikipedia concerning wikistalking. I can't say anything more until I've completed my invesitgations. If you have any further questions, please follow procedure and post on my talk page 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No - I am not comfortable with your investigating anything. Your anon IP's edit history points towards you being aligned with the user(s) I have identified as disruptive and possibly sockpuppets. An actual administrator should handle this case. --G2bambino 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- you are not qualified to make that decision. I have been called in; it is too late. Your edits on Star Wars Galaxy have implicated you in a wiki-stalking invesitagtion that far exceeds only your minor contributions. Your assertion that I am aligned with others has been noted, and put on the record. Again, if you would like to discuss this further, please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page. All best, WormwoodJagger 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger, under what authority are you making these claims? You can't be claiming this authority as a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. That page clearly states that "Advocacy is not mandatory" and "Advocacy is NOT an official Wikipedia procedure." You state "I have been called in..." could you please inform as to who called you in. You also state "...please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page." Could you provide details of what investigation, who set it up and under who's authority and where the protocol is posted on Wikipeda. I also find it very odd that you do not edit from September 2006, ignoring Magonaritus comments, until the 16 March. Just out of curiosity, do you deny that is your IP? If I was G2bambino I would view your comments as a possible attempt at intimidation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not qualified? Anyone can ask for help from an admin. It is very inappropriate for you to try and disuade G2bambino from seeking assistance under the guise of authority you don't have. IrishGuy talk 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is quite odd. Is it usual for an 'investigator' to have only 73 mainspace edits to just 13 articles, including edits to the article in dispute? I have noticed some sockpuppetry at Upper Canada College, but this is something else. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I violated a whole lot of policies... I thought I was following correct protocol... I'll recuse myself. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would clear the air —— I honestly thought I was an admin. I was notified about this affair by Blunders (phone). Neither Jonawiki, Magonaritus nor G2bambino contacted me. You can see here I have protected a page while I was advocating on August 25 ( I guess I'm not anymore, given that I was afk for a few months.

Nonetheless: I'm obviously recusing myself. I thought, however, that, for whoever takes my place, I would offer the findings from my investigation:

There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets.

(1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on Magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007:

(2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" ( However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:

(3) Previous to the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies,