Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive222

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

Noticeboard archives


Two editor war[edit]

I've noticed two users, Mudaliar (talk · contribs) and Venki123 (talk · contribs), battling ceaselessly on a number of articles. At this point, I'm not quite sure what to do about it. It has been going on for quite some time despite previous warnings and interventions. Any help from people here in dealing with these two warriors is appreciated. Thanks. The Behnam 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

These two may need some forced dispute resolution - they seem only interested in getting the other editor blocked. One of them only recently stopped harrassing me to block the other, and they have bothed filed checkuser cases against each other. Natalie 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
We could give both of them what they want, if their behavior is egregious enough. Αργυριου (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to work with these users, but their actual responses to my questions are usually rather incoherent or begging the question. On the other hand, they are repetitively battling across a variety of articles and there has been no success in stopping this dispute. I give Venki some credit for trying mediation, even though he listed an absurd number of people as parties, making his attempt futile. Anyway, overall, I don't think giving both of them what they want would be a bad idea. Of course a number of socks would follow, but from what I can tell, they should be fairly easy to catch; these two users have very specific things in mind for these articles. Do what you think is best here. Thanks. The Behnam 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Block 'em both for a couple of weeks so they can calm the hell down, and make it clear that if they continue to lose sight of the "build an encyclopedia" concept, those blocks will be lengthened. We've got like 1.7 bajillion pages around here; seriously, can they not find different articles to edit? EVula // talk // // 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
A mid-length block for both might work. I would suggest that someone with some experience with dispute resolution keep a long-term eye on them: they were both blocked for 3RR in mid February and it took about a month for their edit war to heat back up again. Natalie 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, is anything going to happen? They keep going... The Behnam 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns[edit]

Something strange going on at Turtle Creek Chorale. This isn't so much of a content dispute as a plagiarism concern. The history section of this article has been copied verbatim from the website of this organization (this is approximately half od the article). I have removed it twice, and stated on the talk page that it violates Wikipedia policies to simply copy from other sites. It has now been readded with a little note that We have their permission to use it [1]. I don't think this is an appropriate way of writing an article, but don't want to revert again. The editors who are adding this do not respond on the talk page. Cheers. Jeffpw 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no notice on the website granting permission. On the contrary, it states: © 2007 Turtle Creek Chorale. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this site in whole or part is strictly prohibited. I'd say remove it. And I will do that now. IrishGuy talk 23:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, IrishGuy. I didn't want to get into an edit war about it. Jeffpw 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Also give them a warning for {{uw-copyright1}} --KZ Talk Contribs 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as advertising, and unreferenced. Hopefully that will give them an idea how to improve the article. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is that I am a mere neophyte in comparison to individuals such as yourselves. My humble apologies for not reading all of the Talk pages as I am still learning this marvelous entity called Wikipedia. My adding information and editing information to the Turtle Creek Chorale article was to improve the overall completeness of the Wikipedia. I have requested that the TCC add a notice granting permission to release their rights to Wikipedia for educational and informational purposes. This is of course to add more accurate and completeness, which is what I hope every contributor wishes. As they are a US 501(c)(3) Not-for-profit organization which seeks to educate, unite and uplift their audiences and members, it would be harsh to state that they are advertising on Wikipedia. In fact, you could view almost any article about a person, organization or corporation as a living advertisement. KZ, I love the superscripts on your Talk & Contrib, perhaps you can teach me how to use them sometime. Happy writing...see you in a couple days after we work this out with TCC website. Michael T McGary 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on deletion of controversial userbox[edit]

According to this deletion log, the template was deleted for being inflammatory and no longer exists. However, I have noticed that it has been subst'ed back into the pages of some users [2][3]. Is this circumvention of the deletion appropriate? The Behnam 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I now note that the subst's were done by Khoikhoi in the minutes right before the deletion of the template, who also deleted the template. However, I do not yet know the significance of this observation. Tell me what you all think. The Behnam 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"Substitute and delete" is one possible outcome at TfD discussions, even for controversial userboxes. I do not know of a citation, but I'm sure a user more familiar with the circumstances could find one. --Iamunknown 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Under CSD T1, "divisive and inflammatory" templates are not permitted. This prohibition does not extend to user pages per se ... although personally, I think that userbox is probably an all around bad idea anywhere. In any event, that photo is a non-free image and cannot be used on templates or in user space. --BigDT 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I judged this particular box to have been deemed too controversial to exist in the special UBX space too (as it doesn't exist there), so I figured that it shouldn't exist in subst form either. Should I remove them? The Behnam 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The only question here is: does the content contravene the user page policy? Answer that question and act on the answer. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It unquestionably violates WP:FAIR#Policy #9 and CSD T1. Beyond that, I'm not going to jump up and down screaming either way. ;) --BigDT 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa Fairuse violation, yes, but as this is now code on the page, not a template, it does NOT violate T1. Nail it on fair use, and dig thour the Userpage rules, but these ceased being templates after they were sub'd. You can embed a template, and you can substitute the code of the template onto the page, two different things. Watch out for the over reaching instructions, it sets bad precedent as subing T1 UBX's before deletion has been somewhat commonplace, and it can allready be easily handled under other rules violations allready -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Note - I cannot figure out why Tony crossed my post here [4]. I have undone this. The Behnam 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I brought it here specifically to get that question answered since I haven't dealt with it before. I see at as roughly equivalent to having a userbox saying, "This user is opposed to international terrorism" and including a picture of George W. Bush on it. It is definitely divisive and inflammatory, like the deletion log said. I believe they should go and I am not sure why Khoikhoi subst'ed them right before deleting them. Kind of odd actually. The Behnam 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, for good or ill, "substitute and delete" is currently an acceptable decision at TfD. I'll remove the fair use images for now. --Iamunknown 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Nvm, BigDT beat me to 'em. --Iamunknown 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I really question the purpose and validity of substituting these before deletion. If they're bad, which this one was, just delete it. Don't keep it around on people's userpages. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. I just thought that people were going to yell at me if I started editing everyone's userpage, but it's probably justified in this case. I'll delete the userbox from everyone's userpage if there are no objections. Khoikhoi 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems best that you do. Thanks for clearing that up. The Behnam 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg The Wikimedia foundation

Wikipedia Announcement[edit]

In private talks with long standing wikipedians including Jimbo Wales, Angela, and past and present members of the Arbitration Committee the Wikimedia Foundation has decided there is no other option at the present than to charge people to edit the English Wikipedia. "Advertising on Wikimedia® has been roundly rejected by the community," said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikimedia®, "even though we're missing out on about sixty thousand dollars each and every day by not having two Google text ads".

"For too long people have been free to hack this website. It's about time they paid" states Theresa Knott the new funding officer. "Allowing free access to all simply encourages vandalism. By asking for a quid an edit we stop kids vandalising, spammers spamming and edit warriors warrioring (unless they are very rich, in which case we can think up special rates)." Minor edits will naturally be cheaper, although the exact pricing details have not yet been fully worked out. Debate on this is welcome.

All users should register their credit card at Wikipedia:Credit Card Registration by noon on April 1, 2007. Otherwise their editing privileges will be suspended. Members of the cabal are, of course, exempt.

On a personal note. I would like to thank the foundation for giving me this exciting opportunity to increase funding. I have been given no salary and instead take a percentage of the funds raised, which I think is fair. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Congrats Theresa- we all knew this had been in the pipeline for some time. And can I say that I could think of no one better than you to fill this exciting new position. WjBscribe 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Please please don't. ^demon[omg plz] 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh god, Ere We Go again! SirFozzie 00:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It is about time. Can you accept PayPal? I don't have international card and want to continue editing here. -- ReyBrujo 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Give us a few mins to set it up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little biased against it since I don't have a credit card, but it had to be done. I support it.--Wizardman 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And what if some idiot was dumb enough to post it? Then we'd need it oversighted... ^demon[omg plz] 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Add temporarily to the black listing at Meta and you prevent 95% of those idiots to post it :-P -- (yes, this is a joke!). ReyBrujo 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No one will do that. The page says there is an error on it. Lighten up a little. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm disappointed. I really do have an IBM 5250 terminal emulator on Windows 1.0 here, and it's not working! --Carnildo 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I use my credit card with debit overhaul? (Or is that debit card with credit overhaul?) --Iamunknown 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I put a little notice at the top in case anyone actually does think this is serious. I should make it a bit less aggressive though. I am one of those boring, "this is a serious project" people. :) Prodego talk 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing it. This conversation at the bottom makes it perfectly clear. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
True. Prodego talk 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hereby invoke Provision 41(k) in my Rouge Administrator Contract of Rights and Responsibilities on the English Wikipedia with the Wikimedia Foundation, which allows for admins under the age of 18 to be exempt from any financial liabilities or payments which may be requested. —210physicq (c) 00:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on just one minute there mate! Did you read what I wrote? I get a cut! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This will last until the Fair use cabal invokes WP:FUC#9 to remove the logos from that page ;-) -- ReyBrujo 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am seriously going to blame you guys if I get a heart attack...That's about the seventh time today...paying for editing..grrr... --KZ Talk Contribs 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My contract takes precedence over the financial troubles that may be result from the Wikimedia Foundation's usage of funds. And, in turn, over your commission. Complain to Jimbo for lavishing me such benefits. —210physicq (c) 00:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey KZ, addicted to the wikicrack are we? That's how the drug biz works, free at first, then … Hey Theresa I'm part of the Cabal right, I still get my fix for free right? RIGHT? Paul August 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Paul you're fine don't worry. For everyone else - if you are in the cabal you know it, otherwise (unless your < 18 & an admin (grrrrr!!)) pay up and look big. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of grrrr! I think it might be wise to make sure Bishzilla get's an exemption as well. King Kong 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Paul, anything wrong about being "addicted?" --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talkcontribs) 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want any money outta me, you'll have to talk to the guy who handles the trust I set up for myself after having received that MacArthur grant not too long ago. -- llywrch 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to pay in jelly beans,but this was deemed an 'unacceptable payment method' :( Lemon martini 10:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think £1 per edit is a bit steep. Can you make it 1p so when people want to throw in their 2p (2c) worth, they could have two edits?--SlipperyHippo 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet more sockpuppets (addition)[edit]

Per this case that was moved to the archive, user:Lyzka, which I had assumed was banned for sockpuppetery, has resumed editing the Recovered Territories article. The original sock has spawned others, including, user:Garnekk,,,, and user:Garnek1. I propose semi-protection status to the article to prevent the sock puppets from vandalizing the article for a period of a week to see if the vandal is short-term or is here for much longer. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

yet another sockpuppet here, I have counted well over 20 or 30 sockpuppets of user:Serafin. When will we learn and ban him like the Polish and German wikipedias already have?
Widelec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
check Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, 17 known sockpuppets and 20+ suspected. --Jadger 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. I had no idea it was that widespread. I only saw this after seeing the case on WP:ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yamla extended Serafin's block to six months. Considering that Serafin has shown little desire to reform his ways, I have no objections to it being made an indefinite block. Olessi 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation[edit]

User: has violated the WP:NPA policy on Talk:Muhammad after being informed of the WP:NPA policy:[5]. after being informed:[6]--Sefringle 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This individual has used a number of other IPs in the same range to engage in harassment, vandalism and personal attacks, and has evaded at least one previous block:User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User: (at least).
Proabivouac 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
After edits like this I gave him a warning. He did it again so he now has a 24 hour block for disruption. IrishGuy talk 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither warnings nor blocks will do any good: he is obviously aware that he's violating policy, and in the past, he's just resumed editing from a different IP in the same range.[7],[8].Proabivouac 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The following diffs suggest a connection between anon 206/216 and User:, either as the same individual or as a meatpuppet: [9],[10]. [11],[12], [13] [14]. Due to mutual involvement in some fairly obscure articles such as Battle of Yarmouk and Islamic socialism (along with less-obscure ones such as Jihad), coinvolvement in Talk:Muhammad/images representing the same POV, placing successive votes as shown above, and a very close geographical location, it is reasonable to assume User: to be connected to User:Bless sins. As the connection (or identity) of User: and the individual posting under the 206/216 is obvious, I had at one point guessed both to be anonpuppets of Bless sins - a conclusion I was not happy to reach, as Bless sins, while at times quite difficult to work with, had always proved civil. It may be that they are distinct individuals whom Bless sins had recruited onto Wikipedia, or at least to the depictions discussion. I am inclined to accept Bless sins’ word that 206/216 is not actually him; however his studious and repeated refusal to deny a connection by this time constitutes a virtual admission: [15], [16], [17], [18]. (same direct question, four times in a row, evaded each time.) I am therefore inclined to ask Bless sins to prevail upon his associate (who evidently cannot be blocked) to cease this disruption.Proabivouac 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A ranged anonblock may be called for here. -- Avi 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that many of the edits from this anon are happening at the same time Bless sins is editing but on different articles. See for example the edits by this anon IP [19], at the exact same time Bless sins is editing another article while logged in, if you check Bless sin's contribution log. This suggests that they are different people, but in all seriousness if you make both ranges wide enough you can probably get a match anyhow. -- 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to note that racist language being used on Talk:Muhammad in this post:
"The fact that Muslims become unsettled when we say that Muhammad founded Islam, but Buddhists have no problem hearing or even saying that the Buddha founded Buddhism (though the Buddha also claimed to have predecessors) says a lot about the Muslim psyche. Arrow740 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"
-- 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm tired of this. In this edit I stated: "I AM NOT INVOLVED IN SOCKPUPPETRY WITH ANY ANON LIKE YOU'VE ACCUSED ME OF". How much clearer do I need to make myself? At different points in time Proabivouac has accused me of bieng this anon. After he has realized the error in accusing me of sockpuppetry, Proabivouac is now accusing me of of bieng this anon's "associate". Is there some place where I can report Proabivouac for his/her constant lying, baseless accusing and mudslinging at me?Bless sins 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit[edit]

User:Gwen Gale was blocked by User:Dmcdevit for having reported a 3RR violation by User:Blue Tie. In addition to having done basically nothing wrong here at all, Gwen Gale has been very active in discussions re the controversy surrounding User:Essjay and the resulting policy questions. Dmcdevit's unorthodox response to an otherwise straightforward 3RR report was unfair, and prevents Gwen Gale from continuing her productive and responsible input on foundation-level questions. Indeed, it appears to have led her to question the wisdom of her involvement with Wikipedia in general. I ask that this ill-considered block of a good-faith, lawful and productive user be reversed as the earliest possible opportunity.Proabivouac 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect; Gwen Gale did not violate 3RR.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And your further reversion of the article in question is Gaming the system. – Chacor 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an absolutely pathetic attitude for an admin, truly. Derex 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Examining a dispute and making a well-considered call does not constitute "gaming the system."
Re "her loss," my ass. We're lucky when serious responsible adults take time out of their busy days to contribute to Wikipedia. It's not at all desirable that/when they're driven off by clueless college kids.Proabivouac 07:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Her choice. We don't care either way. People contribute of their own free will, after all. – Chacor 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I object to characterizing Dmcdevit as a "clueless college kid". For my part, my previous unblock of Gwen Gale was conditional on refraining from future edit wars, and she then edit warred not too long after on an article regarding the same subject. I'm failing to see what you consider so unreasonable here. I would indeed be sorry to see her leave, but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this comment I ask that you watch your tone. It is needlessly hostile and I will enforce policy if it continues.--Jersey Devil 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You suffer from the misimpression that edit warring is acceptable as long as it doesn't exceed 3 reverts in a page. Please reread the pages on WP:3RR and WP:BP; it is actually quite clear. Unfortunately, edit warring is prohibited, certainly not "nothing wrong at all", and a blockworthy offense, especially in light of a block a little more than a week ago for 3RR, which was reversed upon her promise not to edit war. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
To both sides, tempers seem to be getting out of control, all those who contribute to Wikipedia should be respected and thanked for doing so, but from a quick look at the contribs, both sides did break 3RR. Sometimes it's just best to walk away, and sometimes it's necessary for someone outside of the situation to remind that to those inside of it.Just H 07:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what happens when you click the old block button against established users on a judgement call with no clear rule violation, tempers flare. Does anyone really believe that's a constructive response? It's seems to me considerably more harmful than edit warring in the first place. Derex 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment was not made in bad temper at all, simply explanatory. Was this misindented? Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the confusion, I was talking to everyone in this section, not directly to a single person. I don't find the colons to be that big of a deal. Just H 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong and Seraphimblade have above claimed that Gwen Gale herself violated 3RR, along with the violator she dutifully reported. That is simply false. To ask for diffs proving the contrary would be mere formality: they do not exist.Proabivouac 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not mischaracterize my statements. I did not say she "broke 3RR", I said she "edit warred". The two are similar but not the same. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intention to do so. When you wrote, "but even good editors are not allowed to edit war or break 3RR," this suggested a violation of policy on Gwen Gales' part which did not occur. If you did not mean to suggest that, declining to add "or break 3RR" would have made this more clear.
Ryulong wrote, "They both violated 3RR," which is plainly false, and should be retracted.Proabivouac 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous, Ryulong. Your statement suggested that Gwen Gale violated 3RR in this recent incident, not on some other occasion. What is so difficult about admitting that you were wrong?Proabivouac 09:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
All of my former comments are hereby redacted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I took it that way because otherwise your reference made no sense: we do not block editors for alleged past infractions. It is obvious that you erred in your assessment of the issue at hand. You should admit this, and apologize to Gwen Gale.Proabivouac 09:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that editors are not again blocked for infractions in the past. It is not however true that those won't be taken into account if a future block is considered. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
All of my former comments are hereby redacted. I'm tired of being being attacked for all of my statements. I recuse myself entirely from this situation, but that does not mean my original review of your unblock request for Gwen Gale is invalid.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Protecting her talk page so she can't respond is a hell of a way of recusing yourself, Ryulong. Given that you've already admitted that you are taking this personally, it's an abuse of administrative tools to use them in a dispute in which you are involved. Particularly as you objected to her using the word "trolling" with reference to you. Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Will you read below? My recusal is gone now, except for the next 8 hours or so.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's response[edit]

The following is a transclusion from Gwen Gale's talk page so that he/she can respond to this thread: (Netscott) 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I had recused myself, as a result of these edits, I have temporarily protected Gwen Gale's user page for her personal attacks against me, in which she twice mentioned me as "trolling."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this develop and want to state that I support the block - edit warring is bad. And I support the page protection - footstamping is also bad. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{User talk:Gwen Gale}}
Might I suggest you block yourself for abusing administrative tools by using them in a dispute in which you are involved? In particular "for her personal attacks against me," emphasis added. No, well I suppose the rules do only apply to little people. (edit conflicted, was to Ryulong) Derex 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Amusing that someone who is screaming about the rules doesn't know about the rule against self-blocking. --Golbez 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I know about that rule. Do you know about sarcasm and irony? Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh that's just great. Now he protected his own page as well, so no one can talk to him. [20] Ryulong seriously needs to get the clue that admin tools are not a personal toy. Derex 10:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And you need to get a clue that he's stressed and stop attacking him. – Chacor 10:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You know who else was stressed? Gwen Gale. But it seemed just dandy to block her rather than speak to her respectfully. But, as you helpfully noted above, "we don't care" if she leaves. But if someone criticizes an admin, it appears that's definitely worth caring about. Derex 10:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Per [21], and Derex' comments above, I am now convinced that Ryulong lacks the integrity and maturity of character we should expect from those we entrust with authority, a.k.a. "the tools."Proabivouac 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see that you are directing that message to me, clearly. The fact of the matter is that she was abusing the editting on her own talk page. And she also attacked Seraphimblade a second time, stating that Seraphimblade's a teenager when he/she clearly stated his/her age on Gwen's talk page. Also, my talk page is only semiprotected because there's an IP user who's being a dick (and move-protected because no one should be moving those pages). You can very well give me a message there, but I probably won't answer as I should have gone to sleep a couple of hours ago and I will be within the next 10 minutes. Consider that the block on myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this is not the first time that Ryulong has blatantly misused the admin tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not surprised that you have referenced Straight Outta Lynwood.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And on both accounts, I am supported by established editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I tend to trust Ryulong's reasoning when it comes to Wikipedia matters however I do not agree with this statement he made: "And it also seems that Gwen Gale has left under these circumstances. His/Her loss regarding a respected Wikipedia editor. That is really poor form and is sooner a demonstration of contempt and lack of good faith. Editors like User:Gwen Gale who make valuable contributions (as an co-editor on the Essjay controversy article with her I should know) should not be spoken about so flippantly/non-chalantly. (Netscott) 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I redacted all of my statements. That was one of them—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can someone please add this war to WP:LAME? I mean, seriously, a dispute resulting in two blocks and a biggish thread on this board over whether to include the fact that two pilots appeared wearing bomber jackets? Do we always note when court witnesses appear in casual attire? Please! Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it was appropiate to block both users, it is inappropiate to reach 3 reverts so as to not go over the 3 revert per day limit, that's edit warring and gaming the system. Dionyseus 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pending RFCU[edit]

Blue Tie is now listed in an (apparently--why?) long delayed RFCU:


As IP info is only good for 30 or 31 odd days, can someone get this before it gets too late? - Denny 06:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:LionheartX[edit]

Some admin please take a look at LionheartX's repeated, very disruptive moves to article Chonji. At the talk page, there was a discussion and a vote to keep it at Chonji, against moving to Tianchi. LionheartX keeps moving without any discussion or consensus.

Then he give me a 3RR warning for undoing his moves, and then vandalizes by user page with a "suspected sock" tag. This is very disruptive trolling.

I bring this here because I see he has a history of disruptive behavior. BAmonster 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was originally titled Tianchi[22][23]. There was never consensus to move it to Chonji. The status quo before the move should be restored until disagreements are settled. BAmonster (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock. He has cut and paste moved the page to Cheonji lake which destroyed the talk page history.[24]. He then reposted a 3RR warning for undoing his moves. BAmonster appears to be a sock because he has made very few edits and seems very familiar with the site.[25] LionheartX 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I recommend a user conduct WP:RFC on LionheartX. When I unblocked I gave a strong recommendation to enter WP:ADOPT, which this user disregarded. WP:DE would be good reading. DurovaCharge! 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


File:Boa.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has now been deleted seven times (in a couple of different versions) as having no copyright information whatsoever. In every case I can recall the image was uploaded by a single-purpose account with no other edits at all, a different account every time. Someone is not learning. Now, I could protect the title but I suspect that they will then upload it with a different filename, and then I will not spot it (I see the bluelink in my deletion log). Clearly someone is not getting the hint, do you think CheckUsers will help to flush the main account out? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with the popups preview, that looks to be an album cover. Is it? If it is then it shouldn't be hard to track down the copyright info, though asserting fair use for it as the primary image on BoA (singer) would be another matter. --tjstrf talk 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, they aren't album covers, they are publicity headshots, probably uploaded in an attempt to fill the infobox on BoA. Since that expressly requires a free image, that ain't going to fly. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Is it just me, or will all of the contributions by Someboth (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) have to be oversighted? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Someboth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been identified as a vandalbot and indefblocked. UnfriendlyFire 08:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs a wikibreak avoiding block[edit]

This user is going about canvassing for someone to do a GA review of the Islam and slavery article utilizing talk pages that have nothing to do with it. After having removed this talk per WP:TPG, I warned this editor that what he was doing was disruptive and to cease at once. He responded with a flat no and proceeded to re-revert me. This editor is exhibiting very odd behavior today as he has been linking an article that he's written entirely upon original research about Autosodomy to Yoga and Yoga as exercise both of which where "rvv"ed by another editor. In addition to all of this editor has been severly anti-Islam propaganda POV pushing (this addition to his user page is rather indicative). Could someone kindly prevent further talk page disruption on this part of this individual? Thanks. (Netscott) 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gave him a warning about it. Hopefully he will stop. --KZ Talk Contribs 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed all of his reverted messages. He seemed to have stopped... --KZ Talk Contribs 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
(Shaking my head in disbelief) The guy has just gone from putting the GA request in articles, to putting it on user talk pages. He definitely didn't read WP:CANVASS... I'll let someone else deal with this... --KZ Talk Contribs 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep I see one two three since the last warning on his talk page ... It's clear that this user is not going to stop despite two clear warnings. In addition, the person in question made a rather strange edit to the Hezbollah article in the purported role of a GA reviewer. Orderinchaos 11:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've enacted a 24 hour block on the basis of the above. Orderinchaos 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is editor is on the way to destruction. He may have no chance to make his time. But seriously..... constant and disruptive/problematic editing on his part is not encouraging for Wikilongevity. (Netscott) 12:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71 is avoiding his block using IP sockpuppetry as User:, this edit and this revert (to his version) on a DavidYork71 favorite article → Islam and slavery demonstrates. This is not the first time he's edited from this IP range as this edit shows (there he was commenting via that range on a 3RR report against himself). (Netscott) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He's now requesting an unblock. Please be aware as this additional revert illustrates he knew he was blocked when he made that revert. (Netscott) 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Unblock declined by Yamla. I wonder if a longer block might be appropriate, given the sockpuppetry as well as the canvassing. --cj | talk 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Especially as we're now looking at a repeat offence - the block around the 22nd attracted similar behaviour. Orderinchaos 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have extended the block to 48 hours, in the sense that this is the next logical extension upward from a 24 hour ban. Orderinchaos 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to utilize IPs for sockpuppeting. His latest IP: (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). (Netscott) 07:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
(Above copied from my talk page) Have blocked the IP. What action would be most suitable for this one given it appears he will keep doing it? He is, for the record, blocked for another 35 or so hours under his primary nick. As I've taken the basic actions thus far I'd prefer someone other than myself review appropriately and make the call on any extensions. Orderinchaos 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Prior to his block this editor was engaging in other disruptive behavior. He wikilinked an articled he created called "autosodomy" to Yoga and Yoga as exercise (both edit were rvv'd by User:Buddhipriya). This combined with other problematic edits makes me think that the project would be better off without the input of this individual. (Netscott) 08:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The unjust blocking of Fenian Swine (talk · contribs)[edit]

Administrator Gaillimh (talk · contribs) has indefinitely blocked long standing contributor FS for having an "offensive username". FS was previously blocked in August 2005 for the same, but was almost immediately unblocked by another administrator as they didn't find it offensive enough. User:Gaillimh has attempted to get FS to change his username, but FS refused and has been indefinitely blocked. This is a clear breach of the WP:USERNAME policy, which states that if a user will not voluntarily change their name it should be brought up at WP:RFCN. I have raised this matter with the blocking administrator, who has summarily ignored me. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a good block and urge unblocking. Long-standing users have always been asked to go to RFCN and such. It's not a new user. Even then, question, how is it offensive? – Chacor 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As for how it's offensive: Fenian = Irish Nationalist. So I can see how some would see bad in this username. --Golbez 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am reversing the block, Wikipedia:Username policy is clear on this: Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. If the user will not voluntarily change their name, bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames. The user should also be made aware of the discussion. The time this discussion can take varies upon how active the user in question is.--Jersey Devil 10:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I do believe the username is inappropriate, however, but the block was not helpful.--MONGO 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
He has been asked to change it and absolutely refuses. He has pretty close to absolute contempt for admins. This will not have improved that. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The blocking was forewarned by User:Gaillimh but not 'discussed' in any meaningful sense. It was strictly a 'do it or you are blocked' ultimatum. Play Brian Moore is what the user signs signs all his edits; which was (I think) the compromise reached in 2005. In order to see the "Fenian Swine" you must go to his Userpage. Furthermore, as an avowed Fenian himself (a claim supported by his contributions) he states his use of "swine" is ironic. In this case, given all the facts and previous compromise two years ago, it seems to me that this blocking is totally OTT and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. (Sarah777 12:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
close to absolute contempt for admins. I resent that comment. There have been far more friendly administrators here than unfriendly. The name is just not offensive in all fairness though. An Irish pig, lets face it lads, thats fairly weak.--Play Brian Moore 13:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I apologise. This was based on what was said to me last time this was mentioned. Whatever, I see no problems with your editing, and that is probably all that matters after this much time. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I find this whole issue ridiculous, Fenian Swine is not offensive in this case as the editor is obviously a Irish Republican supporter, I think the admin has over reacted.--padraig3uk 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, I'll note that the name "Fenian Swine" is indeed blatantly offensive (and he was, in fact, originally blocked for just that reason). With regards to the username policy, and the aforementioned section in particular, Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults are disallowed. Such usernames fall under the scope of what is labelled Inflammatory usernames on the policy page. This applies to this user, as a "Fenian" is sometimes used as an insult directed at Catholics and nationalists. However, if someone is a member of Sinn Féin, he might identify himself and his mates as Fenians, where no insult is intended. It's a bit confusing if you're not from Ireland, and the only similar comparison I can make is that it's a bit similar to when African-Americans use the word "nigga" as a substitute for "mate" or "friend." Conversely, when those outside of the African-American community use the word, it's usually in a disparaging tone. One can see that this user is attempting to use the word "Fenian" as an insult as his full username is "Fenian Swine." As you may already know, swine is a term for pig, which is almost never used in a flattering term. Ironic or not, the username is ridiculous and disparaging towards Catholic nationalists. In addition, if one looks at my discourses with the user, one will see that I had asked him to change his username beginning eight days prior to the block being issused. During this time, I attempted to work with this user and was rebuffed several times. I also ignored his incivility in the hopes that he would change his username. That is, the block was used as a last resort gaillimhConas tá tú? 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
For a 2 year old user account, blocking is not the correct answer, and its certainly not the last resort. WP:RFCN is the right place to go. Disagreeing with you on changing his username is not appropriate grounds for blocking unless there is community consensus per WP:RFCN. For an account just created, I can understand blocking and posting to RFCN upon the user's request if this were a new account, but this particular block was very much the wrong action to take. --Auto(talk / contribs) 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh, this block should have been discussed first. There is absolutely no excuse for blocking a long-standing contributor in good standing without at least some discussion here or at WP:RFCN. Ral315 » 07:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Poemswheel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

There's something suspicious about Poemswheel's contributions. The first thing he does is to create his user and talk pages, and then they make edits with the false edit summary of "rvv" which are actually vandalism, such as [26] and [27] and most curiously [28]. Should this user be blocked? Resurgent insurgent 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hells yes. I've blocked the account. The "rvv" and immediate creation of userpages seem to indicate that is an account created solely for vandalism. Looks like User:Wbwbr / User:Accountready / User:Enlighter1 / etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (run away) 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Throughout the discussion at Talk:Evanescence (specifically Talk:Evanescence#Band_photo), Armando12 has been repeatedly uncivil, issued personal attacks ("you are totally ... brain damaged"), and shown a general level of immaturity in holding a discussion, punctuating almost every comment with exclamations of ridicule ("Hahahahaha! Lol! rofl...the actual consensus was reached after that image!! hahahahaha!"). He has repeatedly stated his opinion that the only possible reason I could want to remove unnecessary fair use imagery from the article is through a deep hatred of the band in question, despite the fact that I have told him a number of times that I have no interest in the band whatsoever (I've never even heard their music) beyond their article. ed g2stalk 11:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Reposting old thread, as I've done some research into it.

This user has been tagging many newly created articles for either proposed or speedy deletion, and many of those same tagged articles have been expanded into viable aricles by other myself or others(usually the creators). I though he/she was just overzealous; but eventually, his/her prod/speedy tagging of The KLF(well beyond stub-level)drew a vandalism warning from User:Kingboyk who reverted it back to the last pre-tagging edit. I then realized that he was clearly causing trouble; so I started monitoring his recent edits regularly, and have to revert or de-tag about dozen of prod/speedy tagged articles(none of which I created) a number of which again were expanded to decent articles. To top things off, earlier today he/she vandalized devil's advocate by inserting c's into the middle of several interwiki links. Because a registered user made a good faith edit and failed to notice it, I had to remove the c's myself. Based on the fact that he/she has clear knowledge of prod/speedy deletion policies and abusing them, I'm not ruling out the possibility that this IP may be a sock/meatpuppet of a more prolific deletionist vandal... Ranma9617 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

14 March, anon IP proposes speedy deletion of a recent FA
20 March 01:58 Ranma9617 (talk · contribs) posts a message here about the anon IP
20 March 19:14 The same IP supports an RFA
1 minute later, YechielMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) claims the IP's edit as his
20 March 19:50 the IP archives YechielMan's talk page
22 March 19:55 the anon IP leaves a personal attack at User talk:Ranma9617
Concidence? Maybe... --kingboyk 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot making supremely trivial edits[edit]

EmxBot (talk · contribs) is making a large number of trivial edits (removing the flanking spaces from headers); it's not doing harm, but it's a waste of time and resources. What's our attitude to this sort of thing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be operating outside its approved tasks. I'd agree it's not doing harm, though I can't see it doing any particular good either. By the letter of the policy it can be blocked for operating outside its approved tasks, though it may just be better to tell the operator to stop and seek approval for the task. --pgk 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Someone else got there first, though, and the situation has been cleared up. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Danieljake123456 (talk · contribs)[edit]

For the entire night this user has been uploading blatant copyvio (ie manga scans) (I gave him 4 speedies [29][30][31][32]) and engage in weird kind of vandalism (Changing interlanguage links [33] and copying the trivia section of an article to paste it again in elsewhere in the article [34]) I have gave him 4 nothanks and 2 vandalism warnings; should I do any more action? --Especially I wonder if he is a bona fide editor who mistook WP as fan page space... --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 16:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue[edit]

I need some people well versed in US politics to review the contributions of (talk · contribs) please, following an OTRS complaint. OTRS volunteers can check [35]. I'd say this is one who is skirting the margins of violating policy, but I don't know enough about the subject area. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:OttomanReference for WP:NPA and turning Wikipedia into nationalist battleground[edit]

For the past few days, this user has consistently attacked me because of my ethnicity and made disparaging remarks about people my people as a whole, precisely due to my additions on the Mustafa Kemal page [36] which he instantly reverted. And while attempting to "explain" to me why my additions were wrong, he referred to me as an "Armenian joke" [37]. He furthermore continues with accusations that I am a part of fringe Armenian political party (the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, (ARF) ) whose sole purpose is to essentially terrorize Turkish related articles, that the party supposedly terrorized Turks 100 years ago, and continues to do so now on Wikipedia: "ARF members are attacking everything they found honorable around, this time Ataturk, They are constantly deleting significant information that proves they made mistakes." One successive attack after another, all because he believed my additions were too insulting to the person in question the article is about.

Later, my propositions on the Van Resistance talk page [38] turned hostile when the same user became indignant about them, and again attacked my people as a whole: "When history is written by Armenians with Armenian lexicography it is nice, but rest is bad and ugly. Truth has no value in these arguments" , "MarshallBagramyan says: ""LETS get rid of it" Of course. There is a group of Armenian soldiers which votes to get rid of even the name of these activities" , "It is so dogmatic that the people like MarshallBagramyan 's view of history [my note: that is, in reference to us Armenians]; if the answers of these questions are not in his/her history book (lets say the bible of the truth) the questions are not (or should not be) valuable questions."

All these comments and yet he still feels that it is necessary to add the comment "thanks" at the end of his messages. This user is well-versed on Wikipedia's policies and hence reminding him of so elementary rule seems redundant. I hope the proper action is taken. Thank you. --MarshallBagramyan 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unban and mentorship for User:Daniel Brandt[edit]

Yesterday evening Daniel Brandt e-mailed me with a proposal to allow him to begin editing again. Brandt has been banned for a while now due to spats with some of our administrators; he has been editing Wikipedia since then using a number of sockpuppet accounts.

The premise of Brandt's proposal was that he has a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. He runs NameBase, a comprehensive database of biographical articles citing thousands of reliable sources. Brandt is an "old-school" researcher who would be invaluable to our biographies of living people. Although some people may have old fights to pick with him, he suggested a mentorship to prevent personal disputes from disrupting his editing.

I have decided to take a WP:IAR action in the interest of improving the encyclopedia and allow Brandt to start editing again. You can discuss this decision on his talk page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Hopefully he will be able to contribute with useful edits. Who's going to be the mentor though? --Cyde Weys 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine anyone taking issue with that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Has to be Jimbo for mentorship, right? Moreschi Request a recording? 17:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Editing with socks while blocked is further disregarding our rules. I strongly oppose allowing someone who did that, any second chance! Per WP:BAN, the quality of the person's edits with the socks does not matter. Nardman1 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa! Do you really think this is wise? I think we need two mentors, not just one. I have two perfect candidates in mind for the job. Friday (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
God I hate 4/01/07. :) SirFozzie 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice one! It got me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Just saw this section and I think it's a good idea but you forgot to unblock him, so I did it for you, but I don't think this guy was too happy about it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I fell for that completely. *blushes* Majorly (o rly?) 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's evil. Nice one. ;-) -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The only word covering this one is D'oh!. 10 points for creativity :) Valentinian T / C 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to anyone who unblocked me, thank you! I know I'm not the most liked person here, but I promise to at least try to not cause any trouble. I will of course continue my work off-wikipedia, but I welcome any constructive criticism, and I will certainly take the mentorship under concideration. Cheers all, and here's to a mutually productive relationship. Daniel Brandt 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

↑ This was added by an IP. You know I've never been involved with Brandt and all of the nonsense surrounding his article but understand many many folks consider him a troll, etc. but I will say one thing... the project learned a valuable lesson on the Essjay controversy and from what I understand Brandt was instrumental in all of that. (Netscott) 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Orane Community article and user[edit]

This user edited the article Orane Community, which I placed a speedy tag on (I later noticed that he did not actually create the article, but it still seemed non-notable). Then he removed the speedy tag four times, getting a full set of warnings from me, and then placed the hangon template on the article. I did not revert that, but then he removed both the speedy and hangon tags. Should he be blocked and the article deleted, or have I done something wrong? Macintosh User 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Choolabuuulba and User:Booooomerang. Sockpuppets of User:Danny Daniel and User:Choolabuuula (2nd repost)[edit]

Before I could get on to reporting these two users, you probably should know who Danny Daniel is. Danny Daniel is a user who vandalized pages related My Gym Partner's a Monkey and Zatch Bell!. His confirmed sockpuppets like to create hoaxes and vandalise articles related to The Fairly OddParents, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Re-Animated and anything related to anime. He created a hoax article called Monk (Cartoon Network). All of this would eventually get him blocked indefinitely for vandalism on December 21, 2006. See this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information about this vandal.

I already notified User talk:Persian Poet Gal about this, but she says that she can't log on right now, so I decided to report this here. Anyways, I found two possible sockpuppets of Danny Daniel. They are Choolabuuulba (talk · contribs) and Booooomerang (talk · contribs). Both of these accounts have similar editing patterns to that indefinitely blocked user. In fact, Choolabuulba even edited a page created by Booooomerang adding on to the hoax with more misinformation and lies. Choolabuulba also edited List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is a page Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to edit frequently ([39], [40], [41], [42]). Danny Daniel's edits can be traced back as far as September 2006, three months before the name Danny Daniel was registered.. Both seem to be vandal-only accounts. To top it all off, Boooomerang has created a hoax page called Jeanie Meanie Minnie Mo. Note how it seems to relate to the television shows The Fairly OddParents, Ed, Edd n Eddy (see the parts about Jib), and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to "like" creating hoaxes like that.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Danny Daniel shows some other suspected sockpuppets of Danny Daniel that were reported to a checkuser, but most of them were considered "inconclusive." Even User:Jibbity was considered to be inconclusive. Squirepants101 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits directed at My Gym Partner's a Monkey. [43], [44], [45], [46].

I originally posted this on 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC), but no admin had resolved it then. About two days later, User:MiszaBot II archived it and it still has not been resolved. Squirepants101 14:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The same bot removed it after only a few hours. Squirepants101 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hoax articles deleted, users blocked. IrishGuy talk 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits no longer appear in contribution list[edit]

I saw and reverted this but when I went to check the contribtion list there is noting after the 26 March. Makes it hard to warn for vandlism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the server is backed up. The contributions will just takes a few minutes. There is a serious lag between action and that action appearing on the contribution list. IrishGuy talk 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed something similar: I reverted some vandalism, but the history said MartinBot had reverted it. Macintosh User 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that just means the bot got there before you. Happens a lot :) Moreschi Request a recording? 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The bot has gotten to an article before me before, and then Twinkle showed an error message about it being reverted already. I guess that's because the bot fixed it just a tiny bit before I tried to. Macintosh User 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been noticing the same server lag. Maybe the devs are playing a vast April Fools joke on us. Or the servers themselves! Natalie 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A was created by Sue Rangell (talk · contribs), speedy deleted by me (as an attack on Britannica), and userfied by DRV to User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.. The user page was subsequently MFD'd by Xyzzy n and its current version was recently kept. That's all well and good, but Sue has been trying to add links from Wikipedia:Primogeniture and WP:ROUGE to this essay as it exists in her userspace. She doesn't seem to understand that there is a distinction between User space and Wikipedia space and that cross-namespace linking is bad. I've tried to say as much, but she doesn't seem inclined to listen to me given my previous involvment. Could someone else talk to her? She is a new user and aside from questionable taste in humor seems well-intentioned. Dragons flight 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's by far not an established practice for projectspace essays not to link to userspace; many do. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Really? Name three examples of user space essays being linked in the body of Wikipedia space content. Some broadly used resources are kept in User space, and linked from other places, but I can't think of any that are essays. If any time content is "userfied" the creator can just replace all the links to the original with links to the User subpage, then much of the point of the process is lost. Dragons flight 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not common, to my knowledge, and I'd like examples as well. ThuranX 01:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Several of my essays are linked to from project space, and linking from AFD discussions (that are in the project namespace) to user-space essays has been a common practice for several years. See Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Raul654/Raul's laws and Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Silensor/Schools, for examples. "Cross-namespace linking is bad." is superficial and wrong, which is probably why you are having a difficult time explaining it. A better statement would be a specific one: We don't link from the article namespace to other namespaces (except the category namespace), because it causes problems for mirrors, and causes articles to make no sense anywhere other than on Wikipedia itself. (See also Template:Selfref.) But links between the project namespace and user namespace are not prohibited for those reasons.

    Now whether a link to this particular essay is appropriate is a different matter. My essays and User:Silensor/Schools are not humour, and linking to them is not a matter of "I wrote a humourous essay, too!". So the consideration is not the namespaces but is, in part, whether the link is an aid in the effort of working on the project, and how far it is across the threshold beyond which user space starts to turn into Uncyclopedia. Uncle G 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47 gaming WP:3RR[edit]

For the past several months User:Pejman47 has been trying to remove any mention from the article lead that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is infamous for his alleged antisemitism and Holocaust denial. The lead itself uses multiple impeccable sources to merely state that he has been accused of it, and also includes his own defense that he is not; it was difficult consensus hammered out amongst multiple editors. After finally giving up on deleting the material, more recently Pejman47 has decided to insert an argument that Ahmadinejad cannot be antisemitic because Persian Jews aren't officially persecuted, and because his office once donated some money to a Jewish hospital. It has been pointed out on the Talk: page that this argument is original research, and that he has misrepresented his sources. However, rather than dealing with the issue, he insists that he can insert whatever argument he wants to invent for the sake of "NPOV", and that he will revert 3 times a day for that purpose. His most recent Talk: comment states "I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!". I am requesting a block under the following WP:3RR clause:

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system."

I am hoping that such a block will convince Pejman47 to respect policy, and use the Talk: page, rather than assume that 3RR is a game where you revert 3 times, then wait for the next day. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First "For the past several months User:Pejman47 has been trying to remove any mention from the article lead that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is frankly a lie (see my contributions in that article) and almost any where that I had done anything to that article is accompanied with a note on the talk page. And some of them has remained with consensus in talk page. Again Jayjg, is paraphrasing my edits in talk page to support his own POV. Another user also that I have not heard his name has supported my view. I think, every thing else is clearly in that talk page--Pejman47 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
"Frankly a lie"? Here are some of your "contributions": [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion of content, but of your stated aim to game 3RR. That kind of attitude is antithetical to productive editing on Wikipedia, which should be the product of consensus-building etc., and not one of wearing down your opponent. TewfikTalk 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a stern warning for this user in talk. I do not think that it will help, but if he persists he will be blocked for disruption ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This user was warned by me for much the same behavior not very long ago: User_talk:Pejman47/Archive1#Azerbaijan_.28Iran.29_2. He sees edit warring and combative behavior as a legitimate editing tactic, and I think the time for simply warning is already over. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. Considering that he has been warned for gaming 3RR twice before and has dismissed those warnings I've blocked him for 24 hrs to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. This sort of behavior occurs all too often throughout WP. Raymond Arritt 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic ip vandalism at Muhammad Iqbal[edit]

I request advice on how to do deal with this continuing vandalism - for over a month, an anonymous ip has been attacking this article with precisely the same kind of vandalism. I had blocked the ip a few times - most recently, for 1 month - but using dynamic ips, this person is returning to vandalize. Article protection doesn't work, as this vandal keeps coming back.

Relevant diffs
[52], [53], [54], [55]

Rama's arrow 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. Let's leave the semi-protect there for a few weeks, and hope the IP editor gets bored and moves on. Featured articles in particular should not be persistently defaced. Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block urgent[edit]

This user: User:Columbia Pictures needs to be blocked urgently - he has created many articles as part of an elaborate April Fools Day joke (see the AfD of the articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures)) and he is creating new articles every five minutes. Baristarim 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done.. Baristarim 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Another User:TorchLady71 sockpuppet. This isn't an April Fools Day prank, he regularly tries to perpetrate this hoax on Wikipedia. JuJube 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

WP:HAR, WP:STALK issues. This is not a content dispute. User:Orangemarlin continues to label me as a "creationist" on talk pages related to Evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy in an effort to discredit me among other editors who frequent those pages, many of whom naturally have strong feelings against creationists. I've explained (very reluctantly) that the label is inaccurate and that I find his comments and attacks (e.g., "whiny little creationist") offensive. I've attempted for some time now to resolve this issue amicably, or at least courteously. My attempts to simply remove his personal attacks and labeling from article talk pages, even being careful to leave appropriate content, have been reverted by him. I object very strongly to allowing him to leave those attacks and labels on the talk pages for any period of time, therefore I request a block. I'll provide background and evidence upon request, but I would be very grateful for speedy action. Thanks! Gnixon 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? Need to be able to see the offense before we can block. Heimstern Läufer 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm working on it, but it'll take me awhile to identify the highlights. Ambitious admins could pretty quickly see some examples by following the links above. Thanks for responding. Gnixon 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and looked at Orangemarlin's contribs, and yes, this complaint is founded: [56]. IrishGuy has warned Orangemarlin [57], for now, it's probably best we leave it at that. If it continues, we may have to take more action. Heimstern Läufer 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As promised, here are some links:

  • Talk:Objections to evolution#Intro. OM insists that the intro to an article on mostly creationist objections to evolution go out of its way to marginalize those religions that promote creationism. The context illustrates how much he was willing to disrupt the flow of the intro to do so.
  • Discussions between OM and me (among others), archived from OM's talk page, that illustrate the degeneration of our communication. They begin with my misidentification of his reverts as being due to ownership issues. Also includes discussions with others illustrating his anti-Creationist POV and intent to push it in articles.
  • A diff where OM removes relevant and appropriate descriptions of authors quoted attacking creationism because he thinks the descriptions may damage their credibility. Comments in edit history are telling. Another editor [[58]] the POVishness of his edits on the talk page while OM and I are discussing.
  • OM kindly provides provides a diff on another user's talk page, pointing to a discussion where other users complain about POV-pushing by a group of editors like OM.

Sorry for not giving more links, but OM's attacks and intentions to POV-push in the articles are present on just about every creation/evolution-related article talk page we have. Gnixon 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: OM has stated his intent to continue stalking me and pushing his POV after the warning that resulted from this ANI post. I really don't have the time to participate in Wikipedia if it means constantly dealing with this kind of nonsense. Gnixon 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If he actually continues with it, report it here. In the meantime, please remember to "take the high road" and keep discussion on the related article talk pages impersonal and civil even if others don't. Cla68 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. You're absolutely right. Gnixon 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


  • Botaylor456 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) I've spent the better part of the past two days trying to deal with this guy. He seems to have created some sort of fantasy persona for himself under the article Bo Taylor, wherein he claims to be a famous Academy Award-winning actor. I put a subst-prod on it, and he removed it twice (although hiding behind an anonymous IP address.) He also created articles about the two characters he allegedly plays on As the World Turns, and vandalized another page (Charles Divins) by editing it to state that this person (who actually does appear on As the World Turns) is his son. He also vandalized several other pages (see my user contributions from 3/31 and 4/1 where I attempted to clean up some of them.) Additionally, he recreated an article called WHAA-TV after it was speedily deleted. This article was a copy of all of the text in the WABC-TV article where he just changed the call letters to some fictitious station. He's done extensive editing on various television news personalities; these may be legitimate, but I don't have the time to check them out. I put two vandalism warnings on his user page, but he blanked the entire page. And someone else also put a warning about removing speedy deletion tags on one of the anonymous IP address user pages that he's clearly using. --Proofreader J-Man 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (note: moved from AIV ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

New user impersonating another[edit]

User:Deathrøcker is a new user account which is obviously created to try and stir up trouble for another user, User:Deathrocker....who does tend to make a lot of enemies on Wikipedia...but doesn't deserve to have an "evil twin". Well....maybe he doesn't? 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.--cj | talk 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Verdict lawsuit[edit]

Banned vandal named Verdict (talk · contribs) states, "i will sue you. I am not kidding." This user is already banned prior to the legal threat (see here). I've made a brief note of this on Wikipedia:List of banned users. Am I correct in thinking it's not worth noting this anywhere else? --Yamla 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell him to have fun being laughed out of the lawyer's office. Actually, on second thought, don't. —210physicq (c) 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be an attack page User:Pieterkonink.[edit]

I was not sure were to bring this. This user page appears to be an attack page. --Masterpedia 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The user created the page October 2004, and edited four more times, progressively adding more self-deprecation three times during 2005. They've contributed three good edits and one user talk page interaction during the same time period. Looks like self piercing expression to me. Shenme 06:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards[edit]

Can an administrator, please, take a look at this? [59]. Seems like a pretty blatant personal attack to me (not to mention the use of vulgarity). It looks like the editor, in question, has already been blocked multiple times for similar disruption and he is apparently undaunted. I'm not sure that another warning is sufficient. (his talk page is full of "final" warnings already) Thanks! Cleo123 06:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a blockable offense to me. Cla68 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure. I removed the PA from his post, but I will not block him (yet) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure??? You are not sure???. Please, explain what exactly it is that you are not sure about, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn. Is it unclear to you that the user broke 3RR, or are you unclear that he said on the article's talk page : "And to the moron who reverted my removal of this. Fuck you! I'll talk however I want! I'll fuck anything that moves!" What is it, exactly, that you are not sure of? The regular editors on the Michael Richards' article have been patiently trying to work with this very disruptive individual for some time now. If you, or any other administrator is not sure about this user's modis apperrandi I believe you owe us - and the rest of the Wikipedia community - some explaination as to why you are chosing to ignore what can only be catagorized as very flagrant abuse? Cleo123 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't look at 3RR just the personal attack. I'm not sure that the attack you linked to is suffencient for a block. I didn't choose to ignore it.I did, remove the attack from the talk page, I did warn him about civility, but I'm not sure that a block is needed at the moment. If you feel he is being overy disruptive for an extended period of time then feel free to start a RFC Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
For an outside, uninformed view...come on, that's blatantly an offence that warrants a short block. You can't get away with that kind of abusive nonsense with impunity. Badgerpatrol 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
From the blocking policy "A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." . (emphasis mine) I feel it's borderline. No one else even bothered to remove the attack until I came along and other editors replied to it. It doesn't appear to have disrupted the debate on the page.Other admins mat very well disagree and decide to block him. I have no problem with that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's nothing to do with me! I would say as a caution however that frustration often brews when good-faith editors see such abysmal behaviour passing by with little of no action- and problems may subsequently arise that could easily have been prevented. I don't see an editor abusing another editor like this ("Fuck You" and so on) as acceptable. It's a curious system- sometimes blocked are handed out for nothing, or next to nothing, whilst in a case like this- that seems to be fairly clear-cut- nothing is done. Anyway, I shall shut about it since it's beyond me to interfere, even if I wanted to. Badgerpatrol 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter is making disruptive edits to many userboxes[edit]

This user appears to be making disruptive edits to dozens of userboxes, including changing the language used in stable Wikipedia:Babel templates like Template:User fr-0. He/she is also adding an aggressive/hostile section titled "DO NOT . . . " to the page of many of these templates. See Special:Contributions/PatPeter for numerous examples of such edits.

I first noticed this behavior when I reverted an edit made by PatPeter (see [60]), and then his/her response was this very incivil post on the talk page ([61]). All of this certainly appears to be inappropriate and disruptive behavior, and I don't know what to do about it, other than posting here hoping that an admin can help. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter is also authoring potentially divisive / inflammatory userboxes[edit]

In addition, User:PatPeter is the author of this potentially divisive / inflammatory template, User:PatPeter/User_antigay, which appears to be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#T1 (and salting?). Several of the other templates PatPeter has authored feature the word "hates" prominently, too. These may violate guidelines in WP:UBX#Content restrictions, but I'm not sure if they do. See the bottom of the userpage User:PatPeter for examples of such userbox templates. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AIV[edit]

Lopez Contribs 08:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the reverts in the contribs still looks okay. Maybe it was an isolated incident. I notice however that it stopped warning the vandals' talk page. -- Hdt83 Chat 09:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems OK now, but I wanted to keep it visible while still clearing the AIV list. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage candidate for blanking?[edit]

I noticed Dariusholiday's userpage a month or so ago. This user has made a total of 4 edits. 1 to upload a picture of himself, and 3 to update his "bio and resume". I left a message on his talk page a week ago asking that he either remove his resume or start contributing in other ways here. I've noticed quite a few heated discussions that end up here when people edit userpages other than their own, so I thought I'd bring it up instead of blanking it myself. --Onorem 11:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clear MFD to me on WP:NOT grounds - as that is likely to be WP:SNOW, any admin want to be bold and save us all the bother? --Fredrick day 11:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it as it was blatant advertising and self-promotion. I don't really see any point in an MfD but if someone would prefer that, feel free. Sarah 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Being shown as a proven sockpuppet of GreekWarrior and do not know what to do[edit]


I am sorry if this is not the right place to seek help but I am currently being shown as a proven sockpuppet of the banned user GreekWarrior here and to put it simply I am not such nor do I know how I came to be identified as such. Can someone please advise me on how this happened and what I can do about it ? Thanks Erolz 13:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the problem, since the RFCU on GreekWarrior doesn't list you as a suspected sock. To link categories, you need to place a colon in front of "Category" ([[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of GreekWarrior]]). --Coredesat 13:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this so quickly Erolz 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Would someone please poke Cruzenstern (talk · contribs) with a pointy stick re this [62] among other things. It's retaliation for an A7 deletion (you'd never have guessed, would you?). I kind of wonder if it's someone's alternate account, but probably just some kid. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like pretty clear vandalism and personal attacks to me, I'd certainly support a block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
He has a habit of editing or blanking other peoples' user pages: [63], [64], [65], [66]. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:SunStar Net[edit]

I protected this page for one hour, the editor appears to not be around and it was getting vandalized as fast as I could revert it. Dina 16:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

changed to sprotection. Dina 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the accounts are obviously related and seem to be a rehash of some older vandalism, I've indef blocked all those involved so far. --pgk 16:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I was on wikibreak last week, so I wasn't available to respond. This is probably the same vandals who caused my page to have to be delete/restored (ask Luna Santin and Newyorkbrad, they know the full story). --sunstar nettalk 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


FictionH keeps refusing to take the fair use images off his talk page. He has reverted users who have tried to take them off and has accused them of commiting vandalism. [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. The user has repeatedly been warned about citing sources (see his talk page) and received a final warning about personal attacks.