Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive241

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: blocked indefinitely

ElBuentada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious User:Danny Daniel (A banned user.) sockpuppet. See contributions for evidence and User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for information about this vandal's sockpuppets. Pants(T) 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The user recreated Coca-Town, an article created by a indefinitely blocked Danny Daniel sockpuppet. Pants(T) 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Even though one of this vandal's hoaxes have been deleted from Wikipedia (in it, the admin acknowledges that this is a sockpuppet), this user is still active and hasn't been blocked yet. Pants(T) 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Indef blocked. Natalie 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry Pollack[edit]

Can I get a couple of admins to take a hard look at an article? I'm seeing what could be the beginning of some nasty business over the article on Henry Pollack. The subject of the article is very much watching the article and has left a message on the talk page stating in part:

If he continues I shall contact an attorney and sue for liable.


I hope that WIKIPEDIA takes immediate action and bans hin from editing anything that has to do with me, my family or my family home in Cuba.

Note that the segment of text which Mr. Pollack objected to was pulled out prior to his leaving the message by someone else in an effort to render the article less POV. Tabercil 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The user has made legal threats, so I have blocked him indefinitely. I've told him that I've left a message at the BLP noticeboard, where other editors can give the article more scrutiny. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sue for liable? Thats a new one. ViridaeTalk 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sue to determine who to sue? Natalie 14:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Account hacked?[edit]

I think we may have an other compromised admin account. I am KnowledgeOfSelf, and when I first popped on the WP this morning I was logged in and posting a few messages to Wiki Alf. During a lull in the chatter I went to my kitchen to make a cup of coffee, when I came back down and clicked on the edit tab to post a reply to Alf I noticed I was not logged in anymore. When I went to re-log in I was told I was using an incorrect password. All attempts to re-log in have failed. I hit the "E-mail new password" at the sign/in page, but I have yet to receive it. Since it seems to be taking far to long to get that new password, (over an hour now), I decided to make this account and email my KOS name, I was told that the KOS account does not have it’s email setup/or does not allow other users to email that account. This can not be the case. Because as an administrator who does a lot of RC and New account patrol I do get the occasional complaint by email about auto blocks, “My user name is not derogatory”, “unblock me now” etc. I know that I have my Email enabled, on my KOS name, in fact I received an email from HighInBC yesterday about admins accounts being hacked. I find this very troubling, and although my KOS account has not gone on a rouge rampage, I feel a pre-emptive temporary desysop may be in order. ActWonActToo 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to assume bad faith, but until it actually does go rouge, I have no reason to believe anything is wrong. Others probably have other opinions. --Ali'i 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
other slight problem here - how do we know you are who you say you are (from a security point of view)? - is it possible for you to email another admin on a known email address as some form of confirmation ? (unless we have a better system set-up). --Fredrick day 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict twice>
Although troubling I do think we need to ensure you are indeed KnowledgeOfSelf before taking any serious action. For all we know this is someone playing tricks to get the account blocked. Not sure how that may be accomplished though. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm well yes, I would like to make a suggestion, could someone attempt to email KnowledgeOfSelf through the email this user funtion? See if it will go through. If that doesn't work I could always send an email from my email address which is the same as my WP one. ActWonActToo 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The account has turned that feature off, so emailing him through the "e-mail this user" interface is of course impossible. If you indeed were an admin you would know that, and not ask people to try it. Shanes 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the editor mentioned in her/his first post that that was the case, so s/he did know it. Anchoress 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping that it was a technical blip that was not allowing this account to email my KOS one. There is no reason to be snarky. ActWonActToo 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I am not a computar wizard, but is it possible to hijack the account while somebody sits at home? Assuming one uses a firewall/spyware and other stuff. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The edits by the ip and the account 'ActWonActTwo' (and the very choice of that particular username) are either incredibly convincing impostering or KOS himself, but though it floats and quacks like KOS, I'd like to be sure.--Alf melmac 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The risk in a pre-emptive desysopping is that we look a bit foolish if it turns out not to be needed. The risk in not doing the desysopping is potentially greater. This is good enough for me. Haukur 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just tried to email the KnowledgeOfSelf account - "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." :s --Alf melmac 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tough one this one, why wouldn't the account have gone on a rampage already if it was hacked? It sounds like there could be a technical problem with the account, but maybe it would be better to shoot first and ask later - it can always be resysopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The people doing the rampages may have figured out that blocking Jimbo and deleting the mainpage isn't all it's cracked up to be. They may be planning something more sophisticated. Better paranoid and hysteric than sorry - I say someone get onto IRC and contact a steward. Haukur 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. ActWonActToo 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we use a check user to see if the two accounts are from the same IP, and if another IP has accessed the admin account recently? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Possibly yes, but it could be a disaster waiting to happen, I suggest if anyone is on IRC getting the stewards to desysop the account temporarily whilst someone here files a cU request. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this one bit. I'm not sure if shooting first and asking questions later is the correct form of action. It's trivial for any banned troll to make a new account claiming that their "old admin account" was hacked, and thus, get a valid admin desysopped for no reason whatsoever. I think this is someone piggybacking off of the admin account hacking scare to cause trouble for the admin that banned them. We already cracked all of the weak passwords yesterday and forced the admins to change them, so I don't think we're at very high risk anymore. --Cyde Weys 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • <edit conflict>Indeed, the details sound to suspicious to me. Not at all convinced it is not a hoax. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the account can always be resysopped, it's not like anything bad has been done from the account yet. Cu will most probably reveal all. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If ActWonActToo is a scammer he's a very sophisticated one. Haukur 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You think so? I see nothing sophisticated about this at all. It's very basic social engineering. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's academic at this point but, yes, this would have been extremely sophisticated. Look at all of ActWonActToo's contribs and that of the associated IP. Haukur 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. During the devs' password cracking yesterday, any admin accounts with weak passwords had their passwords scrambled and instructions on setting a new password emailed to their registered email account. If this person claiming to be KnowledgeOfSelf is really is KnowledgeOfSelf, it's likely that they just lost their admin account, but not due to a hacker — it was because they had a weak password and no registered email address. --Cyde Weys 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The User:KnowledgeOfSelf account is now uploading Goatse images. See [1] - Ehheh 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted, account blocked - is someone on IRC yet? Haukur 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It must be desysoped now. I'm telling you that is not me uploading those images. ActWonActToo 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Get on IRC someone. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That answers the question. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • 15:27, 8 May 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:KnowledgeOfSelf@enwiki from sysop to (none) (rogue). --ais523 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Ignore everything else I said. --Cyde Weys 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

desysopped Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well this turned into a shitty morning. Thanks Drini. ActWonActToo 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Still curious how an account can be compromised while being logged in at home and presumably using security stuff on the computer. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Being logged in has zero effect on someone logging in as you illicitly (at least on Wikipedia). WP allows multiple logins from multiple machines at the same time, so the first you'd notice is probably when your cookie expires. More than that is probably stuffing beans up my nose.. -- nae'blis 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm at work at the moment and won't be able to get onto IRC/Skype for another three hours, I have KOS's skype contact and having had many previous chats with KOS, I will be able to tell if I'm speaking to KnowledgeOfSelf or not, if that helps in getting the account sorted out later on.--Alf melmac 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess one question that remains is, What was your password under the KoS account? Was it weak enough to be cracked? --Ali'i 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alphanumeric, combination of lower and upper case with 5 numbers thrown in. I thought it was alright. ActWonActToo 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Guess there getting better then. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming it was a good password (and not "Password12345", which meets the specifications he gave), I don't think we're looking at a brute-force crack. There's simply way too many possible passwords. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of attack vectors he could have been hit from. I guess the first question I would ask is, at which other places did you use the same password? --Cyde Weys 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that freenode's password database got compromised a while back? I have no source, I just heard it in passing. If the same password is used in both places... HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No I don't use the same password on IRC, and no Cyde I'm not ignorant enough to do something as obtuse as Password12345. :-) ActWonActToo 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and please don't answer that question here anyway. The person has y our password and knowing where else you use it is not a good thing. - auburnpilot talk 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is another very concerning incident. I don't want to speculate over what has caused this but perhaps the wording about password security at Wikipedia:Administrators could be extended to suggest admins use passwords unique to Wikimedia. Adambro 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ActWonActToo, if you haven't done it already, I advice you to email a dev a solid proof that you are KOS (or if not applicable, submit a checkuser request). After the confirmation, I'm almost confident you can request them to change your password per choice so at the very least you'll be able to access the account. This might be a slightly more complicated situation than as with other compromised accounts. On a different note, is it possible to have two logged-in sessions at once? It's likely the hacker is still logged-in with this (or another) account waiting to have its adminship status back. Michaelas10 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Logging on on two accounts at once isn't trivial, but it is possible. I've done it with User:ais523 and User:ais523 non-admin trying to answer WP:ACC requests (possibly the only process on Wikipedia that requires non-admins to participate to work properly...) --ais523 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has been done. Drini has confirmed that the account was in fact hijacked and that ActWonActToo is in fact the real KOS. From m:special:log/rights:

  • 16:02, 8 May 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Drini@enwiki from checkuser, sysop to sysop (done)
  • 15:33, 8 May 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Drini@enwiki from sysop to sysop, checkuser (nother hacked account investigation)

freak(talk) 16:21, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)

All I see is just a "done", not a confirmation. Can she provide us the results here? Is it the same hacker as before? Michaelas10 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Since Drini is not here right now, I just checked and can confirm that. Dmcdevit·t 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AWAT, if your KoS password really was nontrivial, can you think of any situations where you used it recently that someone could have snooped on? Of special interest would be if you attended any wiki meetups with others who have been compromised, or anything like that. Given the latency of the net, I would expect a hacker to try the most common passwords against all admin accounts, rather than going in great depth against any one account. So if a decent password was broken it could suggest an attack strategy other than brute force. Dragons flight 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All these incidents are getting tiresome... The fact that a fairly strong password was cracked could also imply that someone has been running a script for a very long time and has planned this out. x42bn6 Talk 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that I have regained control of the account. [2], [3] KOS | talk 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible causes[edit]

Here are the possible causes I can think of:

  • World News with Charles Gibson ran a story on how crooks were compromising public terminals like those in airports and internet cafes in order to steal credit card and bank account numbers. Did KnowledgeOfSelf use one, and one of the crooks steal his account in this manner?
  • His home or work computer has a rootkit that his security software cannot yet detect. Since it is theoretically possible to write a rootkit that the security software cannot detect while running in the compromised environment, he might have a rootkit on his machine and need to perform a backup, reformat, and reinstall (ugh!), because that is provably the only way to bust a rootkit on an infected machine if it cannot be modified by another OS (like on a live CD, too bad no one makes a live CD that contains an OS that can write NTFS and scan for rootkits).

Jesse Viviano 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not even need to be something so sophisticated as a root kit. All he needs is a Windows machine infected with some spyware or a virus. Antivirus software and Windows firewall is not some sort of magic bullet. —Centrxtalk • 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is out on a limb, and I'm hoping I'm not contributing to WP:BEANS, but has anyone looked at the scripts (TW, Popups, etc.) that are being used by their admins? Perhaps edits to their monobook.js page (if it can be edited by someone outside of the user...I'm not familiar with the restrictions on the page)? I really doubt this was geographical (hacking of a wireless connection, or shoulder surfing), less likely it was malware. Any possibilities it may be issues with these? Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry about beans, none of this is novel mischief, but standard hacking tricks. These sorts of practices are already well established amongst the black hats. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think only the 'owner' or admins can edit a user's personal monobook.js page. They could be including a script from another page, but all such pages should be protected. 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyme disease military history[edit]


I don't know if this is appropriate to report, but Freyfaxi (talk · contribs) keeps removing tags from this article without fixing it. He's doing so with this account and with (talk · contribs). I wanreed him at his IP, so he switched to his account. The Evil Spartan 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Justin craig[edit]

Resolved: deleted John Reaves (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across the page Justin craig and although it looks to me like an obvious candidate for speedy deletion I am not sure what cireteria it would fall under. I strongly suspect the contention that he is a "gay American" who intends to marry his boyfriend is intended to disparage, although of course the assertion in itself is not disparaging. Perhaps a more experienced editor could take a quick look? Thank you. Hobson 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages are WP:CSD#G8 and non-notable is WP:CSD#A7. Check out Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for all of them. John Reaves (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
G10, actually. G8 are talk pages of nonexistent articles. Natalie 14:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IP "Sockpuppets" by user Zubenzenubi[edit]

I'm wondering how the policies view this. A user Zubenzenubi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is repeatedly making comments (and now personal attacks) using an IP address instead of logging in. Obviously there's no requirement that a user log in to make edits, but what about when they don't log in to try to tilt consensus or avoid accountability for personal attacks? Paul Cyr 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As you did not list any diffs here I have to ask ... how do you know they are from the same user? --Kralizec! (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
During a bit of a content war, the Zubenzenubi and this IP were the only ones ones reverting to include disputed content, with both of them acting within minutes of any content changes against what they wanted, using similar edit summaries.
22:24, 21 April 2007 Addition of Dell issue by User:
10:43, 23 April 2007 Zubenzenubi reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "rv of unexplained deletion"
14:28, 23 April 2007 reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "Re-inserted item that is cited factual to restore balance + copyedit"
19:13, 23 April 2007 Zubenzenubi reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "OEM revolt"
00:01, 24 April 2007 Zubenzenubi reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "rv to reflect reality"
01:04, 24 April 2007 Zubenzenubi reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "Undid revision 125349111 by Paul Cyr (talk) No rationale for deletion provided"
10:47, 26 April 2007 reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "Unwarranted edits and rermoval of cited fact reverted"
12:21, 29 April 2007 reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "OEM disquiet reinserted"
22:14, 29 April 2007 Zubenzenubi reverts removal of Dell issue with summary "Undid revision 126842675 by Beetstra (talk)Reversion of well cited information"
20:11, 8 May 2007 makes a personal attack on me.
Paul Cyr 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request review of block placed on User:EnviroGranny[edit]

I'm not a "friend" of EnviroGranny but I have been involved in one of the disputes that probably led up to his block.

As I explained to User:JzG in this comment, the user in question probably deserved blocking but the warning that was given was a bit flawed in the drollness of its tone. When giving warnings, I don't think humor is always helpful, especially humor that may not be as obvious as it looks. Furthermore, there is an appearance of conflict of interest which, although probably just an apparent COI rather than a real one, should not have been mentioned in the warning.

I would request that someone review the edits that led up to the block

Starting with the original warning [4], and then the user's repeatedly not understanding what was being communicated [5], [6] and followed by JzG not explaining to the dense user what was really going on but imposing a block instead [7]

Now, the truth is User:EnviroGuy is a bit too puffed up and self-important and probably needs a little smacking around to put him in his place. However, it should be done gently but firmly and with decorum rather than with this cute little semi-warning with the faint hint of COI followed by a block when the user doesn't get it. We can block this user again if he doesn't get the lesson but I think, in the interest of being above reproach, an admin should remove the block and leave a real warning.

In the interest of full disclosure, this comment [8] by EnviroGranny is not encouraging.

Still, in the interest of observing WP:BITE, I think we should lift the block and give the guy one more chance.

--Richard 04:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really bad handling of administrator duties here, which surprises me since I usually find JzG to be one of the better admins. Edit summaries like "idiot" and comments such as "My God, you really are stupid, aren't you" [9] are entirely unacceptable for a admin regardless of the actions by a user.--Jersey Devil 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances we have not located yet ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
He behaved like an arse, and when told he'd behaved like an arse and to stop doing it, he did precisely the same thing. What exactly does he expect? I told him to stop threatening people to keep off his Talk page, I did it in a light-earted but firm manner, and his response was to tell me to keep off his Talk page. Since the major problem appears to be WP:OWNership elsewhere, this is a clear sign he is not getting the message. It's about time he did get the message. And I won't stand for rudeness to William, either, because if there's one editors whose patience in the face of crass idiocy can be relied on absolutely, then William is that editor. As the complainant notes, Envirogranny needs sorting out. Use different humour, use a different method, but sort it out. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Guy) I probably deserve some of the blame here. Although I think Guy's comments were technically accurate, I do agree they could have been more politic. I came across EnviroGranny answering a WP:3O request. His behavior was... difficult, I think it's fair to say, and I found him making apparently baseless accusations, including accusing a good-faith editor of vandalism [10] and accusing me of bias [11], apparently for asking him to consider withdrawing his request for a third opinion until he had first talked to the user in question. [12] He then graduated to demanding people not post on his talk page and threatening to report users for it. [13] [14] [15] Looking at his editing history, his start at Wikipedia seemed unusually skilled [16], and I wondered if he might have had a previous incarnation. Knowing that Guy has a lot of experience in this area, I asked him privately if he happened to recognize the user. It escalated from there, with unfortunate accusations from EnviroGranny. Having already asked EnviroGranny to consider whether he was well outside our norms, and seeing his behavior on Talk:Sprite (lightning), I do think some official sanction was in the cards eventually, and I hope that EnviroGranny will take this opportunity to mend his ways. William Pietri 07:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem I see with Guy's warning is that it is clearly written in the tone of someone expecting the disruptive editing of EnviroGranny to continue. Such a statement was bound to produce more disruptive editing from EnviroGranny, not less - it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It wasn't exactly civil, either. I know Guy has a lot of experience but it brings to mind the old saying "If the only tool you've got is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail". A politer approach may not have had a more productive outcome but it ought at least to have been tried. Sam Blacketer 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Polite had been tried and failed, and this is not, I think, a newbie. The user is clue-deficient. Hence the cluebat. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That isn't a good interpretation of civility. If you were going to block him anyway, why give a 'warning' in terms which could only provoke more disruption? Sam Blacketer 11:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think JzG's comments were any harsher than the persistent near-trolling EnviroGranny was doing, and I think WIlliam Pietri's right, EG's third edit was to Jimbo's page discussing Wikipolicy type stuff. He knew where to go right away, two months ago. Could JzG have been nicer? Yes. Should he have been? Perhaps. Would it have changed the outcome in any way? I doubt it, based on the edits shown here. ThuranX 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Your statement that JzG was comparable to EnviroGranny is a dangerous one. JzG is an admin and the public face of the Wikipedia community with a responsibility to uphold good standards of behaviour. EnviroGranny was being a disruptive editor and has since been blocked. Admins should show disruptive users the way to work constructively, not join them in a parade of incivility and insult. Sam Blacketer 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes admins should cut the crap and wield the WP:TROUT. This was one of those occasions. The user had escalated a silly dispute beyond all rationality. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole problem can be delt with very easily, Admins can learn to do the following;

1)Be Civil (no trouts, banhammers or cluebats).
2)Explain in simple terms what a warning or block is about (this is not just posting a link to a policy but saying which part of the policy has been broken).
3)Understand they are not better than normal editors and the extra powers the community has handed the come with the effect of as Sam Blacketer says of being the "public face of the Wikipedia community". Hypnosadist 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May 10[edit]

On the page for May 10, under the heading "Events", Tony Blair's resignation is listed for 2007 - I know this is supposed to be announced this week but as it is for tomorrow I'm not sure if it's vandalism or not. Nobody knows if he's going to resign tomorrow, as far as I know.

Slowapocalypse 08:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair did say last week that he would 'make a statement about his future' or some such wording, but didn't (of course) say exactly what that statement was. I don't think this is vandalism but it is crystal ballgazing of a sort. Sam Blacketer 08:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ask for a reliable source. There is none as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As this is now mentioned in the current events section of Wikipedia that he has announced his resignation and is covered by all major newspapers, sources should not be too difficult to find. Lemon martini 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)



Yesterday I was continually pestered by User:Malamockq for reverting his deletion of comments at the Wikiproject Dragon Ball talk page. His grounds for the deletion was that the comments were trollish and not following WP:CIVIL. So he deletes the comments and posts a notice on the user whos comments he deleted (Dark Dragon Flame) and told him he could respond in a more civil manner. When I reverted this deletion, Malamockq went to my talk page and started posting messages like please be civil and such. Of course Dark Dragon Flames comments were not exactally polite but the fact that Malamockq was trying to revive the article for a charecter in a manga that appeared for 2 chapters and after the 100th time or so of a user trying to do this, Dark Dragon Flame like the rest of us at the project were tired. Next malamockq posted a message on my talk page with the header "please do not be helpful". Can you guys warn this guy about going to people's talk pages just to troll? DBZROCKS 12:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DR as instructed to at the top of this page. Paul Cyr 14:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

St. Paul's College, Sydney[edit]


A previous vandal is in full flood vandalising this article now. Please block him and semiprotect the article to allow a cleanup. He is also at work on St Andrew's College, Sydney adding speedy deletion tags. It looks as if he upset that he has been described as a sockpuppet. He is User: I'm off to bed. --Bduke 13:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AIV and WP:RFPP (as you were directed to at the top of this page). Paul Cyr 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Very quick one - block sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser[edit]

Resolved: sockpuppet blocked.

Hello. Sunger (talk · contribs) was confirmed by checkuser to be a sockpuppet of the ArbCom-banned user Billy Ego (talk · contribs). Would someone mind blocking him? Thanks. MastCell Talk 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel Talk 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If Billy Ego has been evading his ban, it (and the accompanying block) should be reset, correct? I'd do it myself, but I'm on a public computer and would rather not access my admin account for now. Heimstern:Away (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Account hijacking[edit]

I have come back from my wikibreak, after my original account AndyZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was blocked. Someone told me about this today. This is my new account, and the password is secure enough to prevent a repeat of the horrific hijack.

Is it at all possible to allow me to have admin status on this account.

Thanks, guys for your work. --Speakmans Hour 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)How do we know you are the same person? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am doubtful that this will be done at all, especially without proof that you are who you say you are. I know of many who are pretty upset with you have (and have lossed their trust in you) by that neglectful mistake. This would need more discussion and a proof of you being AndyZ first. Cbrown1023 talk 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Check User will not be possible. So, no matter what, even if you are who you claim to be, you're kinda screwed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to recommend checkuser, why not? ST47Talk 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Odds of this actually being AndyZ ... roughly 10%. Sorry, but we don't just hand out admin accounts to anyone claiming to be a former admin. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As it is, he'd left: why would he want it back now suddenly? Majorly (hot!) 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Cyde. This brings about the issue that there is no official system in place to identify admins. The current situation seems to dictate that there should be one. A discussion should be initiated on this. hombre de haha 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If AndyZ had enabled email then he would have been able to reset his password and post a notice on his talk page identifying his new account. Unfortunately, he didn't do so. -Will Beback · · 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't do. Surely the hijacker could have changed the email... WjBscribe 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. -Will Beback · · 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Arr, how so? Biometric identification? Phone number storage? I suppose e-mail authentication would work, but then you have the possibility that someone has the same password there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
How does one identify who you say you are "in real life". Generally through the use of Identification numbers that correlate to that person's account. Whatever the IT synonym to that is should be thought about. Or just make admins install really awesome thumbscanners on their computer before they log in :D
Of course, if these people and others that are put in the same situation are expendable, and should be punished for their carelessness, then we should just act like we don't need a way to identify admins. "Adminship is no big deal." hombre de haha 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

roffle, this reminds me of the time that someone registered the account Rick Kerrigan or something, claiming to be RickK, and asked for his sysop bit back. It didn't fly because users pointed out that RickK never gave up his sysop powers. Ah, here we go: From ANI on BJAODN. hbdragon88 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"AGF is not a suicide pact. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)" That is applicable in so many ways to so many things. Nice link. Teke 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Strange. It seems that someone removed it, because I Googled the exact term and I didn't see it in an ANI archive. Fortunately it still lives on in BJADON. hbdragon88 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This problem makes for a good argument that we need more Wikimeetups. Meet each other in real life, get to know each other, trade phone numbers -- or at least email addresses. I happen to know (I'm guessing) several dozen Wikipedians well enough (unfortunately, none of those who had acompromised account) that if one had their account compromised, I'd be able to vouch that they are who they claim to be -- & hopefully vice versa. -- llywrch 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention keysignings Smile.png -- Avi 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for hiim to log onto the AndyZ account to apologize and request an unblock? That's what I'd do, if my account were hijacked. And then I'd change my password. Instead of "password," I'd make it "drowssap." -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mark, as a secruity measure, logged into the compromised account and changed both the password and the email.[17] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that AZPR (talk · contribs) appears to be a long time semi-bot account operated by AndyZ, and AZPR is now requesting that AndyZ be unblocked. That would convince me, unless the password to User:AZPR was also "password". User:Mark knows what AndyZ's original e-mail was before he blanked it, so I guess Mark will ultimately know whether or not to unblock. Thatcher131 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately (as I noted on my talk page), my password was password too. (The idea behind my login was that I could show that I am aware of my activities before I took my wikibreak) I did e-mail Mark though, so hopefully he can clear up the entire situation. Oh and btw, I just happened to notice the post that started this thread - that is NOT me. APR t 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's really bad that we have 2 users claiming to be AndyZ, does anyone know AndyZ by email so we could get clarification of which account is his? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Speakmans Hour as an imposter account, there were only 2 edits, it seams clear they were only after the admin bit. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(Its fairly obvious that the aforementioned user is making false claims, his contribution list is 2 edits Edit conflict: thanks Ryan) I have e-mailed Mark. I would e-mail someone else who e-mailed me before, but that leaves User:Bobblewik (emailed regarding his date/unit fixing scripts as an inclusion in the PR one) who has left and a bunch of trolls (like User:Titanicprincess, User:Rptng03509345) who send e-mails around regarding some evil admins. APR t 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is where other people need to weigh in, Andy - I didn't know you before (sorry), but you've got to understand the trust that has been lost with your account being compromised - it's not we don't trust the original user, it's the fact that we don't know who is actually attempting to use the account now, or want's to be known as the user formally known as andyZ, I haven't got any suggestions. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least you had a second account known to be yours. That would be a good countermeasure for hijacking, although I would prefer keysigning. -- ReyBrujo 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree completely with Ryan, but also we're discussing reinstating a user (hopefully not also resysoping) that used the word "password" as their, well, password. Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So? People screw up royally, and you're talking about having "password" as a password as if it were a crime. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:BOT policy saved me here :). APR t 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I realize that, and I would go thru the same exact steps as you have if I were dealing with someone who returns right after his account was hacked for vandalizing the main page. I don't mind at all the suspicion; I probably would be suspicious myself if this had happened to someone else. Thanks a lot for your understanding, APR t 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Suspicion? Lets see if I can overdo it. Isn’t it ironic that AZPR is a quite famous piece of password recovery software from ElcomSoft? --Van helsing 09:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User verification[edit]

One problem is to get some verification of a person's identity, such as for restoring control of a username. What permissions should be given that user is a different problem. For users whose identity is unknown, there may be some information which could be used for verification within their Wikipedia contributions. For example, if they've used some obscure books for sources and they still have those books they can at least verify that they are a person who does have those books. They can quickly look up any desired section of a book, and others can verify the information (even if it takes others a while to get a copy of the book, the quick reply to a challenge helps verify access to the source). (SEWilco 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Once again, an argument for setting up something like a web or wiki of trust. -- Avi 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than books as a source, I would suggest uploading own-work images of similar topics to images uploaded by the user before and where the metadata can be verified as being same camera, same date, ... Eg if you have provided an image of a place, you possibly have available more images of that place that you haven't uploaded.--Golden Wattle talk 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest full body shots. Men need to scrawl "Wikipedia Rules" across the chest in 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, exactly how do you verify that my photos were all shot on this Edixa of mine? Compare the dimness of the picture at various points? Employ some other advanced photoforensics? This thing doesn't exactly leave a ton of metadata leaving around, being 1960s camera technology - not getting exact exposure date/time and shutter/f-stop values kind of sucks, but since the thing works perfectly, I don't see a reason to switch =) Plus, we all know how EXIF data is extremely infallible and almost impossible to falsify, right? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Resolved: Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly has been blocked by Ryulong. Knowpedia 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is new to me. User creates account to hand out barnstars with no previous contact with the recipients.[18] Also has been warned for other vandalistic edits. [19] User:ZeroTheLoser seems to be the focus of User:Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly's obvious vandalism. Timeline of events:

(13:24, 7 May 2007) New user account created.
(13:27, 7 May 2007) Within first 3 minutes of account creation 4 unabashed acts of vandalism.
(20:36, 7 May 2007) Three hours go by (must of been nap time) and the unusual handing out of barnstars begin.
(21:34, 7 May 2007) Tops off the barnstar handing out by awarding the user page they vandalized first with a barnstar.

Strange. --Knowpedia 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the signature displays his name as "Can't we hate our allies and love our enemies". Definitely someone who knows his way around WP. --Masamage 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I got one, and was very leary. I thought it was a joke, or a poke. I need a lot of info to take things for granted. LOL. I do think it's mean though, for those who believe this is legit for Wikipedia. - Jeeny Talk 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was was very odd as well... at first I thought it was legit, then I looked at his edit history... and he's handing out the same exact one to many other people. Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It was weird, I guess. The random awarding is maybe a form of vandalism, but since it's all on talk pages anyway I would say it's pretty harmless. - Rainwarrior 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar flooding is an uncommon form of vandalism, but I've seen it before. Usually it's ten or twenty barnstars per person, instead of just one. It's still a vandal-only account imo. Anybody object to an indef block? ··coelacan 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about a indef block. I do think it's semi-harmless, to a degree though. It is a hoax, in a way, so in that respect, not cool at all. Perhaps blocking the user name, and not an IP, since it just seems to be on user talk pages? Lets keep this open for a while, so others have time to comment. Some may be in bed, at work, out, etc. JMHO. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say give the guy a fair warning, first, that the semi-random barnstarring is kind of weird and that he should stop. Don't ban him unless he fails to comply. --Masamage 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also just noticed user has edit summary for all 31 edits, this is not common for a new user but most established user will not press "save page" without the edit summary. Noted the edit summary for my barnstar is different from the rest... weird!--Knowpedia 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If this person's not going to use the account for anything but awarding, then it's pointless to let him continue this weirdness. Wikipedians are here to improve the articles, not to give random awards. 夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk
I agree with the block here. This user reminds me too much of Buenoma (talk · contribs) and Payple (talk · contribs), both of whom I blocked for the same thing (well, they were actually the same user). --Coredesat 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a silly award. I don't know why he gave it out? Any action (or non-action) is fine by me. I feel so unspecial now =/ --ZayZayEM 09:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont think he should be blocked just tell him what hes doing wrong and if he continues then take action mabye ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I did to get targetted, but I am curious about what to do with a barnstar it appears I haven't earned. If all of his edits are barnstars, I can see a reason for banning him, though someone needs to talk to him first. Rebochan 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Noted user is apologetic for handing out the Barnstars and has asked for forgiveness. [20] --Knowpedia 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

hes apoligised in a wired third persion way saying we insted of I is that of any importance 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, reminds me of meta:role account behaviour. We block on sight if any account claims to be operated by more than one person. ~Crazytales 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

should we ask him?? he might just have a weird speach patten or they might be 5 guys using it ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough it reminds me of a IP-hopping death-threat vandal[21] with an interest in Chaos (Sailor Moon) manga[22], blanking[23] and redirecting[24] pages, random barnstars[25], bad grammar, and with an IP of 81.145.* However this is probably a coincidence so I'm willing to assume good faith at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I had the same thought. --Masamage 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

block review, personal attacks, 31 hours[edit]

Meet Prester John. You may remember him from such threads as #Incivility, possible baiting at User talk:Kirbytime, and his eponymous debut, #User:Prester John.

He and I were discussing some T1 userboxes and the possibility of taking his "Allah is Satan" show on the road, at User talk:Prester John#"God" in Muslim articles, when he popped in here at ANI to call for Kirbytime's blocking.

Fine and good, and I support the 1 week block. Prestor John said of Kirbytime's "Piss Christ" comment: "A greater attempt to offend a class of people I have not encountered." I'm a bit surprised by that, since Prestor John baited Kirbytime, then noted that the comment, directed at him, was rather off-target, and collected it for posterity. But hey, we all handle stress differently.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I noticed that only a half hour before demanding Kirbytime's block, Prestor John was making his own personal attacks, calling other editors "leftist scum". A few quick Ctrl-F perusals of his talk page for "personal attack", "npa", and "civil" are quite revealing; he's well aware of the policies, but ignores them.

I feel that this is part of a pattern of disruption along with his insistence on maintaining an inflammatory userpage and his "Allah is Satan" campaign, and that this disruption needs to be brought to some kind of halt, albeit temporarily. I have made a 31 hour block and request that other admins review it. ··coelacan 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the block acceptable under the circumstances, Prestor John is aware of the policies on civility,NPA etc as they are all linked from his user page. Gnangarra 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I endorse this block and the justification. -- mattb 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Not an admin, but it seems reasonable to me. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Support block. Prester John (talk · contribs) stating this about any other user is one of the most flagrant WP:KETTLE situations I've seen in a while.--Isotope23 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, but i'm no admin. ThuranX 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Besides these personal attacks, of which I was not aware, he has been warned several times not to add inflammatory userspace content, but has persisted nevertheless. If he objects to the translation of Arabic "Allah" as "God," I and the MOS strongly disagree, but that is one thing; announcing from his userpage "Allah is Satan" quite another.
It is long past time to put these userspace games to an end.Proabivouac 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Good block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, though 31 hours is far too lenient. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
My good faith unprotection of his userpage was rewarded by this, this and this. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers[edit]

DragonflySixtyseven indefinitely blocked (including username creation) my account without warning after I posted this and then this comment to the deletion review of <the number we are not allowed to utter on Wikipedia>. Despite clear Wikipedia policy stating single-purpose accounts are not forbidden, the sole reason for the block given at the time was:

single-purpose account that has served its single purpose

The blocking admin used this same reason to block at least 3 other accounts at around the same time. DS (DragonflySixtyseven's nickname for his account) went on to post to the same deletion review this and then this. No one, of course, blocked DS. I posted an unblock request with reason:

I do not believe I have done anything inappropriate to warrant the block placed on my editing privileges. My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part.

Yamla acted as the reviewer for my unblock request and denied it stating only:

User clearly acting in bad faith.

Without any reason given as to why Yamla had concluded bad faith on my part, I asked on my talk page why Yamla believed this and expressed that I was frustrated with both administrators for appearing to assume bad faith on part. Yamla responded on my talk page:

AmendmentNumberOne, your apparently deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA to target us is a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

I explained to Yamla that he or she was mistaken, that I had not posted any such information, and expressed my frustration at the continued assumption of bad faith and new false allegations. In my response, I quote what Yamla had said to another editor on their talk page, JNighthawk's, about what I had done. The claim Yamla made that I had been "posting the HDDVD/Blu-ray DVD decryption key number" is patently false. DS made similar false claims:

That user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor.

Both claims are false. And then:

Deleted articles don't show up in the contributions log. More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them.

So it appears to me I was blocked by DS for what I wrote in the deletion review, in contravention of explicit Wikipedia policy:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute.

Despite my desire not to have an email account in order to be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, I read through the various policies and guidelines and concluded the only course of action left to me in order to be able to edit on Wikipedia involved setting an email account in my preferences. I sent DS an email yesterday and he now has unblocked my account. But DS still has not explained his actions (his unblock comment was: "==Meh== Whatever. I'm too nice sometimes. You're unblocked. Don't screw up." and he has not sent me any email reply.) At least with respect to Wikipedia policy, I do not know why he blocked me without warning and indefinitely after I posted my opinion to that deletion review. Not knowing what my "mistake" was, I feel incredibly uncomfortable asking DS directly at this point. He could just re-block me again. So I am bringing this matter to the administrator noticeboard. This is a complaint about DragonflySixtyseven's misuse of administrative powers in blocking my account as outlined above. I also believe a misuse of administrative powers occurred when Yamla declined my unblock request without having a reason supported by evidence nor Wikipedia policy to continue the block. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to deny a block request if you believe the person should not be unblocked. The account seemed to be a SPA and so far, the only contributions from this account are in relation to that number. If I am not permitted to decline unblocks if I agree with the blocking admin, though, please do let me know. I'm a frequent reviewer on unblock-en-l and monitor the unblock category so I am likely to decline quite a number of unblocks in the future. Obviously, I also unblock quite a number of people. --Yamla 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
For a block, you must have a reason supported by evidence. The reason must be founded in Wikipedia policy and the evidence must exist. When reviewing an unblock request, agreeing with the blocking admin is not enough. You must agree with the blocking admin's reason because Wikipedia policy and actual evidence supports it. And you also must take care that the editor being blocked has been notified of the actual conduct that resulted in the block. You cannot keep this information from the editor being blocked.
And note that you should not approve a block over a content dispute. Posting the number to an article about the number is a content dispute. Posting the number to a deletion review of speedy delete of the same article is a content dispute. Since I did neither, and instead posted my opinion to the deletion review that the article should be kept, your denial of the unblock review was truly in error. -AmendmentNumberOne 12:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Note also that this user has, deliberately or not, posted that number as an examination of his contribution log clearly shows. --Yamla 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked by the blocking admin. Chick Bowen 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Chick Bowen, this matter is most certainly not resolved. Unblocking me does not do anything to prevent arbitrary blocks like this from occurring in the future. It also does not address my complaint that this block was performed in an unfair manner in violation of clear Wikipedia policy. Please remove the 'resolved' tag from this discussion. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we need blood, blooooood! Is that an accurate assessment, ANO? - CHAIRBOY () 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No apology was given for what was, as far as I, a neutral third-party, can see, a block based on a content dispute. Blood is not necessary, but DS acting as if he is doing AmendmentNumberOne a favor by unblocking him is insulting. - JNighthawk 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The block was not arbitrary, it was deserved. That number can get us in a lot of trouble we dont need. You were unblocked, so go contribute the the encyclopedia to show you deserved it instead of making a fool of yourself on AN/I. -Mask? 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that this is not resolved. The reason given for blocking was invalid, and the reason given for denying his unblock request is demonstrably false, as I don't believe he was "clearly acting in bad faith." Also, posting of the AACS number does not violate any current wiki-policy, and Jimbo has said himself that there is the Foundation currently has no opinion on posting of the number. From what I, a lowly non-admin editor, can see from his contribution log, he had done nothing wrong and was banned for being involved in a content dispute, which is thoroughly against wiki-policy. - JNighthawk 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with AmendmentNumberOne's statement, I've removed the Resolved tag, as the issue is still open. - JNighthawk 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts. With regard to Yamla's concern that the contributions of User:AmendmentNumberOne reveal that he posted "the number" ... the article title, which in this case was "the number," was the title of the DRV section relating to that (former) article. It automatically appeared as part of the edit summary without the user's having had anything to say about it or probably having even noticed. Frankly, we all should have realized that this would be the effect of not changing or redacting the title soon enough, but that cannot be blamed on this user, or on any other user who participated in the DRV.

I happen to strongly disagree with User:AmendmentNumberOne regarding the merits of the underlying issue. I also am not convinced that this DMCA dispute raises a viable First Amendment claim (and certainly not a claim against Wikipedia, which is a purely private and non-governmental entity). However, if this user is correct that he never created an article relating to the number and that his account was used solely to comment in the DRV, then while I disagree with the content of the user's comments, and I generally deprecate SPAs that take overly strident positions, it is not at all clear to me that this was a strong block.

Having said that, I understand the reasons the block was implemented and I hope that User:AmendmentNumberOne can as well. The amount of spam posted and the number of SPA accounts created that day regarding "the number" left us inundated and the people, including DragonflySixtySeven, who did have concerns had to react very quickly. I hope that User:AmendmentNumberOne can understand that these were good-faith concerns even if he did not or does not personally agree with them, and would join in urging him to accept that he has made his point and ought now to drop the matter and begin to contribute to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia.

In response to Yamla's earlier comment, he is to be commended for taking a leading role in acting as a previously uninvolved administrator reviewing a large number of unblock requests, both those posted on-wiki and on the mailing list. Needless to say, upholding as well as reversing a block are appropriate actions depending on the reviewing admin's evaluation. Any criticism that may come along of an individual block/unblock decision is like comments that we all receive on any of our administrator actions—as long as it's kept civil and reasonable, just part of the job description sometimes. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite correct there, and I hope AmendmentNumberOne will accept that even if there were a misunderstanding here, it was a legitimate one. We had a ton of spam problems with that thing.
Now, this being said. Where do we review a Deletion Review? (Deletion Review Review?) While at the time bainer's close may have seemed appropriate, the Foundation and Jimbo have pretty thoroughly indicated that whether or not to use the number is up to each individual project. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, please explain to me what I did to warrant the block by DS and on what basis Yamla, an experienced administrator, could conclude "User clearly acting in bad faith." -AmendmentNumberOne 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe my attempt at diplomatic phrasing here was a little bit too subtle. In case anyone else was confused, "not at all clear to me that this was a strong block" = "unless there is something that I am not aware of, disagree with the block." Newyorkbrad 13:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, while I would like to conclude this was a legitimate misunderstanding, I do not think this was so. The blocking admin was contacted after the block and notified he had made a mistake and still persisted in making multiple false claims, claims he has not yet fully disclaimed, and did not lift the block until I sent an e-mail to him to either explain himself or unblock me. He took the easy way out (in my opinion) but that still does not explain how this block happened. The evidence shows that I posted an opinion to the deletion review (I agree it was closed inappropriately) and shortly thereafter an administrator with a different opinion indefinitely blocked my account without warning. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I concede that I acted in haste, and thence in error. We were dealing with a flood of spam, and I made a snap judgement. I regret the inconvenience, and I apologize for the hurt feelings that clearly were caused by my actions; however, I will not be committing hara-kiri, nor will I be ceding my administrator privileges. DS 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No one is asking you to cede your administrative privileges, although I do not think you are in a position to decide whether you retain them. While an error in judgement at the outset could be accepted, you were unwilling to entertain this possibility for me or yourself during the incident. Instead you continued the conversation by making up stuff about what I did. It is hard to imagine why you did not carefully consider what you did after you were asked this:

Hi. Would you mind explaining how that user was acting in bad faith and deserved a permanent ban? His contributions only show what appear to be good faith edits. Agree or disagree with his argument, it is not a reason for banning, especially with no warning and no reason. I believe he was unjustly banned.

Worse, when you realized that you "may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction" instead of carefully examining the matter, you denigated my username, admitted my posting to the deletion review motivated you, and procedeed to repeat your initial faulty reasoning for permanently blocking my account without warning. At this point, you knew exactly what my edits were. You had just referenced them. I really cannot accept your apology when you wish to absolve yourself simply by saying you acted in haste. You did not act in haste. You knew what my edits were. -AmendmentNumberOne 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a perfectly proper block. Your username indicates that you may not have understood that Wikipedia is not free speech (free as in beer, yes, but not free as in speech), the issue is highly contentious and this account seems to have been registered solely with the purpose of contributing to that deletion review, displaying in the process a knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and working that is incompatible with the good-faith assumption of a genuine newbie. Read: sockpuppet. Frankly, since all you've done since is troll, I think the block should be reinstated and you can go back to your main account. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Threatening to re-block me for bringing my complaint about DragonflySixtyseven's arbitrary block to the Administrators' noticeboard is highly inappropriate. Calling me names is likewise. The good faith assumption applies to all users. You cannot disregard WP:FAITH because you do not like the edits of a particular user. You cannot disregard WP:FAITH because the editor takes the time to inform themselves during an indefinite block incident about Wikipedia policy. You cannot disregard WP:FAITH because you suspect something about an editor without evidence. Blocking policy is very clear: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute." 'Must not' is very strong phrasing. Provided the policy is respected and not arbitrarily ignored, actual limits do exist to the exercise of administrative privileges for the good of Wikipedia. -AmendmentNumberOne 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You've described the concerns you had, and received an apology. In an attempt to avoid churn (basically, when a conversation degrades to the point where folks are just talking about the same thing over and over again), I'd like to know if there's anything else you're looking for at this point. Where would you like this discussion to go from here? - CHAIRBOY () 15:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you joking, JzG?! Whether that is his main account or not, his knowledge of Wikipedia procedures should be commended, not scorned. Likewise, calling it trolling to bring inappropriate admin action to light is unbelievable. Gotta watch out for each other, eh, JzG? Either way, DS has given an apology and AmendmentNumberOne has been unblocked. As far as the individual level is concerned, I think that's about what's required, unless AmendmentNumberOne is looking to go higher level with policy changes. - JNighthawk 14:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, again[edit]

I have blocked AmendmentNumberOne indefinitely for not contributing at all to the encyclopedia portion of the project. He was never here to write articles, from what I see in his contributions, and in the two days that he was unblocked, he solely editted here and on his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I go for months without editing, is it time to ban me? This whole thing is a fucking joke. Boy am I glad there's admin oversight here on Wikipedia. What? There isn't? Oh, well. Carry on, then, abusing your powers. The admins in this case have broken WP:AGF, along with nearly everything Wikipedia stands for. An open encyclopedia means that you are going to run into areas where you disagree with other editors. Learn to deal with it, rather than banning them. Ryulong, you have violated the banning policy. I'm notifying you that I plan to file an RfA about this incident. - JNighthawk 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you have editted articles. AmendmentNumberOne had not. Second, I have not violated any policy. It was very obvious that AmendmentNumberOne was not an account to be used to edit an article on say puppies. It was an account created to stir things up at the DRV of the article on the HD DVD encryption number (the number itself, not any other related articles). He had made no attempts to even touch an article in the time he was unblocked, and was only unblocked by DragonflySixtyseven as it was felt that he was wrong and he apologized, but that did not get any response from #1. And as I stated on my talk page before I discovered your comment here, it was not a ban. It is an indefinite block. I am not saying that if #1 creates another account and avoids the topic completely that he is banned from Wikipedia under that account. Just the one that started this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Right on WP:BP, it states "Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." He was not disruptive, nor damaging to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether a user edits in mainspace or not, as long as his general goal is to improve Wikipedia. Under WP:AGF, I'm assuming that was his intention. As he is now blocked, he is unable to edit this page and provide any insight or reasoning for his actions. Yes, while it should have ended after DS apologized, he was not overly contentious in his response. You also say that he is not blocked from creating a new account and using that, but my question there is: why would a user, unjustly "banned", want to create a new account for a project that has already shown what it does to users who attempt to help? Who knows if the user intended to become a contributor to the Wikipedia mainspace later on? None of you gave him a chance. He has shown that he's familiar with Wikipedia policy by bring this up in AN/I, and by following correct form in the AfD and DRV. There was absolutely no reason for this second block.
As is stated clearly in WP:BP, "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam policies, should be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocked indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute is not a valid reason for such blocks." There was no warning. There was no one week block. Both you and DS immediately skipped to blocking indefinitely, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. - JNighthawk 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He was damaging and disruptive to Wikipedia. And the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. Not initiate threads like these. And I would assume that the original block was a decent enough warning that if he repeated being disruptive, he would be blocked, again. And entirely new users who are so familiar with the processes of Wikipedia are generally suspicious accounts to begin with. I have blocked accounts in the past that have had absolutely no article space edits and solely user page/user talk page edits. While AmendmentNumberOne actually editted outside of his user space, it was solely to this board and the DRV for the code. It was clearly obvious that he was not here to write an encyclopedia, but to stir up trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"And entirely new users who are so familiar with the processes of Wikipedia are generally suspicious accounts to begin with." Suspicious of what, exactly? Lurking before becoming an editor? Actually attempting to get familiar with the Wikipedia process before contributing? I disagree that it was clearly obvious that he wasn't going to help write an encyclopedia. I can easily see a user's first edit being on a topic he is highly passionate about. Regardless, it looks like this discussion is going nowhere, so I will be continuing through with my RfA. - JNighthawk 04:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(EC)There's plenty of oversight. Don't think so, do what I do. Monitor this page. The guy zero'd right in on an incredibly contentious issue. We know that using SPA's for deletion debates is highly frowned upon, unethical, and prohibited by Wikipolicy. That he now makes a mountain from the molehill he dug, and plays out all this to 'defend' the Constitution, is just shoveling dirt onto the pile fast. An Admin blocked what certainly acted like a SPA. Good for him. Keep it up, I say. I'm not an admin. I'm a user. This isn't bad admin, no donut, this is good admin, donut. and so was the reblock. ThuranX 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Single purpose accounts are not against Wikipedia policy. I disagree that he made a mountain out of a molehill. He was unjustly blocked. - JNighthawk 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, you've linked to an essay, not a policy or guideline. Just think that distinction needs to be made when you link to it in the same breath as "not against Wikipedia policy". EVula // talk // // 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
True enough, but WP:BP also states that single purpose accounts are not, in itself, a violation of Wikipedia policy. However, I would argue here that this user was not even given the chance to prove that it was not a single purpose account. - JNighthawk 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fully support this block. That person has done nothing of value to the encyclopedia, and 100% of his edits were whinging about censorship and abusive admins. We're an encyclopedia, not a free speech message room. Block and move on. We get trolls like this all the time. Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. He's done effectively nothing but bitch on about how the man is keeping him down. He'd be better off with a myspace page, since that's effectively what he's using here as. HalfShadow 04:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User continually removing {{Non-free use disputed}} from image[edit]

I have nominated Image:254524.1020.A.jpg, uploaded by Machocarioca (talk · contribs) for a non-free use review, since I do not believe the fair-use rationale given explains any critical commentary in the article as required by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. This user keeps reverting me without changing the fair-use rationale. I consider this tantamount to removing a speedy deletion tag from one's own article, but I won't edit war over a random movie poster. Can someone, or a couple of someones, step in and either confirm my interpretation or explain why I'm wrong? (ESkog)(Talk) 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a poster for a film, being used in and only in the article about that film, to "to illustrate the film, event, etc. in question" to quote from the relevant tempalte language. That looks like a classic caase of aceptable free use to me. Does anyone else disagree? DES (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there was already a picture of the DVD cover on the page, so why would an additional picture of the movie's poster be useful? One should be good enough. Phony Saint 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That is another question, but it is at least arguable that a poster from a date much closer to the original release of the film is better than a recent DVD cover, to provide better historical contextx. Also the older poster is far less likely to actually impair any comercial interests than the newer cover. While excessive use of images under a fair use claim is clearly a bad idea (and agaisnt policy) I'm not aware of a strict limit of one to an article. DES (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If it has to be one or the other, I think it would be better to keep the movie poster, for the reasons specified above. *** Crotalus *** 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick again - request block of self-proclaimed sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: Sockpuppet was blocked.

Hi - I've been dealing with a number of sockpuppets of the banned user Billy Ego (talk · contribs) (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Regulations). Would someone mind blocking Reguboard (talk · contribs), a self-proclaimed sockpuppet who showed up to disrupt my RfA? Thanks. MastCell Talk 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. -- 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Bot was blocked indefinately until resolved.

Please shut down PDFbot. I have outlined several, recent errors that it has made on its creator's talk page ([26]) and Dispenser's user page says that s/he is on hiatus/wikibreak, so it is absolutely imperative. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. -- 20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Problems have been dealt with, please unblock. —Dispenser 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Request a bit of help with Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article[edit]

I am not sure if I am in the right place to request assistance - this article is on a very active, touchy, politically-charged subject and we are just now about to attempt to break the article into pieces because of its length. It seems to me that none of the presently active editors is completely fluent in the way of the Wikipedia (we have at the moment, no disputes to speak of), so before we get too far, I thought it might be worthwhile requesting some assistance in getting the article into a proper form, e.g., Help with the overall formatting of the article. Creation and use of sub-articles? Proper use of references in the article lead paragraph? And also being sure the article stays NPOV. There seem to be obvious truths about the controversy that can't quite be explicitly stated, e.g. the Bush administration's motivations. What is the policy regarding references? So this is to request a look, a few (several?) quick edits, advice etc. to get us going in the right new direction with the article. (I admit I could do a careful read of Wikipedia policies, etc.; I am learning, but have run out of time for now. Also, a neutral administrator's edits/comments would carry far more weight just now.) Thanks so much - Bdushaw 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm a friendly co-editor on the page in question. It looks like the right place for this question is elsewhere, since we're not having any troubles or disputes. It's really a "looking for wisdom and advice" item. I'll check the other administrator or project pages, and post a note here when done. Cheers -- Yellowdesk 00:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we'll take these general advice questions to the Wikipedia:Peer_review page, after a little planning and effort and discussion at our end. -- Yellowdesk 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor[edit]

Resolved: User warned for WP:POINT - then blocked - Alison 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has already had a block for edit warring and personal attacks, and is carrying on with more of the same - [27] [28] [29] [30]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • He got warned again by myself and User:Jossi. He didn't stop. I had to block him for 31 hours for incivility/revert-warring/personal attacks. Now, he's ranting on his talk page about racist anti-Irish editors and admins. *sigh* - at least the disruption is over - Alison 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Please could people review BCD's talk page, he's made a statement that he took over User:AndyZ's account but only after the password was released (read what he has to say, it's more informative than I could put it). We need to come to a conclusion as to what we do now. I now feel that the block is only punitive and BCD should be unblocked, on a servere warning that anything like this is not to happen again. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from what I wrote this on BCD's talk page: BCD, you were under incredible pressure to admit things. Getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar is always an embarrassing situation. A late admission of guilt is much better than not admitting to things. Yes, admitting this right away would have been much, much better, but we can't change things now. And the fact that BCD did not block every person he encountered until the acct was desysopped does also help me to believe this. In weighing everything, I too will support an unblock (non-admin that I am). I think BCD (as editor) was a valuable contributor, and hopefully will be again. If unblocked, I suspect BCD will have more people watching over his shoulder than almost any other user. I hope BCD can regain our trust, and an unblock will allow him to do so. Flyguy649talkcontribs 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Flyguy649talkcontribs 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, as I see, do others. Blocking at this point serves no protective purpose and this particular editor has been very constructive in the past and just got carried away, it seems. You can bet they'll be watched like a hawk from here on in. I'm going to wait a while here and be particularly bold and unblock with a heavyweight warning if nobody strenuously objects. This is going to drag on forever if it's not committed to history, and soon. - Alison 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked him. Here's my explanation on his talk page: Given BCD's apology, and absent any compelling evidence he was the original cracker of AndyZ's account, I think it's reasonable to unblock him, and I've done so. Chick Bowen 00:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd still like to know why I was blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He states that in the apology. ViridaeTalk 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I would like to hear that too, using an admins block button is surely against some sort of policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He does mention so half-way or so down under the section titled "Response" on his talk page. --Iamunknown 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you were the 1st person he saw (no excuse I know). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that curiosity gave the cat a near-death experience. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a satisfactory answer. I wasn't even editting at the time of my block (we had a bad thunderstorm and I unplugged everything).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Your name may well have been at the top of an edit history or somesuch. I'm hoping that the guy's first edits on returning will be a full and complete apology to your good self - Alison 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I find the explanation very hard to believe. This explanation was practically fed to him. Even though the perfect opportunity to get unblocked came, he denied it and avoided it for nearly forty-eight hours. He came up with alternate explanations of his own, and made four unblock requests. And now he "admits" to wrongdoing, basically repeating the explanation that was offered earlier. The sequence of events is just so implausible. Ryulong was not online. He has never edited the Main Page. So how on Earth did BuickCenturyDriver (logged in as AndyZ) "find" Ryulong. And why would someone just having fun, testing the admin features block someone indefinitely with a demeaning block reason? Wouldn't Buick, the dedicated vandal-fighter be tame with his new-found discovery? Or at least block an actual vandal? Or do something about the Main Page? I'm sure Buick just wanted his account back so badly that he thought the best thing for him to do was make up a false story. I mean… I don't mind as long as he proceeds to do good. -- tariqabjotu 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. That's certainly plausible, but even if that's true, I wouldn't see any reason to block him again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by bibliomaniac15 (talkcontribs)
So, this is essentially a coerced confession, now?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What it comes down to, for me, is this: we don't have enough to consider him community-banned. What he did was lousy and stupid, and of course Ryulong in particular has ample reason to be thoroughly pissed. But there's no precedent here: if you give admin buttons to someone who doesn't know how to use them, of course they screw up. That's why we have RfA. His confession and apology were coerced and sort of half-hearted, but that's not the issue for me. The issue is that we just don't have enough to block him indefinitely. I considered shortening it instead--maybe I should have. If I did wrong, please don't hesistate to say so, but this is what seemed to me the clearest way out of this. Naturally, people should keep a close eye on him, as I'm sure they will (and I would think under the circumstances the checkusers too should feel able to see what he's up to). Chick Bowen 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
He's not an admin. He'll likely never be an admin, after this stunt. But unless he decides to do it again, he's got a better-than-even chance to become a productive editor again, and if he does screw up, he'll be banhammered so fast his head'll spin. I say unblock (if not immediately, no deadline). -- nae'blis 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If he steps a centimeter out of line, he'll be blocked (and then banned) pretty instantaneously. I don't believe him or trust him, but I don't really see anything to lose by unblocking him now. Grandmasterka 05:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have asked Dmcdevit about this but he is traveling and may not be able to respond for a while. I'm pretty sure that BCD is not the vandal behind the password cracking attempts, but only the checkusers will know for sure. He probably is only guilty of experimenting with AndyZ's password which was exposed in the deletion log. As such, a short block for disruption and a warning is sufficient. (If the checkusers do feel he could be the culprit behind the whole thing, Dmcdevit can reblock when he gets back.) Thatcher131 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Holliston, Massachusetts[edit]

Resolved: done, anon editor blocked now - Alison 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

At Holliston, Massachusetts, there have been 22 vandalistic edits by Can an administrator rollback these edits, please? Cool Bluetalk to me 23:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is 42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line) redirs supposed to exist?[edit]

This isn't an article, but it's in article space. --NE2 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it needs to exist (the history) due to GFDL concerns... Cbrown1023 talk 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What? I see no information here, I just see a bunch of page moves. It started as a redirect, and every single edit has been to modify the redirect. What GFDL concerns are there? --Golbez 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at what I suppose is the reasoning and I still don't get it. The history is merged. The other redirect has no history whatsoever. All of the history of the information is merged onto one page; this "article" can be safely deleted. --Golbez 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the history, it seems very doubtful that any of these edits would be subject to copyright, so there are probably no GFDL concerns. The only version with copyrightable content is a cut-&-paste that was never changed on this page. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All that needs to be done is to move that page to Talk:42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line)/History 1 and put a link to it on Talk:42nd Street-Bryant Park (IND Sixth Avenue Line). Then the new (empty) page in article space can be deleted. This is documented in the deletion guide somewhere. I'll do it in a little while here unless someone else beats me to it. CMummert · talk 03:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I blocked this account indefinitely for recreating an attack page and other vandalism. It seems to have performed several page moves... Could someone have a look and help me fix it? Grandmasterka 05:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moves reverted. Voice-of-All 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

...And handle their unblock request. The attack page was Grace Bonney. Grandmasterka 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He's dealt with, thanks. --Golbez 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Tony the Tiger[edit]

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) has been going around, calling himself Director of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago. I didn't know we had such a title, but apparently they do; and if it makes him happy to push people around there, fine. But now he is singlehandedly insisting on adding Jon Corzine to the purview of the WikiProject, on the grounds that he once attended the University of Chicago. This has been strongly objected to by Alansohn, Grammaticus Repairo (the preceding link was changed from an 'edit link' to what I presume Septentrionalis meant Carcharoth 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)) actually this one, thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC) and myself; but he continually reverts. Not yet to the point of 3RR violation, but could some admin have a word with him? He seems to have an undue appreciation of the power and glory of adminship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my side of the story at TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Also note that this ANI seems to be retaliatory as a result of the post I am directing you to. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Not so; I didn't know it existed. Tony's argument appears to be quite literally that the Project can do whatever it likes, bot-assisted, and any objection is a claim to WP:OWN the project. Perhaps it would be sufficient to call off SatyrBot, which is doing all this pointless tagging. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If this article is going to be tagged by the Chicago Wikiproject, they need to be putting in time and effort expanding and improving the article. If they will do that, I see no good reason not to let them tag the article as coming under their project. I do agree it's a bit of a tenuous link though, but if they're going to help improve the article, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. -- Nick t 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup Nick. We are working with User:SatyrTN and his bot User:SatyrBot just to get our articles tagged. We don't make any promise of editing any one of the 7500 articles tagged by us already or the 5-10,000 or so that will likely soon be tagged on any schedule. We will be using our tags to assess where our efforts are needed and will tag all articles to better assess where we will put our efforts. As I stated, we are currently taking inventory. When we get everything properly tagged then we can assess articles. Then we can determine where our editorial efforts will fall. We will in general help articles we tag, but of course make no promise about any particular article. We welcome any editor who want to contribute to our efforts. Come partake in this week's WP:CHICOTW. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There has recently been significant agreement at Bot approvals that mass tagging with project templets is a dubious use of a bot, and that any such bots ought to be specifically approved for such use. This editing appears to me to be marginal at best. DES (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have seen this coming a mile off. If anyone (in this case, Tony) engages in widespread and rather indiscriminate bot tagging of articles to fall under the "scope" of a WikiProject, they will (quite rightly) rile editors when they get a few false hits. See also the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#WikiProject scope. I would urge Tony, if he must continue with such bot-tagging (and it might be better to stop, given the Bot approvals comment above), to politely remove the WP:WPChi tag if people keep saying that such-and-such articles are not really within the scope of the project, and to reassess his inclusion critera. Carcharoth 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've struck the parts of being "director" of a Wikiproject. Such titles don't make a lot of sense on Wikipedia. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

dispute resolution accepted. I am drafting a neutral statement of the issue at User:TonyTheTiger/DR bot. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I actually asked Tony about this bot job earlier: User_talk:Ccwaters/Archive2007#Chi_athlete_tags. Indiscriminate project tagging has little if no effect on the individual articles. If anything, it waters down the project. That's the project's problem. Its a battle I choose to walk away from. ccwaters 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ron liebman[edit]

  • Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - name conflict with living notable person (see Ron Leibman actor biography) - user account has edited the article about the actor. It may be the actor - anything is possible - but the account is also closely associated with a cloud of New York Library internet access socks (see User:Moe kaplan and associated socks), which is pretty suspicious for a working, active actor. Admin with experience handling username confirmations etc requested to review. Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • From this user's edits to Ron Leibman, this user is apparently someone else with the same name, apparently a baseball statistician or something, which is consistent with their edit pattern. I don't see a real problem here. Let's just make sure the user says they aren't that person. Mangojuicetalk 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know that it's not an impersonator. The whole series of sockpuppet accounts, including a bunch who have been nothing but disruptive, had the same "First last" cap-lowercase username pattern. Another editor believes that this is a serial pattern vandal who tried to impersonate the real Leibman from the start. At least, someone should try and verify that it's really him. Georgewilliamherbert 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Moved this from WP:UAA; if this is wrapped up with a possible sockpuppet situation, it's more complex than what UAA was intended for. I have no problem blocking the account if it's a potentially disruptive sockpuppet, but I think it should be on that basis. Mangojuicetalk 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

List of cuneiform signs[edit]

Could some other admins familiar with our image use policy take a look at the Cuneiform signs uploaded by Mstudt (talk · contribs) for List of cuneiform signs. Mstudt, one of the copyright holders for these signs, has uploaded them granting permission for Wikipedia to use them, but not releasing them under a free license. They have been tagged as "fair use". (Please see Image:B578aellst.png and Image:B333v4ellst.png for randomly selected examples.)

When I informed Mstudt of our policies regarding non-free images and that such images would be considered replaceable, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) expressed concerns regarding my intelligence stating that I am "obviously uncapable" of realizing that we could use these images.

Because it is possible for someone of the requisite skill and determination to produce freely licensed versions of these images, I believe that they do not qualify for fair use under WP:FAIR#Policy #1. Could another admin take a look? Thanks. --BigDT 15:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this an example of an image in question? B006ellst.png (My apologies to anyone running a high resolution, I'm balancing viewability and page usage.) Anynobody 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Iamunknown 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) No, that is not one. It is a public domain one from Commons. --Iamunknown 06:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
They're ok to use1 because the editor created and uploaded them to the commons and released the copyright into the Public Domain{{PD-self}}. (1 Unless you can show that it isn't the editors work, in which case it probably should go). Anynobody 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No they are not, this image is un-free and stored locally (unless I'm missing something, where are these public domain Commons images?). --Iamunknown 06:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

::::You're missing something: go to the image itself, on the preview page below the image it you will see a box that says:This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below.. Follow the link to the commons. Anynobody 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, Fair Use only applies to images with a copyright, when someone could conceivably sue for infringement but for the Fair Use rule. Public Domain is free to use. Anynobody 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you link me to one of the disputed ones? Anynobody 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry didn't see the link right away, yep you're right this technically should go. The author probably should also change the copyright though. Anynobody 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think most of the ones in Mstudt's log are the disputed ones. The uploader is claiming copyright over them (which is fine, though I'm not sure if they are eligible for copyright) but licensing them unfreely. I, however, think that free equivalents could be made and these images thus fail our non-free content policy. --Iamunknown 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at User talk:Dbachmann. Just for background: the uploader is an academic expert on the topic and co-author of the book from which these images were taken. If I understood correctly, she at first planned to make them available free (that's why some were uploaded on commons), but then had second thoughts, apparently because she felt copyrights of her co-authors and/or publisher might be infringed. Now she and dab have been trying to find ways to secure the images and still take her concerns into account. Fut.Perf. 08:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How much information do I need to provide to stop a user from following me to every conversation?[edit]

Resolved: Users advised to disengage for a while

Almost every edit I make, in every conversation, with every person and on every page.. Smee shows up and posts an innocent comment.

I don't want to file something improperly, but I feel that I'm being harassed and stalked. Whether or not it fits the definition of it here, I do not know.

I have asked him pointedly to stop, yet he persists.

Presumably his motives are to get me to tell him to stop, so he can create logs of me making accusations.

But if he would stop.. I wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Its called creating the conflict.

He improperly labeled my 1st (one-time-use) account a sockpuppet, and then only when an admin gave an opinion, did he go back and correct it to something less accusing.

He created a sockpuppet category. He created a suspected sock puppet category.

He reverts my 3O requests. He deletes my article tags. He comes from out of no where and begins editing the exact statements in an article that I'm working on, then he stops editing that article as soon as I leave.

I made an attempt to get an agreement from him, based on civilized conduct, to not delete my article tags, unless he had consensus, 3O, wiki ruling, or my permission, and he repeatedly refused to agree. Yet a 3O opinion was given which supported exactly the agreement I was trying to gain from him.

How much information do I need to provide to make this stop? Lsi john 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I am afraid to even comment here, for fear of further baseless accusations. In any event, it should be noted that where appropriate and possible, when this user has complained, rightly so or not, I have stated that I am willfully refraining from further comment on pages User:Lsi john has commented on. Smee 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
    • See? exactly. He is so enmeshed in this he cant help but place an innocent comment. Check the time stamps on that promise.
    • And please feel free to read the history of my posts today from my user contributions and when you get there, look and see how many times he popped in.. just to say hello or help explain MFD, presumably because an admin/editor wouldn't have been able to explain it himself.
    • I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest he is harassing me, if anyone cares to really look and see all the 'coincidental' and 'helpful' times he enters a conversation.

He's trying to drive me off wiki. I told him when we went to MedCab before, just tell me to leave and I'll leave.

Smee I ask again, just tell me to leave and I'll leave. But otherwise, I really need you to stop harassing me. Lsi john 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please, see my comments to this user on his talk page. I have stated that I will do my best to avoid posting on users' talk pages where this user has previously posted. His claims of "harassment", are incorrect, and inappropriate. Smee 18:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
There's no reason to avoid posting where Lsi john has already posted, and to do so, in fact, would be difficult since Lsi john is posting to many Scientology-related articles where Smee has been posting since long before Lsi john was even a Wikipedia user. Smee does need to, IMHO, tone down his approach to his edits, his talk-page posts, and his automatic reverts, but I don't see any evidence that Lsi john is being harassed or stalked by Smee or by anyone else. wikipediatrix 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For a little more history, folks, please see this conversation on my talk page this morning]] - Alison 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

and [here] and [here] and [here] and [here] for a bit more background.

Some of that is repetition, others of it will contain specific pointers to examples.

And [here] is a specific example of where he repeatedly refused to give what was a simple good faith promise to honor article tags.

This is not a new development. It is an on-going situation of 'polite abuse' and harassment.

Lsi john 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please pick your battles. Although I essentially agree with your analysis of Smee's stubbornly contentious editing, this is not the same thing as "harassing and stalking". The fact remains that Smee is a valuable editor to Wikipedia who has contributed greatly to many Scientology articles, even though he and I often differ on his methodology. wikipediatrix 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • wikipediatrix, coming from you that is most appreciated. Thank you for the kind comments. Smee 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC).


(copied from my talk page. There were accusations of sock-puppetry due to Lsi john having admitted to having more than one account. Smee had previously tagged one as being a sockpuppet of Lsi john [31] - now speedy-deleted)

I've looked over the creation dates and activities of the two accounts in question here and believe there is no case of sockpuppetry to be answered, at least not amongst these two accounts. The username block and the dates make it quite clear that it was a newbie mistake on Lsi john's part. I see this has all moved to WP:ANI again so I'll address it over there - Alison 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Whatever about what happened previously, I felt that Smee's tagging of John's old account was inappropriate as there had already been issues between the two of them at the time and, given the history of both accounts, it's obvious that it was just a poor choice of username, followed by a username block. I'm not sure why Smee did this, but it was bound to annoy John - Alison 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And after clarification from a neutral, previously uninvolved editor in the matter, I tagged the associated category for speedy deletion. Smee 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Smee is a veteran editor. Smee knows the rules very well. Smee knows policy and procedure very well. Yet time and again, Smee has to wait until a 3O is given before he politely reverts his position. It is these repeated events which come together to form harassment on his part. And yes, I have opened AN/I because it has now gotten to bad that he is popping into conversations with admins/editors just to define MFD for me.. as if I needed it.. Its designed to harass and annoy me, not help me. But its nicely worded to look like help. Perhaps its called Gaming the system?
      • By the way, I've offered Smee the opportunity to simply tell me to leave. This isn't about accidental overlap of articles. This is about him intentionally seeking me out and following me around and editing conversations, discussions and articles at the same time I'm there. Not mere coincidence. Lsi john 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It got significantly more pointed after I filed my previous AN/I which I felt that I had to subsequently withdraw in an effort to get him to stop.