Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Hajji Piruz - Unencyclopedic POV[edit]

I would like to request your attention to disturbing and unencyclopedic POV conduct of User:Hajji Piruz. He has recently created a collage image out of two different and unrelated images as admitted here [1]. He is now trying to reinsert this handmade fake as a source in the article Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper. I would like to note here that part of the image is taken without proper copyright permission from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Now Hajji Piruz along with User:Houshyar are trying to push this POV by revert warring in the article. Can you, please, pay attention to this persistent behavior, which is simply unencyclopedic and damaging to the scholarship in Wikipedia. Thanks. Atabek 21:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the pictures are fake, I didnt "hand make" anything. Instaed of uploading two different images, I combined them and uploaded them at the same tim. WHy dont you read the edit summary of the picture: [2]
I cleary said that I created the image using two other images, and I provided the links to both images. Anyway, I undid the collage and it now shows only the protesters. Also, the Image doesnt appear to be copyrighted.Hajji Piruz 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC) unhelpful edits[edit]

Honestly I'm not sure whether this calls for a block, but User: just keeps putting a large dump of source material at Preventive war: see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Warnings on both the article and user talk pages have no effect; 63. seems to think that because Preventive War is poorly sourced and needs some help, it's ok to dump this material on it. ("Sketchy article plus fully referenced, and relevant, quote dump is better than article alone.") It would seem he's actively revert warring elsewhere as well, by the looks of his user contributions page. Perhaps a stern warning from an admin will help -- the guy is editing in good faith, he just doesn't seem to be willing to co-operate at all.

Eleland 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the sockpuppets[edit]

Somebody is creating User IDs at a fast rate to vandalize Ravioli and David Oreck. I would ask for page protection, but what we really need is IP address blocks for this guy. Besides the IP addresses that he has used to hit the articles, he's also used:

Corvus cornix 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

sProtected the pages. Will blcok any of the reported vandals in a sec with autoblock on. ViridaeTalk 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

kinda knowling making false accusations of sockpuppetry Personal attacks[edit]

[[kinda]] has made several accusations of my being a sock puppet, despite knowing that this is not true. I believe this is a Personal attack and would like it to stop. See the following diff:

  1. [[8]]
  2. [[9]]

See previous warning at: [[10]]

Previous check into sockpuppet accustion unfounded: [[11]].

DPetersontalk 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:A spade is a. Parts of User:DPeterson's user-page are copy and pasted from User:AWeidman, they have never disagreed with each other on any issue, and both make characteristic errors (eg., his inability to make proper external links, as seen above, and his inability to bold text without leaving extraneous apostrophes) ~[[kinda]] 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to make a complaint about potential sock puppets then please use the proper forums. Do not make unproven charges of sock puppetry in article talk pages as an ad hominem attack on an editor acting in good faith. Given that the charge has already been disproven by checkuser, making the same claim over and over seems to be more like a personal attack then an attempt at problem resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser can only determine whether the same IP is used by both accounts, not whether they're sockpuppets. DPeterson's IP is in close proximity to the clinic which User:AWeidman owns. ~[[kinda]] 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, stop repeating the charge on article talk pages. And since AWeidman doesn't edit the articles that you're engaged with it doesn't effect you significantly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:S-man wishes to return to Wikipedia[edit]

First let me say that since I'm semi-active I'm taking no further action here except to bring this situation to your attention. As I type this I am dealing with stress and massive pain in my head, so this may come out weird. Here it goes.

S-man (talk · contribs · email) just shot me an E-mail earlier tonight with a wish to return to Wikipedia. He proceeded to explain that the "vandalism project" (what The Anome blocked him for) was merely a joke and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He was very apologetic for his actions and understands what he was blocked for. He wants a second chance and if he messes up just once this time then he's willing to be indefed.

Now here's the other thing. He claims Pizzachelle is his aunt. Take a look at the history page and you'll find that that's probably too good to be true. Same goes for BikeDog, whom he claims is his dad, but maybe not. It wouldn't hurt to poke a checkuser to see if this guy is legit. He is 10 years old and didn't deny that.

So, do what you do best. Reach a decision here. -Pilotguy hold short 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks to me like the user is too young/immature to really understand the project. Unblocking seems unwise. -N 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't he just create another account, never associate himself with the S-man one, and act in a proper way? Unblocking will be much more drama-enticing than that, and I'm sure he'd rather come back under a new name. His block was in August last year, so it's not "recent" either. Daniel 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


User:Gon4z has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia on June 12th for ongoing disruption, creating blatant copyright violations, incivility, worsening behaviour, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behaviour. Now he is back and editing under the IP address: and keeping up his disruptive behaviour including his insults and threats to other users! see here. Also he is trying to hide behind a non-existent user, by overwriting his IP by with a link to the non-existent user:NC. Furthermore the articles constantly vandalized by him (Serbian Air Force, Military of Albania, Template:Infobox National Military Albania, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, List of Albanian Air Force aircraft, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Land Forces Command, ... ) have now all been vandalized anew, with exactly the same Albanian-nationalistic, pro islamic and anti Serbian bias Gon4z displayed before his block. i. e. Gon4z edit and edit. Therefore I request that the IP rapidly be blocked indefinitely too.--noclador 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: he is now deleting the block notices regarding him from OTHER useres pages! see here! noclador 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Gon4z again. Blocked 24 hours to stop disruption. Don't want to block an IP for any longer and it doesn't look like a proxy address - Alison 06:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wildscreen and[edit]

Could I get a couple of additional admins to look at this. Either I overreacted, or we have a serious long term spam-link situation here. The mentioned user was adding links to the same site to many articles. A regular sign of spamming. I reverted the links and gave the user a warning. A search of the link shows the site is linked to already on a *lot* of pages. Some by this user a while back, misc others by other users. A look at the page shows a conservation site. Not a for-profit organization, but they do have prominent Donate Now type links around their page. I'm not a spam expert, and this is not quite the obvious case it appeared to be at first glance. Or maybe it is such a case, and all the links need to be removed. Anyway, I was hoping a couple of others could take a look at the situation and give their $0.02. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a clear case of WP:COI and attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but the pages aren't the most objectionable spam I've seen (the donate links are tiny and not the main focus of the pages by any means). We run into the same problems with people going around mass adding NNDB and various wikis and so forth... The sites have some info, but don't seem to have any reason to be as linked as they end up getting linked, and fail WP:EL on the "sites that don't have as much info as the existing Wikipedia article or what the article should have if it were improved" criteria, on top of the self-promotion problems. As a general concept I remove all these when I run across them, but each has pretty dedicated people pushing them back in later. All of these seem to be a calculated attempt to exploit Wikipedia for their own purposes, probably out of good faith (thinking the info is good, etc.), but still. DreamGuy 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(and is it just me, or does the part about the "nofollow" tag in the standard warning about linkfarming strike anyone else as pretty naive and/or deceptive... I don't know if it's from Wikipedia mirrors not using nofollow tags or just Google loving Wikipedia in general, but any link added to Wikipedia can expect a substantial jump in Google ranking and hits. It's just a fact, and that's why we need to patrol these things. DreamGuy 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It's linked from 580 articles - now they might be in good faith and they might add something to the articles - who wants to take a look at each of them :-) --Fredrick day 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
From what I have gleamed from some of the articles that have the site as a reference, it doesn't seem like a problem. Being a part of WP:CVU and regular member of the WP:SPAM mIRC chat room, I have a basic check list I use when investigating spam. I check if the link is a reference or merely an external link. Then, I look for in-your-face advertising on said link. In this case, all I can see is a small donate link. Next, I look at their “about us” page, to see if they are for-profit. This page states “ARKive is a not-for-profit initiative of Wildscreen (, a UK-based charity, whose mission is ‘to promote the conservation of nature and public appreciation of biodiversity, through the power of wildlife imagery’.” If there is something about this I am missing, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t see the site as a problem here. Perhaps to some users and IPs that insert these links, they see these as the best available references. I do the same thing with All Music Guide and for my various WP:ALBUM and musical artist pages. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Summary of opinions then. The site itself is not bad, and no real need for wholesale removal. When inserted on a one by one basis, the link is likely fine. But the mass insertion by User:Wildscreen was inappropriate, and at a minimum an attempt to promote using WP, and so I was correct in reverting/warning this user. Does that sound about right? - TexasAndroid 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I now see your problem. As you describe it, whenever such an incident occurs when I am watching recent changes or the mIRC spam channel, I flash revert and warn the user that adding so many links at one time is unwise and shows an agenda. Also, on a personal side note, adding links to pages that are solely pictures and/or movies is a no-no, since those pieces of media may be subject to copyrighting, even if not uploaded to Wikipedia. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This external link was added previously to other articles and then discussed on the talk of WP:TOL and accepted as valid. I am restoring the links. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've utilized the link on a few articles to improve the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
If you were not an established user, I would be giving you a spam warning right now, Uther. Reverting all those spam links is rewarding the spammer. The spammer was placing the links in to promote the site. If it is added one by one into articles, it is not a problem. If it is added in mass to multiple articles at a time, it is WP:SPAM. WP:SPAM specifically prohibits the mass adding of links as was done. By mass revererting to reinsert the link, you are yourself now the spammer. - TexasAndroid 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
To expand a little, how the heck are we supposed to tell Wildscreen that what he did was spam and improper, while at the same time Uther gets to revert all the spam links right back in, and that's supposed to be acceptable? The mass adding of the links is improper, and is spamming, no matter who does it. It's worse for Wildscreen, because of WP:COI issues on top of the spamming, but what Uther has done is still spamming the project. - TexasAndroid 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TexasA here; these links shouldn't be added back in. I accept as a valid reference but the manner in which these particular ones were added in bulk and the nature of the link (possible copyrighted images and videos), and these links placed above all other links on said pages shows me these shouldn't be in the external links section. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And where was that discussion at WP:TOL Uther? I couldn't find it. Also, I have just noticed that Wildscreen is the "UK-based charity" that is based on (I know, I mentioned it above but didn't put two and two together until now), so this is a huge WP:COI. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is on Archive 17 of the WP:TOL talk. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So what now? The spam links are currently still in the articles, as I did not want to get into a back and forth revert war over this, but I still feel strongly that the spammer has been rewarded for their actions by allowing their links to remain. This whole thing is a little grey. I *think* I would be justified by WP:SPAM to continue reverting Uther, removing the spam links again, but is this whole thing worth edit warring over? Sigh. I just don't know. - TexasAndroid 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will support you to revert. The archived discussion at WP:TOL deals only with links that are directly beneficil to an article. Wildscreen's WP:COI edits are adding links to images and videos, which are most likely copyrighted. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. The user is back and doing it again. I am reverting all edits as spam. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image tags[edit]

Dm2ortiz has uploaded a large number of fair-use images without providing any fair use rationales, despite the fact that this requirement has been explained. I tagged his images with {{nrd}}, but he is currently removing all these tags with an edit summary of "vandalism". Dm2ortiz has been unresponsive to my previous attempts to communicate with him, so I am looking for advice as to what to do next. Cheers --Pak21 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you notified the uploader when the images were tagged, though it is hard to tell with users who blank their talk pages. Do that and also mention to them that the tags should not be removed until the issues have been resolved. If that doesn't work, come back and someone will probably block. If you've already passed this step, just supply some diffs here. --After Midnight 0001 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There is this version of the user's talk page, where I have been over this with various other images, and the need for rationales has been explained on their current talk page as well. Given this comment by the user, I'm not sure that my comments would be accepted. Restore the tags and leave a message for the user anyway? Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've left a message and rolled back some edits. --After Midnight 0001 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Dm2ortiz again removed the rationale from Image:Conan logo.gif and added a rationale to Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg which made no attempt to explain why an 800 pixel wide image was needed. I again tagged these articles and left a query on the user's talk page, but these have been reverted as "vandalism" and the user has responded with {{User DGAF}}. I don't see what else I can do here. Cheers --Pak21 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not ready to block the user, yet, so try one more thing first. Please treat this as an editing dispute and list the image(s) in question at IFD. This will result in review of the image which you aren't going to get with the other tags being removed. Also, the user can not remove the IFD tag before the issue is resolved or they will be formally warned and blocked for sure. --After Midnight 0001 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. (I've listed the two images above; the size problem applies to many of this user's images, but I don't see the need in flooding IfD with many nominations at this point). Cheers --Pak21 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the user finally began to understand what was being asked of him. The user has added fair-use rationales to images which were requesting it. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he is both still not addressing the size issue, and is now nominating Image:Ultramarines Dreadnought.jpg (which I uploaded) for deletion as well. WP:POINT in spades? --Pak21 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean; as a rule, I feel album covers should be of a low resolution, ala All Music Guide, and not full blown scan as looks closer to what you got here. Having a high resolution is a no-no acording to WP:NFCC 3(b). So, yeah, in summation, I think your tagging the images for deletion based on them being high resolution is valid. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I request an admin to look at User:Dm2ortiz's actions soon-ish? User:Remember the dot uploaded a reduced size version of Image:I8 Ravager of Time.jpg, but Dm2ortiz has reverted this change, and he is now reverting User:After Midnight's changes as well. Thanks --Pak21 13:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merope blocked the user for making a legal threat. --After Midnight 0001 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford[edit]

Mandrake of Oxford AfD[edit]

Hello. I wondered if it'd be possible for an admin to look in to this AfD discussion because the situation appears to be degenerating with allegations of this, that, and the other. I nominated the article for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph, was promptly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Emnx by User:IPSOS, am currently being subject to a checkuser request by User:GlassFET - both of whom edit the article - and now there are allegations against another user in support of the AfD nomination of the same sort, and a counter allegation by that individual of abuse of process. This all seems a bit much. I am also wondering if simply holding a position in disagreement to another user is enough to warrant allegations of sockpuppetry etc. This, to me, seems to verge on a personal attack and is certainly a failure to assume good faith. Before the discussion gets any worse I wondered if someone might look into it...? ColdmachineTalk 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sockpuppetry by blocked user Emnx[edit]

There appears to be continuing sockpuppetry over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford. There is one user (Coldmachine) which appears to be an account which predates Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another newly created (Arthana). The evidence is fairly strong. The history of Emnx is repeated attempts to delete Mandrake of Oxford, the latest using sockpuppet SKRINE2. Here is a highlight and link to full evidence for each user:

How much more obvious does it have to be to get some action taken? IPSOS (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. I have nothing to do with these people, cool it down and cease with the personal attacks. I came across the article while looking through your edit history after you reverted edits without discussion on the Dune (novel) article, and I happened to agree that the Mandrake of Oxford article GlassFET created, and which you edited, should be deleted. I nominated it for the same reasons. Sockpuppetry allegations are a huge leap to make from mere agreement with another user. Note I have not accused you and GlassFET of being meatpuppets and yet there is ample evidence for that too: the reason being that I am assuming good faith. Quit persecuting me, and cease your personal attacks. This sort of case is precisely the reason why your participation on wikipedia has proven so controversial to date (judging from your talk pages, and edit history). ColdmachineTalk 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I should also add, I made the decision to make an overt comment on the user talk page of User:Emnx to make it clear that I do not support this users behaviour or attitude towards the AfD, and to distance myself from this individual.
One further note. I refer you (again) to a decision made by an admin here in which it was made clear that "...the case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)". You persist in these false allegations: I can only assume therefore that these are personal attacks as part of some vendetta you hold against me for merely holding a different view than your own. ColdmachineTalk 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note: a checkuser request has been placed, which I think is an appropriate next step (as I didn't find convincing circumstantial evidence as to sockpuppetry here). Let's disengage for a bit; the checkuser request will hopefully be resolved in the next 12-24 hours, and the AfD will close when it closes. MastCell Talk 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results[edit]

The result is "likely" for both accounts, Coldmachine and Arthana. Any suggestions? MaxSem 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One will want to take into account this RfC file by Coldmachine. Coldmachine and Arthana were working together on several retaliatory filings. GlassFET 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The most damning link I've found is that Arthana's account was created 26 minutes before Coldmachine asked about re-opening the AFD. I'm pretty confident these are socks.--Chaser - T 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Good find, I hadn't noticed that. GlassFET 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin action needed with respect to a couple of likely socks[edit]

Starting with Emnx (currently blocked for 3 months), there has been repeated disruption over Mandrake of Oxford including multiple attempts to delete it by sockpuppets. The latest checkuser results show that two more users currently engaging in the same disruptive pattern are likely sockpuppets of Emnx. These users, Coldmachine and Arthana have not yet been blocked. As Coldmachine started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (incorrectly reusing the old AfD page), it should be speedily closed as well. IPSOS (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by Coldmachine[edit]

I am being harrassed by Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in retaliation for filing a reasonable checkuser case, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx, which shows that it is likely that Coldmachine is the same as blocked user Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can someone look into whether a block of the two socks and extension of Emnx's block is appropriate? GlassFET 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Final nail[edit]

Arthana just tried to speedy Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IPSOS using {db-author}. Page was actually authored by Coldmachine. This looks like an admission to me. GlassFET 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I have indef blocked Arthana and Coldmachine, because both Checkuser and the evidence given in this thread show that they are likely socks of User:Emnx. I welcome review of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just closed the third suspected sockpuppetry file in preparation to block both myself.--Chaser - T 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I went back and forth on this, as I've been previously involved in a sockpuppet investigation involving Coldmachine. I'm glad to see more admin eyes on the case. I agree with the indefinite blocks; I think that the combination of circumstantial evidence (good find on the account creation times; I hadn't picked up on that during my prior investigation), overlap in editing patterns, use of db-author, and checkuser results combine to make a pretty compelling argument that these are socks. The question, then, is what to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (2nd nomination). It was closed (properly, based on outside editors' consensus) as delete; but the nomination itself was made by a sockpuppet. I'd speedy-closed the first AfD when it became clear it was a bad-faith nom by a sockpuppet; now we have another sockpuppet nom, but a consensus from uninvolved editors to delete. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I think it was the right decision to delete the article based on that single source, and Akhilleus (who closed) feels the same. Deletion review would probably be friendly to another round at AFD, and getting it deleted (or kept) with a clean AFD wouldn't hurt either.--Chaser - T 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I lean toward agreeing with you and Akhilleus on the appropriateness of the delete outcome; my concerns were primarily procedural. You're right, deletion review would be the proper way to address any further concerns. MastCell Talk 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the block of Emnx to one year, not only for block evasion, but also for harassment of IPSOS and GlassFET. MaxSem 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)



Diluvien continues to edit or delete content from articles related to gothic subculture to force them in line with his POV, and accuses those who try to discuss it with him on his talk page of being idiots. He's already been blocked once for personal attacks and disregarding revert rules.--Halloween jack 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for two weeks by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I noticed that this is the user's fourth block in less than one month. If when the user returns after two weeks and continues actions, I suggest you consider taking this to WP:CN for a permanent ban. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Diluvien has already tried to circumvent the block by using different IPs twice. See my recent reverts to edits made by two unregistered IPs. --Halloween jack 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Your edits are crap and taken without any investigation. -- 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It didn't take much investigation to find that the above edit is an exact duplicate of the last edit on Diluvien's talk page. He's not even attempting to conceal his block evasion and daring the admins to do anything about it.

I see that the IP range seems to be … it may be plausible to request a range block here. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour at WP:CHU[edit]

Hello, I think someone may be monitoring WP:CHU and intentionally creating accounts and making an edit in them so they cannot be renamed or usurped, earlier today I requested as name change at CHU for: The Sunshine Man to Qmt and it was not registered at the time, it was created just a few hours ago, then User:Bealljoh requested a rename to 5minuteautoloan where the account was only created a few hours ago too, its as if someone is doing this in order to intentionally destroy the chances of people being re-named. The Sunshine Man 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave a note somewhere around WP:CHU explaining that someone is violating WP:DICK and urge the bureaucrats to allow these new accounts to be usurped. Checkuser might be worthwhile if you want to flush out whoever is doing it. – Steel 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally name changes are honored if the name did not exist when the request was filed, and logs exist to show this. Make a note on your request and on talk:CHU. A couple of bureaucrats have checkuser; if it's some IP he could be briefly blocked; if its a regular editor, he needs a stern talking to at the least. Thatcher131 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
'Crats discussed this here and decided they would treat it as disruption and block accordingly.--Chaser - T 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As a little update... 'Crats are renaming the distruptive accounts, so the the reqeusted name can be usurped and the user be renamed. Anyways, that is what I understood from the discussion... Evilclown93(talk) 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The accound I requested, User:Qmt could possible be usupred although it has an edit, if the user page is deleted then the edit will go with it so that would mean to keep the block log clear and there would then be no contribs, that may mean it could be usurped. The Sunshine Man 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That also is possible, and the above solution is for mainspace edits. --Evilclown93(talk) 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Sarah777[edit]

I am being harassed by User:Sarah777. While there was already some history between us, this current phase happened following an AfD for an article she created as a POV fork of British Isles. Following that, she blames me and promised to another user to hold a grudge against me. (This diff is a particularly humorous example of her choice of attitude towards me, as is this one.) In a subsequent banning (for attacking the admin that blocked her for 3RRing the AfD'd article), she was released from the block on agreeing to "even forgive Sony" and removed what she called "anti-sony-ism" (and what she called "sony's anti-sarah-ism") from her talk page.

From then until after the weekend, I did not edit wikipedia. Upon returning, I made some posts to Talk:British Isles (in exchange with another user). Sarah replied to these saying that my objection to her fork ruined my credibility. I removed this as a personal attack, and she reposted it in a more civil tone. I responded saying that the AfD has been decided by WP:SNOW and that it had been a "universal" decision. She took objection to this and warned me that "We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice." While I was away, a proposal to move the Irish Potato Famine article had been made. This had been by Sarah - however, I do object to the move, I voted as such. A moment later, Sarah moved the article citing WP:SNOW and "universal" consensus, a clear reference to our exchange just previous. When other editors told her that this was in appropriate, she said that the rules "ALWAYS appear to favour the holocaust deniers like Sony." Subsequent posts in agreement with me were responded by her naming me as part of a cabal against her. She responded to my posts by attempting to blacken my posts as sarcasm and incivility, stalking. Apart from being untrue, in each of these, she took the approach of quoting policy - a cause of annoyance to her during the build up to her creating the fork that was AfD'd.

I warned her twice (here and here). The last of these she removed as "vindictive nonsense" and placed a similar notice on my page and went to User:Gaillimh claiming that I was threatening her. (I saw this only while going through her contribs. while collecting diffs for here.) I am especially concerned to see the problem resolved as issues with Sarah's behaviour are long standing. An informal RfC was opened after the forking incident. That was responded with concern about her before being cut short. She has harassed User:Bastun and at least one long-term editor (User:Djegan) has left Wikipedia because of her behaviour. I have in the past attempted to discuss matters with her, but to no avail. --sony-youthpléigh 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Djegan - my bad, it would actually appear not. I've just looked through his contribs and, contrary to my assertions, he's actually alive and well. I just hadn't see him since this, "Note to serious editors: get out while you can", which was around the time he posted his leaving note on his user page. --sony-youthpléigh 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have created a request for comments concerning the conduct of Sarah777. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777. --sony-youthpléigh 09:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Treaties[edit]

Dear Administrator

It is unfortunate that several entries on Mutual Defence Alliances and Treaties from the Nineteenth Century have been deleted. An example of such is the "Treaty of Melbourne", it may be helpful for me to note that these entries were present at least a fortnight ago on the "List of Treaties" entry. They were extremely useful in proving the true nature of late nineteenth century diplomacy, a topic ususally covered in history studies at secondary schools and consequently these articles were advantageous to study. There were about 5-10 of these articles, some were stubs. However I consider the posting of entries only on the more well-known treaties to present a lop-sided view, which Wikipedia I am sure does not intend.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2007-06-13 23:35:03

  • Please consult the talk or discussion page of the article you are concerned with, as well as the edit summaries in the article history, to see if any reasons were given for the removal of the information you believe should be included. If you disagree with the reasons, or if no reasons were given, you should raise the matter on the talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. Happy editing. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)[edit]

  • (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) almost every edit has been a reversion or an edit that has caused an edit war. Has been given a final warning already. He is back on reverting multiple articles Falsely states wikipolicy, as in youtube links when one prominant article Alpha Phi Alpha used youtube links [12]. Has been brought to AIV already [13] Almost all of his edits are reverts or large deletions. BoriquaStar 00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't look at all the youtube links removed from that article, but if it was copywritten material in those links or it was unclear if the uploader had permission to post the video there, per WP:EL those should have been removed.--Isotope23 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm crazy... but after looking through's contributions I'm more inclined to give him a barnstar than a warning or block. Vandalism removal? reversion of unsourced negative material? Looks like 74 is doing a great job... Am I missing something here?--Isotope23 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you look at the youtube links? There was no copyright. His reversions or deletions on street gang Dominicans Don't Play have left the article with almost 90% missing. I was placing fact tags on the article and changing things on the article. Take a look at not just his reversions, but also the edit warring that it has led to in many articles. BoriquaStar 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure songs are copyrighted unless released into the public domain. Every single edit I've checked by this user, especially on the article in question, appear to be accurate. --Haemo 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm the anon that the vandal is complaining about. I removed the youtube links because a 15 second glance at any of them demonstrate that they violate copyrights (through images and music), not to mention the fact that videos of someone throwing up gang signs over a 2pac beat adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of an article. With respect to removing chunks of the gang article he continues to edit, 90% of the references that he use don't support the content that is added, 5% use blogs or other disreputable sources, and he blatantly fabricates information that have nothing to do with the sources. I'm not going to add citation requests to content that he's clearly making up. All I've asked is that he use proper references, and he refuses, the fabrication continues and a glance at any of the sources he uses will support my statements. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a place for high school students to promote obscure gangs with incorrect references. 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am from from a high school student and as i placed on the talk page i'll place here as well. New York Times, New York Daily News, and New York Post aren't obscure sources or dispreputable sources.

The Boston Incident "While the victim has no ties to a gang, the suspects are in a gang called Dominicans Don't Play, or DDP, and it's believed that the victim had an earlier problem with a person in the gang or affiliated with it," [Joe Pesaturo] said. After numerous interviews, and with the help of T cameras, transit police Lt. Mark Gillespie and Detectives Daniel O'Toole and Brian Harer determined the identities of the suspects, Pesaturo said. The T has installed hundreds of cameras in the past two years."
Union Square first incident
Coney Island
Brawl at Times Square.. has fact tags.. feel free to remove.. Pelham Prep is a mirror of New York Post
Monroe DDP has fact tags.. feel free to remove
Potential for expansion has fact tags. Feel free to remove.
Spain "Rooted in well-established gangs among Hispanic populations in North and Latin America, groups such as the Latin Kings, the Netas (the Newborns), the Forty Twos, the Chicagos or even the bizarrely named Dominicans Don't Play, have made swift inroads among the city's rocketing immigrant population",,1922745,00.html+dominicans+don%27t+play+gang&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us
1,300 active members Rivalries.. there are some fact tags some are documented. BoriquaStar 04:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Since this is obviously not an AN/I case, and seeing as you both are now talking on each others' talk pages, may I suggest you move things there rather than duplicating it on here? Thanks - Alison 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What about his edit warring and near 3rr violation (off by 1 hour) by using Sockpuppets (2 ip address) on 13 June 2007 and 14 June
1) 2) 3) 4) BoriquaStar 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • You guys all look like you need a break. Edit commentaries like this and this are highly inappropriate. My immediate instinct here is to fully protect Chicano rap until you all sort it out on the talk page. Like I said already, that guy is providing plenty of discussion on the talk page for his deletions - Alison 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even on Chicanorap, but I looked at his user contributions I saw "revert vandalism - you couldn't block me if you wanted to because any wikipedia admin can see that you're adding unsourced info to an article that has remained correct for years." I'm on the DDP page, and am providing pletny of sources such as New York Times, Daily News, New York Post, WABC, and he says they aren't notable. How are major television news and newspapers not notable? BoriquaStar 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The page history for DDP shows a well-documented content dispute, far as I can see here. Am I wrong here? - Alison 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well IP user seems to be engaging in mulitple edit wars on different articles. what he considers important is far less than what many others consider to be important. Everything that is documented about a major international gang with a presense in the United States, Dominican Republic, and Spain from major Newspapers and Gov websites aren't proper to him. I'm going to wait and see what he says. I'm also going to see if a consensus can be reached. This though does make it right for him to engage in 3rr violations and edit warring. BoriquaStar 05:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not "right for him to engage in 3rr violations and edit warring". Has he done that? - Alison 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I only made one report. [14] . I'm going to wait for a consensus. Possibly request an RFC. An organized gang and crime organization isn't going to document every crime they commit. The key is denial. Same thing with the Mafia. Everything is alleged, which is what I've placed in the article. Some sources state things like "there is an investigation into a link with the DDP" etc BoriquaStar 06:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I've spent a ridiculous amount of time explaining every single last edit on talk pages, that speaks for itself. Its not too much to ask that people add proper sources for their additions, and that those sources actually reflect the content added. 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There really is nothing here that requires any admin intervention.--Isotope23 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot auto deletes a valuable and valid link[edit]

in this page, under the external links, shadowbot is auto deleting links of '' , which is a valid and correct link, as it is a website providing information,diaries, doctors comments, doctors informations for patients undergoing Distraction osteogenesis.

the block was initiated by a jealous rival website 'make me taller'. similar link such as 'make me taller'website has been allowed to be posted under external links

please allow for the proboard website to removed from the block and restored as its a valuable source of information

No, see WP:RS and WP:EL Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

randomhero forum is meant for patients under going distraction osteogenesis to interact freely, hence, falling under external links..for ppl who do the procedure to visit and share. it should not be placed under reliable source of information it is discussion forum, ppl are free to express their own opinions

there are a lot of scientific studies and doctor's statement inside used for information, the moderator has emailed and consulted with doctors for their information before posting in official threads. the information provided are being kept as close to accurate and scientific as possible as far as moderator is concerned. it is a reliable source of information.

The board can't be used, regardless of its veracity, because its contributors are anonymous and posts there are like quicksilver - both failures of WP:RS. Even if the information there is accurate, we cannot use it. -Jeske (v^_^v) 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


User:Esmehwp is following me around and reverts all my edits, simply stating "rvt blanking by ultramarine" I have pointed out Wikipedia:Harassment on his talk page but he just deletes it.Ultramarine 05:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • ultramarine is consistently blanking out other people's work if that work does not sit well with his America should rule the world ideology I invite anyone to look at his behaviour on WP he is a diruptive all round bias creating deleting machine IF ultramarine only adds to articles without deleting other peoples work I will not trevert his edits however if he continues to delte other's work i will have to protect those people's workEsmehwp 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • by adding I don't mean adding words into other people's sentences to change their meaning, I mean add seperate sentences, basically don't be evil if you add information even if it is total BS I won't touch it but when you delete other peoples work to slant article's to suit ur own ideology and dogma (USA is the best country in the world) I won't let you I've had enough of you ruining WP I am going to watch you everyday from now on.Esmehwp 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The above speaks for itself. Esmehwp continues to follow me, calling everything I do "blanking".Ultramarine 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are an admin and are reading this I am begging you please go through this guys full record and see what damage he does to WP before making a decision, I don't want to fight this guy I just want an admin to have a GOOD look at what he has done please read my comment on user:brownhairedgirlEsmehwp 06:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you disagree, add your own material with sources. Do not follow mw around and simply delete all of my edits without explanation.Ultramarine 06:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • don't talk to me I won't reply I've seen what you doEsmehwp 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Dispute resolution, thanks. Daniel 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately he makes no such attempt. He just continues reverting my edits, calling everything "blanking".Ultramarine 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • can not resolve dispute this case needs someone willing to look at how this guy deletes other peoples work please read my letter on user:BrownHairedGirl talk pageEsmehwp 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have explained all my edits carefully, you just follow my edit history and reverts them without explanation.Ultramarine 07:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep repeating yourself I don't care.Esmehwp 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also makes a personal attack and encourages another editor to not try to resolve disputes by talking.[15]Ultramarine 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • he has never worked through consensus, he has a pattern of behaviour, talking to him is a waste of time.Esmehwp 07:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yet another personal attack.Ultramarine 07:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Administrators' noticeboard is not the place for this. However, when this comes to dispute resolution, don't be suprised, Esmehwp, when people point to this edit as evidence that you are, indeed, regarding every edit made by Ultramarine as "blanking" without any regard for the actual substance of the edits. Also don't be surprised when people note that you have made zero contribution to the discussion of this edit on Talk:Freedom House, whilst other editors have, have made pretty much zero contributions to the talk pages of any of the articles where you are edit-warring, and have stated that you refuse to engage in discussion with the other editor. Talk pages are there for a reason. Use them. Uncle G 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned user evading block[edit]

Resolved: one IP blocked. Other should be possibly watched.

User: and User: (and various other IPs in the same range) keeps blanking IP talk pages,edit warring and being abusive in edit summaries. He has admitted to being User:Recoome. IP keeps changing but the range is the same (New Zealand). I am not reverting any more edits he makes as I do not want to get blocked. Anything to be done?--The internet is serious business 10:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism does not count under WP:3RR. Revert and warn. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (not logged in)
Blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours for abusive edit summaries and personal attacks, as this is the only IP used to edit in article space. If other IP's in the range continue to be a problem, come back and we could consider a range block. MastCell Talk 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blatant and unapologetic uncivility[edit]

Resolved: Nearly Headless Nick has blocked this editor

Can someone please block Dharmabum420? His recent messages left for other editors are completely unacceptable and he or she knows it (And please direct all [[WP:CIVIL]] style responses into your father's loose asshole, since I could give a fuck.). --ElKevbo 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Despatched. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Journal Copyrights[edit]

Dchambers101 (talk · contribs) started a number of articles on scientific journals. All that I looked at are published by Wiley, and all have their text taken almost directly from I've tagged 4 pages with {{db-copyvio}}, but have to go now so can't tag the rest. Can one of you people take a look at it? Many thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

First Time User[edit]

Hi, I have been working very hard to create my first wikipedia page. Seeing as I have never done this before, I have made a couple of mistakes on the copyright information about my uploaded photos and text in my article. I have all the copyrights to everything I have put up on my article; yet, due to improper citing I have been accused of plagiarsm. I would really like to fix this misunderstanding, but my page keeps getting deleted before I get a chance to and now I see it is protected so I can not even start it again correctly. I have worked very hard to try to get my page up, and it is very frustrating that the reason all of my work has been deleted is due to my lack of experience, and not plagiarism. I'm sorry for this confusion but I would really like the chance to fix my page so it complies with wikipedia standards. I would sincerely appreciate any help you could give me. Jororo 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with your article but this is not the place to talk about them. Thatcher131 15:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an Administrator so I can't see what you have done. But if you own the copyrights to something, then you should consider licensing it under the GFDL or compatible license. Same goes for your images. This is so that any Tom, Dick or Harry cannot go round saying, "I own the copyright of so-and-so page." x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if we've bitten too much. I suggest checking out WP:1ST, and if you need help, gonig to the help desk. People are very willing to help there. Finally, you can create an article in your namespace if need be. The Evil Spartan 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Need an outside admin's review re: blocking an abusive IP[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked by User:Isotope23.

Hi. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is on a roll today with edits like these: [16], [17], [18] (see edit summary). This is a static IP used by Revolver (talk · contribs), an editor who is strongly convinced that HIV does not cause AIDS, and with a long history of just this sort of abusive editing. I'm inclined to block the IP for 48 hours or so to stem the tide, but as I've been involved in AIDS denialism articles and crossed paths with this editor before (and it's just possible that being called a DUMBASS, in all caps, has penetrated my armor of self-esteem and affected my judgement), I'd prefer an outside admin to comment and do what they think is appropriate. Thanks. MastCell Talk 16:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 4 days. He is apparently intent on continuing his history of personal attacks despite earlier warnings. Maybe the weekend will cool him off.--Isotope23 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... the weather's getting pretty nice, so maybe you're right. The history's not encouraging, though. Anyhoo, thanks for the quick response and sanity check; much appreciated. MastCell Talk 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, even ignoring the possibility that this is Revolver (talk · contribs) (and I did because frankly I don't know enough about the history of that editor to know if this IP = Revolver) the IP's edits bear watching. 4 days will prevent further attacks for a few days. If they return with the same sort of behavior after the block expires then we can look at where to go from there.--Isotope23 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR request left unattended[edit]

Resolved: 3RR-violating sockpuppets and sockmaster blocked.

I filed a 3RR request a few days ago at WP:AN/3RR. Could I get someone to look at it please? I think no one's looked at it because I had the bad sense to be snipy with the person normally watching the board. Also, in that request, it will be important to note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lft6771, in which the result was confirmed. The Evil Spartan 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 3RR is a bit stale, but I've blocked the abusive sockpuppets which checkuser confirmed, and blocked the puppetmaster (User:Lft6771) for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts to edit-war and circumvent 3RR. Does that work for everyone? MastCell Talk 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks fair - just let it be clear, that the user needed no warning - he had 4 blocks on his old account, as confirmed by the checkuser.
PS. this was in response to your comment at AN/3RR: and the warning post-dates the last revert. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I wouldn't have held that against the 3RR report since the checkuser made clear this is a veteran. Maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned it. Anyhoo, please report any additional abuse if it becomes a problem. MastCell Talk 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute removed from AIV[edit]

Two users tried to have each other blocked, but they're engaged in some sort of content dispute. Can someone look into this? Here's what I removed:

  • Onyx86 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) User is personally attacking me and others, plus blanking pages, removing test, writing sort of silly comments and generally degrading wiki (even saying that all of us at Wiki should be ashamed of ourselves?) Mrtobacco 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mrtobacco (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) This user has a history of advertising for HBI products on this and other websites. I have tried bringing this matter to the communities attention. Now he has filed a complaint against me, saying that I am the one adding products advertisements, and vandalising pages. If the logs will be checked, you will see what I mean about him being a shill for HBI. He even created the HBI International wiki page, and has been accused by several other wikipedians that he work for HBI. Onyx86 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Help me, I've got someone really personally attacking me[edit]

Resolved: user apologized and hopefully the matter is fully resolved

The user [user:Onyx86] is a new writer who is putting up many posts personally attacking me and accusing me of varous shills and such. User says that all of my posts are designed as shills, and makes some very bald accussations without founding. I have worked very hard to build the entire Roll-Your-Own section of Wiki and made many Tobacco related contributions. This user seeks to undo all of my hardwork and discredit me. User says he is a professional in the weighing industry, and apparantly was blocked on other boards for putting up posts about his company. What can be done to stop these sorts of silly personal attacks (examples below)

The issue has since been resolved, Please delete this section to clean up the noticeboard :)

Oh, nice contribution to the weighing scale entry there, Steve. Just make sure you don't go using wikipedia to advertise. As professionals in the weighing industry, we should add our unbiased knowledge about our field to this global project. And don't let me catch your friend User:Mrtobacco adding any more advertising slanted contributions either. Onyx86 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mrtobacco's motives actually are not pure. He is a shill for HBI, paid to stealth market HBI products on Wikipedia and other online communities. Just check his history, he has a tendency of promoting HBI brands on the rolling paper related pages, and also listed added HBI-Techs fake scale review website on the Weighing Scale page of Wikipedia. Its the old - "If you can't make it, fake it" marketing technique. Onyx86 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really a bit silly and definitely incorrect. I have tried reporting the user but he immediately puts up his own reporting of me in order to make it appear as a dispute between two parties. This is really not a dispute - it's just one guy picking on another user :( --Mrtobacco 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments[edit]

Recently, changes to the United States were made, including the dropping of a citation for basic info on the country (How many states, year founded, etc.) 1. However, Corticopia, objected to this, and re-added the citation; 2, 3, 4. 5, but then removed the warning on his talk page 6. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 7.

Since another user had already started a thread on him at the 3RR noticeboard 8, I added diffs from the United States issue (mentioned above). Corticopia objected to this, 9. An admin ruled that the violations were stale, but warned Corticopia to be civil 10. Corticopia then replied with this 11.

I also asked the user who reported him originally about writing him up at WP:ANI 12, and Corticopia responded with this threat 13.

It should also be noted that Corticopia has been blocked 5 times for violating 3RR. He was last blocked on May 20, 2007 for a period of one week. A sixth block was rescinded after an admin ruled he hadn't technically broken the rule.

Thanks ---BH (T|C) 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in my experience Corticopia has been remarkably intransigent and uncivil. Moreover, he seems to want to "game" the 3RR system: he'll revert three times and then promise to return the following day to revert again. He's not interested, it seems, in establishing consensus through discussion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. In the span of only three days, Corticopa reverted United States three times in succession on three separate occasions--the first time over a period of 13 hours; the second time in a span of 23 minutes; the third time in a span of 53 minutes. Here are the three separate warnings I left on his Talk page: [19]; [20]; [21]--note that you must scroll to the end of the diff to read the new, third warning (Corticopia had deleted the earlier warnings in the interim). I also note, though Corticopia issues plaints about "personal attacks" directed against him, it was he who first made the vigorous but healthy debate over the style and structure of the United States lede personal and uncivil in the following comment on the article's Talk page, in which he charges those opposed to his argument with "sophistry": [22].—DCGeist 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and this is probably a minor thing, but it's frustratingly difficult to understand what on earth he's trying to say half the time. I was reminded of this by this edit, which is frankly unintelligible (huh? what comma splice?), let along this one (which is a pig's ear even after eight separate edits). And it was in similar circumstances that he and I started butting heads, when he insisted that I was using "unencyclopedic syntax" but without explaining what that might mean. But once he's taken a position, he's almost invariably unwilling to back down, preferring to revert to incivility (and that's putting it mildly). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia does not follow the rules. S/he is a an editor who does not wish to follow the WP:NPOV policy. I have showed him/her that a POV that differs from his/hers meets the requirements of a "majority" POV according to WP:WEIGHT, but s/he has continued not following the policy by not allowing the POV in the article. S/he continued to revert the article under question to the version that did not display a neutral POV. Her adamant refusal to concede that her edits are against Wikipedia Policy is flusterating. In some of my dealing with him/her, her/his accusatory remarks were completely uncalled for. When I initially started arguing with him/her, s/he accused me of sock puppetry, since anonymous IP editors took similar views in the talk page. This was against WP:FAITH. Corticopia continually disregards Wikipedia policies when s/he forms her arguments for article content. Whereas my arguments with Corticopia rest on Wikipedia Policies which I regularly call by name, Corticopia does not base arguments about article content on policy. Her arguments are based on incivil tactics. In multiple occasions s/he has argued with editors and has ended up disingenuously calling a them a troll, accusing them of "sophistry" and threatening to call down the administrators on them. These clutch arguments are put forth regardless of the situation, because they are merely empty threats Corticopia uses to scare away other editors. I have brought up this issue in a discussion with Corticopia but s/he erased my comment in [this edit] against WP:TALK. The worst argumentive strategy Corticopia uses is refusing to discuss the article's contents with other editors when they try to discuss changes in the talk page. How can article improvement proceed if Corticopia refuses to discuss the modifications with other editors and simply reverts the article to her version? Corticopia has followed up exhaustive arguments with indeterminant phrases such as "acknowledged". Corticopia claims that when she says "acknowledged" it neither means she agrees or disagrees with the other editor. She has tried to use this tactic as a means to end all rational discussions, so she can have free reign to revert the article. Corticopia has not, in my mind, genuinely tried to base the reasons for her/his edits on Wikipedia Policy in discussions and refuses to work in accord to policy with regards to her article reversions.----DarkTea 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-Oh! It looks like that irregardless of the comments by me and three colleagues, not one admin is even looking into the matter. The user in question is an edit warrer who has been blocked 5 times for actions, but yet he's still allowed to continue his disruptive and uncivil ways here at Wikipedia. It just makes me sick. BH (T|C) 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some admins have lives outside of Wikipedia. Did you take it to WP:3RR, where it states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." You may have luck with that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it got taken to WP:3RR, where it was likewise allowed to grow "stale" by admins. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there over 1200 admins. Plus other sections seem to attract more interest. I wouldn't complain, however I don't want this go "stale" without action being taken. BH (T|C) 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
OK; this is really long, so let me ask, in a nutshell: is there anything here that is blockable and not already stale? Some have suggested Corticopia is gaming 3RR; could you provide some diffs to show this? Just diffs with no long paragraphs about it, please, a little explanation if necessary. Or, if the incivility is current, show me a few diffs for this? Maybe you've already listed some of this; if so, well, the remarks above are pretty long and it's hard to figure out what's up. If there's nothing blockable here, there's nothing for admins to do, and you should consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Potentially Uncivil: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd relist the 3RR stuff, but that might be harder to do without making it too long. BH (T|C) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly current, but it's enough that we should probably keep an eye on him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are the diffs for Corticopia refusing to discuss article content any further:Corticopia does not refute my arguments but calls me a troll and refuses further discussion, Corticopia's threats and refusal to discuss changes, and Corticopia calls User:Meowy a troll and refuses discussion with her----DarkTea 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
And the diffs for the revert thing are:1, 2, 3. And here the user threatened to keep reverting the next day 4. BH (T|C) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia was recently blocked for a week by myself and does not seem to have taken the hint. It is time for a longer block if it continues. Dmcdevit·t 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank You, Dmcdevit. My contention this whole time has been that Corticopia has yet to learn his lesson and a much longer (if not an indefinite) block is needed to stop his behavior. BH (T|C) 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to know why incivility alone isn't reason enough for a block. WP:BLOCK mentions incivility as a reason, and also mentions that the users prior blocks can be used to impose a stiffer penalty. BH (T|C) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, oh well. I was recently directed here by another editor -- busy bees we are. While I am tempted to address and respond to the charges of each encyclopedisteditor, which are replete with a sort of confirmation bias I can only describe as laughable, I really have better things to do. And that will be the extent of my involvement in this farce. Corticopia 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Farce? This is no farce. It is a serious discussion about the way you contribute here at Wikipedia. You have been blocked not once, not twice, but five times. This thread is to determine whether or not you've learned your lesson. And given these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, say6), I'd say you haven't. And it is within my rights to ask other users who have dealt with you in the past to comment here. Perhaps if you hadn't had so many run-ins with editors who have had to deal with your disruptive behavior and uncivil comments, they would be harder to find. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is a farce: given your abortive move of America and concomitant chiding there, I am unconvinced that your spearheading of this is an overreaction and/or retaliatory attempt on your part. I will not address other comments made above -- not because I cannot but because I have neither the inclination nor the time to indulge in your witch-hunt and in the confirmation bias of like-minded editors, not to mention the circular argumentation such an exercise would result in. Your invitations to other editors to seek my blocking are more a reflection of your sensitivities and intent than of my ... editing idiosyncrasies. Despite accusations from you et al, for example, I have received kudos from others for said efforts at encyclopedism, which remains problematic amidst the often challenged editing and one-sided commentary from commenting/solicited editors above. Wikipedia is not your mother: if you or others cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And beyond this I will not comment further. Ta. Corticopia 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, that debate had 8 people opposed to me. So explain what I've done to witch-hunt out the others. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I myself have had problems with getting an admin to act upon another problematic user, so I can't really advise you on another place to go for help. It doesn't hurt to try, though. Following WP:DISRUPT, try going to WP:CN. If you are up to it, try seeking an admin and contact them through their personal talk page, referring to this ANI. - Zero1328 Talk? 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its very important to remember WP:IGNORE, User Corticopia edits have only served to make this a far more valuable resource of information. Many articles here have been hijacked by a gangs of users with absurd POVs and are able to force "consensus" through their mafia style tactics. I strongly urge you to research the factual merit of Corticopia's edits rather than enforcing "rules" for their own sake. Wikipedia can bring out cult-like behavior in some people that get obsessed with the rules over the content. Please remember this is an encyclopedia first and a fascist society of rules and their enforcers second --Caligvla 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Corticopia's been editing constructively for a fair bit, but it's not an excuse for doing it recklessly. Reckless editing is detrimental to community, and without that there's no encyclopedia. One doesn't have priority over the other, they go together. This is the subject of this discussion. It doesn't matter if one thinks the other side is biased, because they're probably thinking the same on you. This way of thinking leads to conflict. Assume good faith, and assume the assumption of good faith. - Zero1328 Talk? 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that reckless is a fair assessment of Corticopia. He's passionate, and let's himself get egged on, but that's not a terrible quality, just a bad one. He gets busted for 3RR because he worries about making a good encyclopaedia, not following the rules. It's not perfect, but not terrible. That he escalates problems with disruptive editors, rather than diffuses them is not so great. But since he isn't the one being disruptive in the first place, no "further" action needs to be taken against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talkcontribs)
What about his incivility? Corticopia loves to use the sh*t in his comments, and refers to those with differing opinions as "Sophists". See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And WilyD, perhaps your too new of an admin to know policy, but incivility is blockable as it is considered disruptive and harmful. And he's the learned the 3RR rule because he now knows to revert three times in a half-hour, then come back the next day and keep it up. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirect America without consensus and despite lengthy discussion and prior attempts, then launch an abortive move at America and -- in the middle of that -- launch a contested straw poll on the same page; when that fails, insinuate the same viewpoint into the DAB. I can also expand on, for instance, DarkTea's persistent attempts to significantly skewreframe Asia with a narrow view despite near unanimity against such editing (see that talk page), and you tell me who is being disruptive? I can go on, but won't -- suffice to say that sophistry and perhaps incompetence are abound. If you prefer uncensored comments or synonyms, I can oblige, but editors can either ignore all rules or just ignore -- I make no apologies, and again Wikipedia is not your mother. And when junta-like editors push their viewpoints, misrepresent or act without consensus, add text with poor or unreferenced syntax, here above all, or just remove long-standing citations with little reason from articles which remain far from featured status (perhaps far off because of such removals in part), said corrections are not being disruptive but merely represent encyclopedic zealousness. That's it for now. Corticopia 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Corticopia guess what? This isn't a fuckin' debate about me. Its a debate about you. If you really feel what I have done is wrong, start a thread on me. Nobody will even consider what I've done to be wrong. My failed attempt to have America redirect to the United States? That's disruptive? No it isn't. It was an attempt to reach consensus, and you know what it failed. And I put the United States on top of the DAB page, because, in that "abortive" attempt as you describe, everyone seemed to agree that United States is what America commonly refers to. So stop shitting on those who you don't like (aka those who disagree with your agenda) and start helping to improve this encyclopedia. And by the way, my use profanity is allowed per WilyD. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is disruptive, arguably ... and it seems the end result has yielded an outcome which has yet to agree with yours. Anyhow, stop sh*tting on yourself: no one is a paragon of 'wikivirtue' and this is not a venue for the timid. I have no problem with others who 'disagree with [my] agenda', but your attitude and expressed intent to block are precisely and partially why this whole thread is farcical. Apropos, I will refrain from commenting here and withdraw from these proceedings, which is sometimes necessary when things run as amok as this fruitless exercise. Corticopia 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Speaking in English is usually encouraged here, speaking with metaphors like you do is the mark of a sophist. And you have also not yet mastered the art writing comments in one try, the fact that you have to edit your comments several times before you feel satisfied is extremely annoying BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
When last I checked, metaphors are part of the English language. Anyhow, your other comments and level of annoyance regarding this or that (single tear?) are of no concern and proof-positive of my prior comments. I shall waste no more time on this. Corticopia 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
These "examples" are pretty lame, to be honest. There's nothing wrong with saying "shit" - in fact, that I've used "fuck" as part of my edit summaries on a few occasions was discussed at my RfA and no one thought much about it. "Fuck you" is inappropriate, "Ah, shit - I've fucked up the table format" is not. As for the rest of it --- you generally aren't given admin tools unless you already understand policy. Refering to the arguments of other editors as "sophistry" is not the greatest way to deal with other editors, though sometimes POV-warriors need to be called out on what they're doing. Gaming the 3RR rule is bad - but Corticopia's already been subjected to escalating blocks for it - he'll figure it out or he won't. But there's nothing else to see here - certainly I've not seen any incivility that's cause enough for a block. WilyD 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Corticopia is clearly trying to dodge the subject by talking about other's rule breaking. This thread is not about whatever article or subject you're working on. Frankly, I don't care about that. No one here should be concerned about that. What we're talking about is how you're handling the subject. You might say Ignore all rules, but I think you should look at what that means. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so: my actions are generally precipitated by other editors' actions -- so, when mine are called into account, it's necessary to point out the reasons why ... and there are quite a few. I make no apologies for my behaviour, but if you think the commentators above are wholesome in their conduct and commentary, think again. As well, IAR is policy, but WIARM is just an essay. And, quite frankly, if I was trying to dodge the subject, I would probably do better in completely ignoring this fruitless discussion ... and will hereafter resume that stance. Have fun. Corticopia 02:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Please Note that Corticopia was blocked for one month due to three reverts within 17 minutes on the Canada article. For more see here. On a personal note I applaud Dmcdevit for taking the necessary action by blocking Corticopia. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm coming to this with a rather low opinion of the Wikipedia concept. But if the content of Wikipedia's articles are to have credibility, those who make disputed edits and continual reverts have to be able to justify their actions by discussion and rational arguments. Corticopia seems to have a total lack of any understanding of that concept. She is always right, and that's the end of it as far as she is concerned. Meowy 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

misuse of admin tools by Irishguy[edit]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy and Tecmo have gotten into it in the past:

They got into a disagreement on the Kevin Youkilis article, where Tecmo a 3RR block (partially related). Tecmo reverted him at 12:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment at the talk page and at 12:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at 12:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 12:23, he blanked his talk page at 12:24: "how many idiots are there in one day". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior:

"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."

Except you can see by going to Tecmo's contribution page quite easily, that he reverted and his next contribution was to the talk page. Maybe he had to go to the bathroom, maybe the doorbell rang.

AGF and what actually happened didn't seem to matter. But it should when we're dealing with new editors who could be sockpuppets or who could just be new editors.

Irishguy filed a Suspected sock puppet report. Given that he filed the report and his past with Tecmo, he shouldn't have been the one to declare that the evidence he found was "obvious" and block them both within a day of opening the report.

His solid evidence was that Tecmo warned El Redactor about a conversation on his talk page about El redactor. Tecmo warned El Redactor and no El redactor (cap difference) and El redactor found the conversation anyway.

In actuality, El redactor found his talk page and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section, and then the "El redactor" section. Maybe he got there because Irishguy commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page (he'd edited the talk and article pages minutes earlier). Maybe he got there because he looked at Baseball Bugs contributions (his last two edit summaries said "baseball bugs is following me").

WP:AGF and WP:BITE and policy and procedure have been ignored, and people have forgotten that their own arrogance aside, we don't know whether El redactor is or is not Tecmo. If he's Tecmo--a sockpuppet was blocked quickly. But if he isn't, then look what's been done to a new editor. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:07, June 13 2007 (UTC)

At the very least this bears looking into. If the sockcheck was not complete, then it was premature for Irishguy to block. Irishguy does appear to be 'involved', which would seem to suggest that Irishguy should have deferred to an uninvolved editor to do the blocking. I agree that the socks issue looks suspicious, and AGF says it is not a sock until proven to be one. Lsi john 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmobowl has "gotten into it" with many editors, from the beginning. He has been blocked several times recently for 3RR violations, by other admins. El redactor's behavior fits several points of classic sockpuppet behavior, and his connection to Tecmobowl has been demonstrated. Baseball Bugs 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited are when Tecmobowl is under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why are his first edits to add Tecmobowl's spam link back? As a side note, what exactly is your connection with Tecmobowl seeing as you keep running all over Wikipedia to defened him? IrishGuy talk 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Miss M's relationship is with Tecmo, but this is one of a recent series of pages on which she has sought to defend him, while posing as uninvolved and unbiased herself, and often while ignoring other's comments pointing out his questionable actions. A brief search will yield the examples to which I refer.
Tecmo has been ignoring Wiki policies with a recidivist obsessive and non-apologetic air, claiming that the directive to be Bold allows him to do so. He within a 3-day period this month was blocked 3 times by admins for 3RR violations, and has generally refused to adhere to consensus or reason. For a number of editors, including me, his activities have proven to be a significant distraction from positive contributions to Wiki. Admittedly, it is difficult to follow his admonitions from admins (and others) as he blanks his talk pages, and asks people not to discuss their problems with his behavior on his talk page. But a review of the following [23] will give some of the flavor of what I am referring to:
  • (cur) (last) 21:56, June 12, 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) (3,745 bytes) (Decline unblock, continued ranting)
  • (cur) (last) 19:26, June 12, 2007 Kurykh (Talk | contribs) (1,762 bytes) (decline unblock)
  • (cur) (last) 22:56, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (7 bytes) (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
  • (cur) (last) 20:40, June 10, 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) (1,033 bytes) (You have been blocked)
  • (cur) (last) 15:26, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,362 bytes) (warning)
  • (cur) (last) 15:24, June 10, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (847 bytes) (→Stop - how many idiots are there in one day?)
  • (cur) (last) 15:20, June 10, 2007 Irishguy (Talk | contribs) (1,278 bytes) (warning)
  • (cur) (last) 14:05, June 10, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) (1,539 bytes) (→Dispute - Add reply.)
  • (cur) (last) 13:35, June 10, 2007 TigerShark (Talk | contribs) (468 bytes) (Dispute)
  • (cur) (last) 13:17, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (261 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Kevin Youkilis)
  • (cur) (last) 13:14, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (259 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Hideki Matsui)
  • (cur) (last) 13:05, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (362 bytes) (User Warning -- Delete -- 4im)
  • (cur) (last) 12:49, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (360 bytes) (User Warning Level 4 re continued deletions of baseball urls)
  • (cur) (last) 12:39, June 10, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (1,303 bytes) (→Fangraph deletion - User Warning; Deletion; Level 3)
  • (cur) (last) 11:41, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (23,228 bytes) (→Blocked)
  • (cur) (last) 01:41, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,931 bytes) (→Blocked - reply)
  • (cur) (last) 00:49, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) (22,711 bytes) (→Blocked - block eextended)
  • (cur) (last) 00:47, June 7, 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) m (22,537 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - block notice)
  • (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
  • (cur) (last) 00:45, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,971 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
  • (cur) (last) 00:43, June 7, 2007 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey - removed a personal attack)
  • (cur) (last) 00:39, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,829 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Homer Bailey)
  • (cur) (last) 00:31, June 7, 2007 E tac (Talk | contribs) (21,512 bytes) (→Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
  • (cur) (last) 10:03, June 6, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (21,016 bytes) (Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen)
  • (cur) (last) 23:13, June 5, 2007 Alansohn (Talk | contribs) (25,791 bytes) (re persistent ignorance of consensus)
  • (cur) (last) 14:48, June 1, 2007 Epeefleche (Talk | contribs) (21,923 bytes) (→Your removal of urls with unique information/edit warring - Why do you assert that your talk page is not an acceptable place to discuss this matter?)
  • (cur) (last) 09:01, May 29, 2007 Baseball Bugs (Talk | contribs) (9,536 bytes) (I have asked an admin...)
  • (cur) (last) 20:58, October 28, 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) (banned)
  • (cur) (last) 11:13, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) m (→Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
  • (cur) (last) 11:11, October 24, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning DO NOT DELETE!)
  • (cur) (last) 04:38, October 21, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (reverted vandalism - User:Tecmobowl keeps blanking page to hide various warnings.)
  • (cur) (last) 12:55, October 19, 2006 OBILI (Talk | contribs) (Warning)
  • (cur) (last) 06:09, September 29, 2006 MER-C (Talk | contribs) m (JS: Reverted edits by Tecmobowl to last version by TV Newser)
  • (cur) (last) 06:08, September 29, 2006 Tecmobowl (Talk | contribs) (LEAVE ME A LONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the hell do you keep messing with me for)
  • (cur) (last) 06:07, September 29, 2006 TV Newser (Talk | contribs) (rvv - I see you are trying to hide all the vandalism warnings.)
  • (cur) (last) 20:18, September 11, 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) (Baseball: warning)
  • (cur) (last) 18:19, September 10, 2006 TBTA (Talk | contribs) (Vandalism warning)
Finally, as to Miss M's suggestion that he could just be a new editor, I note that he wrote to Amin Nishkid: "I am well aware of the full consequence of my actions and my behavior....//Tecmobowl 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[24]
--Epeefleche 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
What? You mean this diff? That's a comment written by Tecmo (El redactor had no edits on the 10th) in regards to BLANKING HIS TALK PAGE. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)
I mean that as one example of his comments to the effect that he understands the consequences and his behavior. This relates to your suggestion that he may just be a new editor.
He has also made statements with regard to his view of what the directive to be bold means, along the lines of "... people want to discuss my behavior. Unfortunately, I am a person who will continue to be BOLD in my edits. I am sorry that seems to be a point of contention, but seeing as it's point number 5 on wiki's five pillars, it is going to be difficult to convince me otherwise." Note the absence of agreement to follow consensus, and the focus on others having to convince him in order for him to stop deleting urls.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Irishguy--he only had to look at the article history page, as he probably would have done when making a REVERT! You also commented on the article talk page. But please stop arguing the sockpuppet case here. My only point was that the sockpuppet case should actually happen--you can't be lawyer, judge and jury for El redactor. This isn't where to file or comment on a sock pupper case--it's ANI--those comments belond there.
  • Epeefleche--my "relationship" to Tecmo is very simple. I came to Wikiproject based asking for help finding sources for alumni. You can see a section where I asked (for the second time) above the Tecmo disaster. As such, WikipProject Baseball was on my watchlist. When that section got posted, I started getting a lot from them--more than usual (it started to look like ANI), so after a day or two I looked to see what was going on. And was subsequently confused and horrified as you can see by my first comment there that a fairly simply content issue had turned into flame throwing. Btw, I asked about the block not because I wanted him unblocked or I was requesting but because I was confused. I'd been watching the page at the time, didn't see evidence of edit warring and was generally interested in why the decision was made.

Do I always agree with Tecmo? No. Not by a long shot. But there's a reason I finally came here the other day, and I reason I posted here about this. I don't know much about Tecmo's past behavior, but whatever it is that is going on, he and the situation is being handled so badly, that generally whoever is dealing with him behaves worse than he does, or at least incites a situation. If everything that Tecmo was doing was so obviously bad, then the editors and administrators having difficulty with him shouldn't have a problem following the rules. If El redactor is obviously a sockpuppet, another admin will block--actually, even if he's not OBVIOUSLY a sockpuppet, so there's no need to Irishguy to do it himself without a case ever happening. If links Tecmo inserted were obviously against EL rules, then it should be a simple matter to explain it. But since I and other editors think that the site is a good site and ok by WP:EL standards, it's not ok to revert saying "spam" and not discuss content but go on and on about how it's Tecmo's site. Tecmo isn't inserting it anymore. If the paring of the ELs were obviously against WP:EL, then when Tecmo provides his explanations, or even if he doesn't, all you have to do is say why that doesn't work under WP:EL. But instead, all I here is about him and not about content. And that's the same thing I'm hearing now--I'm hearing nothing about the issue at hand and more about Tecmo, and now me as well.

Response to Miss M. [25], for example, shows you asserting that those who differed from Tecmo made "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the entry you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from" Given that you indicate in the heading to your comments that you are a "really uninvolved editor," To be frank, I found it peculiar if you did not have some partiality that you would make such a gross misstatement. And, I might point out, that you would repeat that misstatement more than once after.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has gotten into it with a lot of people. And a lot of people have gotten into it with him. But that's not the point. We AGF here, which means not looking at the actions of an editor for reason for swift judgement etc when talking about a potential sockpuppet. POTENTIAL. Until there's a definitive answer that they're the same person, you could be punishing one person for something another did, or a precedent of behavior another has, and that's not ok. It's like anytime the word sock or vandal is whispered we forget our policies and that's how it's supposed to work. Show me where it says..."assume good faith except when you know that you're right and there's no other explanation"

If Tecmo's obviously such a big problem, then why the need for breaking policy and procedure on such a regular basis by so many editors?

I don't see the policy violations by the other editors that you suggest are there. I see many by Tecmo. There is a reason that he has been blocked repeatedly. I've never been blocked, and I imagine that if you checked the histories of the other editors you would find a similar record on the whole. He is a particularly disruptive editor. I am sure that Wiki would be better if if your talents and those of the other editors involved in this discussion were put to efforts of improving Wiki, rather than addressing his behavior, but when he engages in such disruptive behavior sadly we must address it or the problem grows.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw Epeefleche--good job not pointing out all of the cases where I'm pointing out the problems with Tecmo's behavior. AFAIK--and one of you can spend hours digging through my edit history to double check, I had the pleasure of meeting all of you, and your wikiproject when you couldn't have a civil discussion that would have taken care of matters in oh a couple days at most, and instead have dragged in numbers of outside editors and admins and taken your personal issues or whatever it is all over the wiki.

We are still stalled by Tecmo. See the discussion at [26]. He is filibustering us despite the apparent consensus, and despite his prior comments suggesting that he agrees that the format of the url is unique. This is not about a personal issue. It is about moving forward while a difficult editor disrupts forward movement.

My only issue here is that because you think Tecmo is bad, you and the other editors are ignoring all rules--consenus, no personal attacks, coi, any policy and guideline I can think of off of the top of my head and it's not improving the wiki. However bad a problem is, editor or content or whatever, that doesn't give you or any other editor the right to railroad all of the rules we have in order to OWN. Because you could be right, or you could be wrong. El redactor could be a sockpuppet or he might not be. Tecmo might have been right about ELs, he might not or maybe he was partially right. BUT railroading over the entire system that's in place because you don't like an editor or edits or whatever is OWNing--OWNing articles, OWNing projects, OWNing wiki. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:32, June 13 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring all the rules. I'm not even ignoring any rules. I am the one seeking to enforce consensus. I'm troubled by Tecmo's behavior, but am not engaging in personal attacks. I'm really not sure what your motive is, but your accusations are baseless. You seem quite bright and quite interested, but despite the tenderest admonitions of Tecmo's behavior, you don't appear to be inclined to help address it.--Epeefleche 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't true that you "and other editors think that the site is a good site". Other than Tecmo, only you do. Tecmo owns the site and he has used two IPs and three sock accounts to repeatedly add it to articles. El redactor had knowledge of my edit history that he shouldn't have had. Like I said, he either magically knew to go 100 edits deep into my edit history to find where I removed the link from other articles...or he just happened to go to those articles and look in the edit history...which isn't likely since he has never edited those articles. And the only two days he has edited are when Tecmo was blocked. El redactor first edited when Tecmo was blocked. His first edit was to add that link back into the article...then he made a series of pointless edits and promptly disappeared. Tecmo pointed to those same pointless edits as an alibi that it wasn't him using a sock. Convenient. Then Tecmo gets blocked again and magcially El redactor becomes active again. I put the sockpuppet report up because I wanted all the evidence in one place. I knew he was going to use his sock again and when he did I blocked him. I didn't open a checkuser case because it isn't necessary. His edits and use of socks are clear: if it walks like a duck, it is a duck. He is a sockpuppeteer using multiple accounts to make POV edits and spam his own website into articles. IrishGuy talk 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
So Lsi john and transaspie are Tecmo also right? Or are they me? And, this isn't a vote. I've heard several people say "but the site is tecmo's!!! <insert whine here" and no actual reason that the site doesn't fit the WP:EL guidelines or is not a good source. The page btw is protected so this is a great opportunity for you to actually come to the talk page and explain why you think it's a bad link. Please, I'd love to hear something about the content, something other than "it's Tecmo's site!!!!"
Yes, I know you didn't open a checkuser--one was only opened after El redactor was indef blocked. But you're still not getting it. You may be right, but I missed the part where you were granted the powers of all-knowing and all-powerful. Oh wait, you're an admin, you don't have to follow policies, guidelines or procedures. You can wiki-lawyer someone, and then be their judge and jury, unless someone complains. Well guess what? I'm complaining! The unbridled arrogance of assuming that you do know best and therefore don't have to even check is incredible. I'm not standing up and shouting from the rooftops that you're wrong about this, though I think that there's a chance you might be, I'm standing up and saying that whether you're right or wrong, this is the wrong way to do things. The ends don't justify the means. It doesn't matter what Tecmo did or what you think he did. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Not true. The checkuser request on El redactor was issued half a day before he was blocked. Baseball Bugs 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to feel like I'm sitting at a table of two-year olds throwing bread at each other and each is screaming that the other did something and that they aren't in the wrong. Stop worrying about who did what to whom and make sure that your own actions are in the clear. How hard is that? Miss Mondegreen talk  23:28, June 13 2007 (UTC)
I should go to the article talk page? The one where you told me You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up?[27] Tecmo has been using socks. Checkusers aren't necessary in cases where it is patently obvious. IrishGuy talk 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I was a bit rude, I'll admit, but it would be nice if you hadn't ridiculed the entire discussion process in the middle of a straw poll and not even bother to answer the straw pll questions. I still haven't gotten content related reasons that the link isn't ok, and I've listed more then once the reasons I thought it was ok, and still haven't gotten replies that don't include Tecmo's name. Baseball bugs just said, "It doesn't matter if it's the greatest website in the world...He and his website are inseparable, so talking about one is talking about the other," blatantly admitting that his problems with the link were not content ones, or rather, he might have content related objections...I just can't get him to tell me about them. So if you can come to the talk page and discuss content, and preferably not try and get Tecmo's goat in the middle of a straw poll, that would be really, really, great.
Also, sure, checkusers aren't necessary in cases where it's patently obvious. I'd definitely say it's a case for checking, but I don't see that it's patently obvious. And it's like sourcing. If something is obvious, it doesn't really need a source until someone disputes it. I'm disputing this, and I'm not getting content related replies but just more of how obvious it is. Well if it's obvious... Obviously, if I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:06, June 14 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious. You simply keep making excuses. In your alternate version of events, somehow El redactor just decided to check the page history of five other articles and discovered that I had removed from those articles which, of course, would require him to even know to check those articles....rather than the quite clear interpretation that El redactor knew about it because Tecmobowl knew I removed them. IrishGuy talk 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

request that another administrator take over handling of this case[edit]

I'm officially requesting that another administrator take over the handling of the sockpuppet case and of Tecmo's current block. The current situation is just getting worse and running completely unchecked. Epeefleche, Baseball bugs and Irishguy should not be on Tecmo's talk page until all of them have cooled off and they can at least pretend to act like real editors. Irishguy in particular is a problem--he's the blocking admin for Tecmo, who's currently on an extended block for sockpuppet evasion of a block, a case opened and closed without a checkuser by Irishguy who has had and continues to have conflicts with Tecmo.

This entire situation needs to be taken out of Wikiproject baseball's hands. If the involved editors and admins cannot cool off and stop attacking each other this is going to get worse. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:12, June 14 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, nor do I require a "cooling off". He already had one unblock denied (which he blanked) and he has another unblock request up. If another admin wants to peruse the case, it is on his talk page, it is here, etc. Frankly, you are the one who keeps pushing this issue. His block will expire soon. IrishGuy talk 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about Tecmo's unblock, except that in I think it's stupid for those three editors to be commenting on Tecmo's page, particularly when he's blocked. I do care about the sockpuppet report which I think was handled badly. The worst thing that happens to Tecmo for that is that he stays blocked for an extra couple of days he shouldn't have been. The worst thing that happens to El redactor is that he's indef blocked for not being Tecmo. This was and is being handled very poorly. We don't collect evidence and request checkusers and dicuss possible sockpuppetry after banging the gavel, ruling and locking them up and throwing away the key. This is being done backwards. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:53, June 14 2007 (UTC)
As I have noted multiple times, I never requested a checkuser. The sockpuppetry was obvious and a checkuser wasn't necessary. Tecmo himself stated: here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh which is a pretty clear admission that he and