Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive261

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?[edit]


Zelda Classic deletion review[edit]

The wiki page on Zelda Classic was deleted earlier this week for lack of notability; to address this complaint, one of my fellow developers (Dark Nation) edited the article, and added citations to third party sources, including at least one in the media (TechTV). He also started a deletion review of the page.

That deletion review is now listed as "closed," with no real explanation given: the requester having "no other edits" strikes me as a highly spurious reason to ignore a review request.

Is it possible to start a calm discussion of the page's deletion and review? I believe that it is possible to create a page on this topic which meets Wikipedia's notability requirement, and would like to find out what I need to do to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evouga (talkcontribs)

Do you have any links, or diffs? It's kind of hard for me to hunt down what you're talking about without some direction. --Haemo 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are some links:
Gunslinger47 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm - it looks to me like the closing admin's rationale was just a little terse, and his actual justification was that the re-created article did not substantially differ from the original content. Perhaps he could stop by and comment? --Haemo 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm a wikipedia newbie and am not sure how to post diffs or even access the old page; when I go to the Zelda Classic wiki page I just get a "deleted and protected" page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evouga (talkcontribs)
That's okay, another editor helped you on this one. I left Guy a message on his talk, so hopefully he will show up soon. Also, please sign your posts so they are easier to read. --Haemo 06:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I would like to request that the old Zelda Classic page be undeleted and unprotected, to allow for revision leading to the article meeting the notability guidelines. According to Wikipedia's notability policy, an article should be deleted "if appropriate sources cannot be found"; in this case such a claim is absurd, since after a few minutes of searching I found:

TechTV http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3637/Rick_Thorne_5MP_Digital_Cams_WiFi_Dog_Backpack.html
Gaming Today http://news.filefront.com/zelda-classic-free-tribute-to-the-classic-game/
Slashdot http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/26/146238
Electronic Gaming Monthly: In the Zelda 2005 article (not available online; I could find a print citation given time)

In short, I do not understand why this article was deleted (and then had its undeletion review summarily closed without discussion) when the only problem with the article was lack of secondary source citations - which could be easily added if editors are given the chance.
Evouga 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion ran for five days, which is the appropriate length of time for such discussions, and once a deletion discussion is closed, it should not be added to. If you disagree with the deletion, you can list the deleted article at WP:DRV, but you need to come up with new reasons for why you think the deletion was incorrect, as there was a strong consensus for deletion, and DRV is to discuss improper closures, not to re-debate the notability of the subject matter. Corvus cornix 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I do believe deletion was incorrect. The notability guidelines say that articles should be deleted if sufficient secondary sources cannot be found. Though perhaps the original author, and the people who voted in the deletion discussion, were not willing to do so, I am and have done so. I now wish to clean up the article so that its adherence to Wikipedia policy may be reconsidered. What should I do?

Evouga 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV. Present your sources. Corvus cornix 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I will do so. I wasn't sure if that would be appropriate, since the first deletion review was closed for the requester having no other edits, and I am in the same situation. Evouga 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP#Articles_about_Edward_Gibbon[edit]

Resolved: Pages semi-protected.

Could someone adjudicate this? An anon with a floating IP is continuing Stevewk (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) 's revert war against standard formatting and infoboxes on these four articles. The section title does not contain a {{la}} tag, but that's because these are four articles with the same problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And incivility continues, as here. Edit summary: continuing to revert defacements by braindead busybodies.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Done... sorry it took so long to get this taken care of. MastCell Talk 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack edits[edit]

Resolved: Vandalism-only account blocked.

Could someone please have a look at this editor please- numerous offensive comments [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What is quite shocking is that noone even warned him despite most of the edits being reverted. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Level three vandalism warning posted. HalfShadow 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't those edits warrant something a little stronger than that? I strongly think the person should be blocked.
"Irish are filthy Germanic/Romanic scum." [8]
Naming a living boxer "The Disgusting Nigger" [9].
Naming a living actress "The Prostitute" right in the top of the article[10] which stayed there for over a day.
and worse. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and at least half of his edits seem on the level. A three seemed appropriate. Anything above a two is basically the equivalent of 'Stop screwing about or we'll lock you' anyway. HalfShadow 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
They are not "on the level" at all- they are all either rambling nonsense about red hair and apart from that adding derogatory racially and sexually offensive material to biographies of living people. Oh and I just found this one to add to it [11]. This person is contributing nothing of value to this project. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've seen enough, between the above cited diffs and this one, this one, and this one, which I found by randomly picking from the contrib history. To make matters worse, these diffs deal with living people. I've indefinitely blocked the account to prevent more such edits; comments? MastCell Talk 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Those were awful edits. We will not miss contributions like these. --John 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou. What I find hard to understand is why noone posted a message warning him for his behaviour before in which case he might well have been blocked much earlier. Would it be possible in the future to automatically warn or "mark" an account when reverting then we might avoid something like this happening? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen anything before now, or he'd have been warned by me (and possibly banned already). And my point was that they weren't derogatory trash like what got him banned, not necessarily that they were anything of value. HalfShadow 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying as long as an editor doesn't make edits that are solely offensive you then will then allow that editor to "get away" with edits such as those above? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody 'gets away' with anything here. If an admin decides a warning isn't enough, they are free to do what needs to be done. I will remind you again that I am not an admin and that I have to follow procedure as I see it. To me that means warning and then reporting. If that isn't good enough for you, you'd be surprised how little that bothers me. HalfShadow 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, lay off and leave User:HalfShadow alone. He's a volunteer, like we all are, and he's doing his best. It's not his fault that it took a few days to catch this particular vandal, and his warning was erring on the side of assuming good faith, which is hard to criticize. Situation's resolved, we'll all keep our eyes peeled in the future, and no hard feelings, right? MastCell Talk 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I think we should make it clear to people that make edits like this person did above that they are not welcome to edit here- I don't think the message that HalfShadow left really reflected the seriousness of those edits- and yes it does matter because if HalfShadow think like that then other people who come to this site will think it's OK and just post a little minor warning and most other people will just forget anyway (remember no one actually posted ANY warnings till I brought this up). I assume (or hope) that "assuming good faith" doesn't extend to encouraging editors that call people "disgusting niggers" and call women who dare to show their faces "prostitutes"- if we do encourage them, they will only make improving the encyclopedia harder. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin protects POV version[edit]

Admin User:CBM declines to insert new updates or news links to this article [12] [13] citing this is a Wikipedia policy. Can someone explain if its a correct interpretation? He refused to move the protection to last known stable version until consensus is arrived... effectively endorsing a POV version. More importantly, he refuses to update the page with even minor edits until the ArbCom case of Bakasuprman is resolved (which is totally irrelevant to this article). Let us suppose Bakasuprman is indefinitely blocked as a result of the ArbCom. Does that imply this article too would be indefinitely protected? I am more worried that the article would reach rigor mortis if minor edits are refused. Anwar 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought page protection was explicitly not an endorsement of the version that happens to coincidentally be protected. Sancho 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
indeed and User:CBM even says as much in one of the provided diffs. --Fredrick day 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please review m:The_wrong_version. - CHAIRBOY () 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Chairboy, are you suggesting he make a point? (inside joke) Lsi john 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Remarks stricken, so they won't be misunderstood further. Lsi john 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
User:CBM wasn't even the one who protected that page. Not only that, but User:Rama's Arrow protected it after a ten-hour lull in the edit-warring, without making any change (it looks like it was a slow-burn edit war, so it's not so odd.) It doesn't make any sense to allege that it was deliberately protected on a particular POV under such circumstances. Now, granted, {{editprotected}} can be used to request changes, and it would be a little odd if CBM was refusing to make minor typo or spelling corrections... but controversial edits aren't usually made via that, since it would defeat the purpose of protection. Protection in a content dispute is supposed to be blind, not endorsing any version; you're asking CBM to endorse your favored one, which is exactly what the protection policy is supposed to prevent. Finally, protection doesn't usually last that long. Does it really matter if the page says one thing or the other for the next 24 hours? You should be using this time to try and hammer out an agreement on what it will say after that... even if CBM edited it to your favored version, it wouldn't stay protected for ever, so you'll still have to negotiate eventually. --Aquillion 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

[14] - could someone please deal with User:Cstanfie? Corvus cornix 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with a note about legal threats and how our blocking policy relates to them. -- Merope 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[15] - Sock puppet Rellis0415 (talk · contribs) is continuing the legal threats. Corvus cornix 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked by User:Ryulong. MastCell Talk 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

212.219.203.115[edit]

On following up a Help Desk post, I reviewed the contributions of 212.219.203.115 (talk · contribs). This IP first posted on December 16, 2005, last posted on January 24, 2007, and only made five posts total. However, those five posts all were reverted, for a variety of reasons. The Golspie post seemed to raise some tension. (See Golspie Help Desk post.) 212.219.203.115 does not seem to be using 212.219.203.115’s account for proper purposes. Please review. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHOIS says it's registered to Highland Council Education Department, Scotland. With that in mind, it's possible it's a shared IP address. If we could safely assume it was all the same user, a string of disruptive edits over a long period might be worth a block -- I'm not sure if we can make that assumption in this case, though, so I'd hesitate to block at this point in time. If problems persist, we could revisit that. Happily invite another opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably not worth getting too worked up about. Yes, it's probably safe to assume it's a proxy, but you're also pretty much guaranteed it's the same person. A block is pointless unless it's going to be of sufficient time to still be in force the next time they're sufficiently bored. They need to get some real news up the Highlands! Ta/wangi 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User: The way, the truth, and the light[edit]


MagicalPhats[edit]

Resolved

Trolling. See Special:Contributions/MagicalPhats. See WP:SAND history. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page discussion... Just seems like a particularly misguided user. I'll watch them. Grandmasterka 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
He agrees to stay in his user space. I'm watching closely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Throwing my hands up: Nick Dinsmore[edit]

Wow, just wow. Will an un-involved administrator please review Nick Dinsmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? It is amazing what people have to put up with in order to enforce WP:BLP and related policies. Example: [19] Burntsauce 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a "last warning" regarding personal attacks on the user's talk page. There's probably more that needs to be done there, but perhaps that's a start? MastCell Talk 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I work with the PW folks from time to time, let me have a word with Govvy. SirFozzie 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Myleslong blocked him for a week. *sighs* SirFozzie 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A week seems a bit harsh for a single incident of personal attacks, particularly without a warning. I've left a note for Myles, and I'd actually advocate unblocking User:Govvy if he would be willing to tone it down and discuss things civilly. MastCell Talk 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Resurgent insurgent[edit]

Resolved: page deleted

(Copied from WP:AN/3RR:)

Resurgent insurgent keeps vandalizing my user page User:Anber. My user page contains details about me. He should not be changing it. If he sees a problem he should develop consensus from the community asking me to change it by convention. I need assistance because I don't know how to properly report this. Anber 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(end copied text)

I maintain it is advertising and should be removed. Resurgent insurgent 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like advertising to me. --Haemo 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks like an advert to me. DPetersontalk 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. That is blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to advertise your business.--Crossmr 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy deletion as an ad. Corvus cornix 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as without doubt, blatant advertising. - auburnpilot talk 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Angel of truth[edit]

Resolved: user blocked

The user Angel of truth (talk · contribs) has only edits which are nominating articles for deletion which I have created, probably from my list of 150 articles at User:Moeron/Created. This is most likely due to my nominating James Stunt for deletion and the subsequent IP and user vote problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt. Can someone take a look and evaluate. Thanks! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 03:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet used for wikistalking, and all edits rolled back. Hesperian 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim continues uncivil behaviour[edit]

Mark Kim (talk · contribs) As I previously pointed out this user feels no one is allowed to disagree with him, and he should be allowed to threaten users and attack them if its for a really good reason, like getting his way in an article. He owns his talk page, and removes reminders not to make personal attacks with personal attacks. Most recently he's now Made a comment like this [20]. On his talk page, which is neither appropriate or civil. Here is the pre-archive version which you can compare to my talk page for the conversation that takes place [21]. Where he admits that he thinks he should be allowed to attack people to defend his view point. His threat against another user [22] as well as an article talk page where he's had some civility issues Talk:Bose (company). While passionate he refuses to acknowledge that he's bound by the policies and guidelines here and thinks he can act however he wants as long as he's doing the "right" thing. This is a situation which is just going to result in more personal attacks and threats unless its dealt with.--Crossmr 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Has the editor been warned about the perceived or actual WP:NPA violations prior to this AN/I report? Regards, Navou 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I warned him a year ago when he was involved in some similar tension of an Apprentice Season 4 article. He continually sanitizes his talk page so you have to dig for it. I will dig it up, but also bear in mind I had that long conversation with him about his behaviour and he's still making uncivil comments and attempting to own his talk page which shows an unwillingness to change his behaviour.--Crossmr 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous warnings and behaviour:

  • Here he was previously warned for making threats against other users and trying to control content he put on wikipedia (the same behaviour which bore the recent personal attacks) [23].
  • here is a previous warning over another article he got too passionate about [24].
  • Even a year ago he was demonstrating this behaviour of taking every comment on his behaviour as a personal and painful insult.
  • Here radiokirk reminds him to assume good faith, and its again suggested he shouldn't act so abrasively.[25] by theresa.

There is quite a bit more in there as far as warnings and previous examples of behaviour go. Plenty of examples of him ignoring policy and acting uncivily towards others.--Crossmr 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Further examples of behaviour and warnings, I did some more looking and this is just from what is picked up on his talk page. He's had numerous examples of this behaviour, and in fact several individuals have spoken to him about it previously. This is a recap up to 1 year ago. There should be a very clear pattern established.

  • [26] - Makes statement close to owning article
  • [27] - Attempts to own talk page
  • [28] - attempts to exert further control over his talk page and what people may say to him. He's warned about WP:NOT and to not censor things. He is also informed of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
  • Here he states any perceived insult is essentially a life long vendetta [29].
  • Here he refers to a criticism of his behaviour as "an insult" [30].
  • Here he makes a threat towards users in general if they criticize him [31].
  • He is reminded again to step back and check his behaviour [32].
  • Which he dismisses by again calling it an insult [33].
  • Here its pointed out that he started the debate which this surrounded, and he again reiterates the life the long hatred [34].
  • Here he moderates someone for "blatant incivility" (warranted) so it demonstrates that he's aware of what type of behaviour is inappropriate in wikipedia [35].
  • He threatens to moderate a user for any comments they make if they contain words he doesn't like [36].
  • Here his reminded to assume good faith [37].
  • He's reminded about owning content on wikipedia and about working with others.[38].
  • modifies his control message of his talk page, and in process of those edits, removes theresa's previous reminder as an "insult" [39].
  • Here he makes a complaint about Theresa on AN/I. Which again demonstrates that he is aware of what kind of behaviour is unnacceptable [40].
  • This is where I first met the individual, over some uncivil exchanges at the apprentice season 4 article. I reminded him to act civily and edit politely. [41]. He claimed to always try to be a diplomat.

--Crossmr 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the situation, this user appears to be significantly uncivil when provoked, but is otherwise not a disruptive presence. Blocking him at this point would do more harm to Wikipedia than good, but someone might want to help him understand why stalwart civility in the face of provocation is necessary. He is otherwise a productive contributor.
As for his "threats" and "attacks", in all cases I've seen they be be construed as good faith warnings or simply more uncivil smack talk. –Gunslinger47 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And do NOT give me any harsh criticism anymore because if you do, then you will pay I'm not sure how that could be seen as anything other than a threat? People have been trying for a very long time to help him understand why his behaviour is inappropriate. He dismisses any such conversation as a personal insult of the highest kind and wipes it from his talk page. He's been doing that almost since his arrival here back in 2005 if you go back through his contrib and talk page history. Any good faith assumptions are long gone on this. Several editors made a heroic effort to try and get through to him a year ago, and he's gotten bent out of shape for far less than what he's hurled at other users. Good edits don't give you license to stomp all over other users and treat them like garbage because you think you're right. Wikipedia doesn't and will never need that kind of editor.--Crossmr 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there are two problems at work here. The user seems to believe that any disagreement with his positions is a personal attack or "abrasive criticism". This makes it difficult for him to engage in any kind of content dispute without it quickly degenerating into a unilateral broadside of warnings and threats.
Second, I think the user's skills in English are at a somewhat less-than-native speaking level, at least in formal writing. In order to get a message across to him, one must repeat it over and over and over again, each time attempting to make it clearer and simpler. This is exasperating, of course. Perhaps we should encourage the user to find a Wikipedia that more closely matches his formal writing skills. ptkfgs 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, that does make sense. If you notice the discussion I had with him (using my provided link and my talk page) I noticed once or twice he seemed to clearly miss the point. I wasn't sure if he was doing it intentionally, or if he was lacking complete comprehension. Even after several exchanges of my explaining his behaviour was inappropriate, he then draws the conclusion that I was taking some stance on the article dispute, which I had never brought up other than to say that he shouldn't have behaved as he did in that dispute. Either way, if you edit on wikipedia, you're going to eventually (and usually frequently) not see eye to eye with someone and this user clearly cannot handle that type of situation.--Crossmr 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
His user page states he's from Illinois and that English is his native language, so that's not the issue. Maybe his comprehensive reading ability is somewhat lacking, or he reads all the messages with a "he's against me" mindset and therefore misinterprets what is being said.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is another possibility. However I don't know if finding the reason he behaves as such is really key here. There is no obvious trigger other than the fact that if he does something wrong and someone corrects him, he lashes out and holds a permanent grudge. The two articles I've seen him lash out over are completely unrelated (apprentice season 4 and bose) so its not like there is a specific subject that we could have him avoid editing. From what I've seen so far, no one is being unfair to him when they correct his behaviour.--Crossmr 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not a coincidence his archived "heated debates" were deleted shortly after you filed this report. That tells me he's well aware of the fact his behavior is sometimes unacceptable, since he would rather delete evidence of it than refute your claims. Anyway, I've asked on his talk page if he (and some other guy that was there) would like to tell his side of the story.--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that he's told me exactly how he feels and why he acts like he does on my talk page. The diffs show that this is a long term issuing going back 2 years, and that plenty of effort has been made to correct it. There needs to be some serious adjustment and turn around here. because there is no evidence this is going to stop, and after 2 years, its just too well established to assume it will just pass on its own.--Crossmr 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He continues with edit summaries like this [42].--Crossmr 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

and continues to dismiss even polite reminders of policy as "harassment" [43].--Crossmr 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that this likely won't stop. I noticed he applies a peculiar double standard for what can and cannot be said on Wikipedia. He considers he's allowed to arbitrarily call people "untrusted editors", but if someone else so much as frowns at him for that, it's harassment worthy of a lifelong vendetta. It's really strange.
That said, I can't see any remedy other than keeping an eye on him. A block doesn't seem right at the moment, since he's been relatively quiet the past few days. I seems best to me, that other people also start setting him straight, as he clearly won't take any advice from you.--Atlan (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with that if this was behaviour which just started within the last week for the first time after 2 years of good behaviour. He's shown that even if its quiet for a time, it will come back and be directed at anyone who he perceives as getting in his way. I think the only likely course here is to file an RfC (which will very likely be ignored) and then go to arbcom, the RfC is more for process because even at this point with this evidence I think arbcom would deny it unless other dispute methods were tried. There has certainly been a few editors try to get through to him and he's ignored them all so I don't think waiting for someone else to take a crack at it would really benefit us at this point.--Crossmr 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Venetian albania-montenegro[edit]

An article by User:Brunodam has been made that is known as Venetian albania-montenegro, however the article is highly controversial as it both failed WP:N and violated (and still violates) WP:NOR. The article seemed to be research of a University Professor (who's the Wikipedian that created this). We have managed to find a sourced name for the article, moving it to Venetian Albania. However the problems regarding the fact that over 70% of the article's content have absolutely no relevance to the article remains. The whole situation can be observed here. The author accuses me and User:Sideshow Bob, who are opposing the majority of this article's content, for nationalism, and considers that we as Montenegrins/Yugoslavs/whatever-from-former-Yugoslavia are not capable to judge the facts properly, demanding/insisting I REQUEST AN IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR TO STOP THE VANDALISMS ! for quite several times. Here, at the article's talk page the current discussion can be observed.

As per this user's demands for an administrator that does not originate from former Yugoslavia and refusal to discuss with Wikipedians who do, I am asking anyone free to oversee the situation and put his opinion on the talk page. Thanks in advance and sorry for the buggin'. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Knock-knock. --PaxEquilibrium 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request more eyes on AfD discussion[edit]

Resolved

Can I ask an outside admin to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Beck? I nominated this today for failing WP:BIO, which triggered a firestorm of accusations and attacks from Oldspammer (talk · contribs), the creator of the article. Highlights are here, here, and here, for example. I took issue with some of the comments, but to no effect. Can I ask for some outside eyes on the deletion discussion, if nothing else, to keep things from degenerating further? MastCell Talk 20:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me. I left a message for Oldspammer. --John 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oldspammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is also a username violation; I'm listing it at WP:RFCN. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 11:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice the block log - it's already been resolved by Shanel. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Koplove; Persistent vandalism[edit]

One or more anons are repeatedly vandalizing the Mike Koplove page. Approx 1-2 times a day for the last week. They are deleting sourced reference to the fact that the ballplayer is Jewish. Despite several RVs, by me and other non-anons, and discussion of the issue with others on the talk page. They are also often inserting all-cap drivel in place of the deleted language. I requested semi-protection, but was told 1-2 deletes a day does not qualify for that, and that I should come here. I do not want to engage in more RVs, given the 3RR. --Epeefleche 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I declined the protection, but also declined to block, the user that is removing content (I would not class it as pure vandalism) has done so around 5 times on 2 different IP's over a period of 4 days, a block seems a little punitive here - I suggest just keep on reverting until they get bored. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I had first put this up for semiprotection on the 15th. The admin then declined it, but told me "Different admins have higher levels of activity that they require for protection, there is no set standard. ... It might be better to try WP:ANI or possibly WP:AIV something for a persistent yet slow vandal." So I tried again on page protection first, and just rcvd your response. AS to your suggestion that I just keep on reverting until they get bored, I wonder whether that is really the best use of my time and that of the others who have RVd the vandal all week. Also, as to whether it is pure vandalism, I question whether the incluson of the following, not even in the comments but in the body of the article, isn't vandalism: " DO YOU THINK ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL MIKE KOPLOVE WOULD DEVOTE THIS MUCH ATTENTION TO MY PAGE? I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU. STOP WRITING THAT. IT IS IRRELEVANT IN ADDITION TO BEING INACCURATE.; Koplove is not Jewish. I know this because I AM HIM. ; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM HALF JEWISH ON MY FATHERS SIDE BUT I AM TECHNICALLY A PRACTICING CATHOLIC.; I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I AM NOT JEWISH.; I AM SERIOUS. STOP WRITING THIS!!!! ; ACTUALLY MY RELIGION IS IRRELEVANT, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF CORRECTNESS, MY DAD IS JEWISH, MY MOM IS CATHOLIC, AND I AM CATHOLIC. ; Koplove is Jewish. NO I AM NOT! I DO READ THIS. I AM NOT JEWISH." Also, these go back nearly a month in all. Is it really the best use of our time to keep on RVing him? For how long? Thanks.--Epeefleche 23:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a simple solution. Next time you revert him, use your edit summary to refer him to the Wikimedia foundation offices, and ask him or his agent to directly contact them about this. If it's REALLY him (and we know it's 99.9% NOT), then he can handle it that way. If there's no Office action, then a block is even easier to substantiate. ThuranX 04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Tx. Will do. If it continues after that, do I come here it go for semiprotection? Tx.--Epeefleche 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by Biophys (talk · contribs) and Mike18xx (talk · contribs); BLP violations and WP:POINT from Mike18xx (talk · contribs)[edit]

Problem started with Mike18xx (talk · contribs) taking personally my attempt to have the article The Intelligence Summit deleted, as it had been the previous time the article was up for deletion. The article survived the deletion attempt, so I have been adding well sourced and legitimate material to the article. Every small change I made also included an explanation of the change in the edit summary (see the change history to see the changes). Rather than discuss changes, Mike18xx (talk · contribs) began a revert war, reverting everything without explanation even though I pressed for one in talk. Much of what he did was delete well-sourced and relevant content without discussion -- basically the equivalent of vandalism (though it is obvious he sees it as a content dispute). Then he stalked me onto another article that I have been involved in, Operation Sarindar, reverting my last edit twice, explaining in talk that his action was purely a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Biophys (talk · contribs) then clearly took a cue from Mike18xx, and stalked me back to the Intelligence Summit page, reverting my last changes there (in order to team up with Mike18xx). Biophys has done this before, showing up on the Bill Oreilly page to revert my changes after we had an earlier conflict on the Sarindar page. After that incident I warned him to stop stalking me (both in my edit summary on Oreilly and the Sarindar talk page) but he has done it again today. He also keeps renaming the Sarindar page in order to avoid content problems or notability problems -- again disrupting Wikipedia to make his point. I will add that I am not the first to have noticed Biophys's stalking behavior (see his talk page for other instances; I believe it has come up on WP:ANI previously).

I think both of these users are taking every edit personally and starting edit wars over large amounts of material based on a disagreement with small portions of the material changed. This sort of thing should be sorted out in talk but instead of responding to talk they stalk me to other pages and do other disruptive things to make their points. In addition, User:Mike18xx has engaged in several BLP violations, which I warned him about and then an admin warned him about (including a "Final Warning"; see the relevant discussion here, here, and here), yet his stalking comment to the talk page on Sarindar (comment here) included another such violation.

I'd like to work constructively with these users but they have shown again and again that they will only edit in a very one-sided manner and will disrupt Wikipedia and break the rules here in order to get their way. I believe some concrete action by admins is warranted here. csloat 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I went to The Intelligence Summit because it is closely related to Operation Sarindar that I edited today (one article is internally linked to another). I have also explained my position at the The Intelligence Summit talk page [44]. Cslot simply does not want to work in collaborative fashion; he does a lot of changes on contentious issues, without trying to explain anything and find a common ground, as should be clear from today's history of The Intelligence Summit. I have made a single edit in this article today and tried to talk with other users.Biophys 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Two articles is not WP:STALKing yet, although I would recommend participants not to follow the other party's list of contributions (unless simple vandalism is there). Please follow WP:DR. Alex Bakharev 01:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Honestly, I "met" csloat only three times. First time, I created article Operation Sarindar, and he nominated it for deletion twice. Second time, I tried to edit an article about Bill O'Relly, and cslot promised to report me here for "wikistalking" (so I decided not to edit it anymore). Third time, I edited The Intelligence Summit today, and he reported me here. Sorry, but it is Csloat who deserved a warning for intimidating other users.Biophys 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not intimidating anyone. Your account above is false; as you well know, we had a long-standing dispute on Sarindar, which you were wrong about. An RfC quickly showed that. But after you saw me having trouble with another user, you joined forces with him. In any case I'd like an admin to review not only the stalking charge but also the BLP violations and the WP:POINT violations, which are still ongoing on the Intelligence Summit page. csloat 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik[edit]

Tajik (talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [45] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [46] Despite that and numerous blocked sock accounts and IPs, some of which are recorded here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other articles by using anonymous IP 82.83.137.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Urgent attention of the administrators is required. Grandmaster 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP was recently blocked for 3RR and edit warring, for 24 hours.[47] Vassyana 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was not aware of that. But I'm sure this IP will be back to edit warring once the block expires. Please watch it. Thanks. Grandmaster 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Tajik is back with another IP 82.83.155.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and he confirms on talk page that it is him: [48] Grandmaster 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How to stop User:DavidYork71 and others[edit]

He continues to create new user accounts after three edits in an article (see contributions of Progressoriser, Llangowen, Dyspareunia, User:RealismIncorporated) . Hence I cannot file a WP:3RR report. Filing checkuser report is useless because, he leave his old accounts after some edits. For example see Islam and children histroy [49]. I know check user will confirm my allegation but what the use when he will create another account in a second. Do we have some more useful and long-term solution? I suggest make creating account difficult may be? --- A. L. M. 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't make account creation any more difficult, there's nothing in the software to let us. I suggest you file a checkuser request, and also ask the checkuser to block and underlying IP addresses ACB. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it has been not done before. There is a long list of user banned, see his old check user log Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DavidYork71. We can make it neccessary to specify a valid email address. Hence each time he (and others like him) has to create a new email address. --- A. L. M. 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, we can't make account creation any more difficult. If you want new features, ask the developers at Bugzilla. None of us can make creating accounts more difficult. You need to try to relax a bit and not be so confrontational; I suggested checkuser because you never mentioned it had already been done. Make sure you state the situation clearly to get the best feedback, otherwise people will just suggest things you've done before. --Deskana (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I sympathise with ALM's frustration - it seems he's been stalked by DY71 socks, as have I on obscure articles I'm working on. There's nothing that can be done really, but to just revert, revert and revert - one day he will get bored, and he's already had bored patches. The point is, that his edits are actually not on wikipedia that long at all before they get removed. Perhaps we can get a list together of people who are aware of DY71 and notify everyone when he comes on. The systems worked reasonably well tonight. There is also a suggestion on WP:3RR of an exemption to the rule of 3RR if it is to revert a banned user, but it is not clear. I suggest we seek to have that clarified for continuous reverts of DY71. I don't know, I'm open to suggestions too. There are some good admins who have been great in keeping him in check. It's like some illnesses you can't eradicate, you just need to manage.
It's a sad and pathetic case, i really wonder what motivates him to do it. Something is sadly wrong.Merbabu 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign - this about 15 mins late).
For the record, reverting edits of banned users is not covered under 3RR. You can revert edits of banned users as often as you want and not get blocked for 3RR. --Deskana (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? OK, I will give it a go. :) Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In addition to a standard checkuser, you can go to the bottom of WP:RFCU and file a "Request for IP check" - this is an attempt to identify and block the underlying IP's DavidYork is using. Maybe this has also already been done - these IP checks are not archiving for the long-term - but if not, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise, you could consider semi-protection of the target pages, rapid reporting of the socks, reverting their edits, and denying them the satisfaction of getting everyone worked up. Many, if not all, of these strategies are probably already being used here. Eventually, the torrent will subside. MastCell Talk 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
rapid reporting of socks? Where too? Normally, it takes a while to wait for a checkuser or an admin who knows the situation. Is there a place you can suggest to rapid report? thanks. --Merbabu 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
ALM, ask that these pages be semi-protected. That will stop both IPs and newly-generated throwaway accounts from editing. - Merzbow 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record (although it sounds like this goes beyond simply WP:3RR), the three-revert rule applies to users, not accounts. If you can credibly show that two accounts belong to the same user, their edits count together for the 3RR, and, as noted above, edits made by a blocked user may then be reverted freely. A checkuser isn't necessary when it is trivially clear to any observer that someone is using a series of socks. --Aquillion 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps is needed is a place like WP:AIV to report ongoing transparent sockpuppetry of known sockpuppeteers. The system now is only (vaguely) effective against puppeteers who have trouble accessing another IP or who invest in their new usernames. For a case like this, RfCU isn't the right venue - we already know it's DavidYork71, why wait a day and waste checkuser time confirming it - and it would be bothersome to post every new puppet on this board. Yet it seems that some administrators now see the existence of RfCU as an excuse not to block obvious socks on sight, despite the clear language of RfCU: "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet: Block. No checkuser is necessary."Proabivouac 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Aquillion 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Several reports there appear to be several days old, and unlike AIV, they are often treated as matters requiring the careful investigation of an administrator.Proabivouac 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, i like your suggestions, which let editors take on the issue themselves. Combined with the earlier suggestion above that reverting obvious disruptive socks exempts good faith editors from WP:3RR, this should see us getting around our tiresome and frustrating hamstringing in red tape that has been playing into DY71's hands. Thanks all. Merbabu 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Proabivouac - this seems an ignore rules situation to speedily report socks. Definitely improving the encyclopedia./ —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Parsecboy[edit]

Resolved: One or more IP addresses blocked after an edit war; possible sockpuppetry? Relist if further problems arise. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy is showing a double-standard. He removed some of the talk page text here, yet keeps reverting the page when others remove talk page text. [50] [51]

What gives? Should this be reported as a violation?

161.55.204.157 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... it's considered bad form to remove other people's comments. Even if User:Parsecboy went a bit too far there, though, there's a difference between removing extensive off-topic arguments, like he did in the link you provided, and removing relevant discussions related to an ongoing content dispute, as happened in the other links you provided. I probably would've speedy-archived the off-topic argument myself, rather than just delete it, but User:Parsecboy can hardly be blamed for not wanting it there; it's hard to have coherent discussion on an article when people are just throwing blind invective at each other. --Aquillion 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, how about the other off topic arguments accusing people of theft and a contination of the same by two other users? Should these remain in the record? If yes, what is the difference between one personal attack and another? I don't understand. And are you an admin, Aquillion? If not, could I have an admin's opinion here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talkcontribs)
It's not a big difference. The difference between an admin and an experienced user like Aquillon is three extra buttons. Evilclown93(talk) 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't really answer any questions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.55.204.157 (talkcontribs)
There's a clear difference between the text being removed, and the text being restored -- specifically, the text being removed is of little (if any) apparent usefulness to the goals of this project. Contrary to what some might have you believe, talk pages are not open forums for any purpose, but are intended specifically to coordinate the improvement of the encyclopedia. Comments and sections which do not further those goals can be subject to removal; that the user is or isn't an administrator (I haven't checked) doesn't seem to factor into this, either way, unless I'm missing something. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finally addressing part of the problem here. I have attempted to remove accusations of theft made by several Wiki users against another user. Those sorts of statements are pure personal attacks and as you point out, have nothing to do with any usefullness to the article. Yet User:Parsecboy keeps reverting the text each time I try to remove the useless and false personal attack statements. What can be done about that? Thank you. 161.55.204.157 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the text I removed was a tangential discussion, rife with personal attacks and incivility against those who disagreed with this anon, (who was Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), until he was indef blocked for said gross incivility) that did not belong on the talk page. The text this user is trying to delete is relevant discussions on links to external youtube videos. I have done nothing wrong here. Parsecboy 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the text that I removed were also personal attacks, especially the ones that wrongly accused another user of theft. I would like to see ALL personal attacks removed, not just the ones that User:Parsecboy has posted. ALL personal attacks should be removed. What is the difference between one attack and another? 161.55.204.157 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon, lets stop pretending you're anyone other than Labyrinth13. Falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. The difference between what you deleted and what I deleted is that your comments, as Labyrinth13, were deliberately malicious and incivil, with no connection to the article itself. You were just telling everyone who disagreed with you to "fuck off" because you couldn't have your way. The discussions you deleted were relevant to the article. Parsecboy 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please cite a wiki rule that says that falsely accusing someone of theft is not a personal attack. Standing by. 161.55.204.157 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you, to show where WP:NPA states that accusing someone of theft (falsly or otherwise) constitutes a personal attack. Parsecboy 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, which I why I would like an admin to render an opinion here. Are there any actual admins around who can look at this dispute? I'd love to have this settled and will abide by an admin's word. 161.55.204.157 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You can disagree all you want. But you're wrong. I can't say "Here's WP:NPA, and it says right here, that accusations of theft do not constitute personal attacks". You can, however, do the opposite. Show where it says accusations of theft do constitute personal attacks, or drop your pointless crusade. And unless it's hidden somewhere at the bottom of the page, in legal print, it doesn't exist anywhere on WP:NPA. Parsecboy 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You are so cute, but I'd rather hear what an admin has to say. 161.55.204.157 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
And you are so condescendingly avoiding the argument. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. What do you care about having the accusations of theft removed, anyway? Why do you feel so strongly about leaving that sort of thing there? Would you want comments accusing you of being a criminal or say, a pedophile left in a public forum? Obviously, the answer is "no" to the last question as you saw fit to remove part of the talk discussion accusing you of being a thief here. And that is not a double-standard because of what reason? 161.55.204.157 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed your rantings because they were just that, rantings. You were pissed because you couldn't have your way, and were being extremely incivil, which has no place in Wikipedia anywhere. Regardless, just because someone accused you of being a thief doesn't mean you get to blank all sections of a talk page relating to the dispute. The reason I have reverted you is because you apparently have this desire to whitewash the talk page, so there's no obvious record of the dispute. If you're going to make claims and argue your point, be a man about it and leave it for all to see. If you're ashamed of it, then you probably shouldn't have written it in the first place. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion . . .

So, the way I read that statement above, what is or isn't a personal attack is open to interpretation, hence the reason why I have been trying so hard to get a seasoned admin who is familiar with the subject of personal attacks to answer my main question: Is accusing someone of theft on a Wikipedia talk page a personal attack?

If the answer is yes, then the statements in question should be removed. If the answer is no, then does that opens the door to being allowed to accuse people of all sorts of things, so long as it takes place within a relevant discussion? 161.55.204.157 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If an admin does decide that accusations of theft are personal attacks, remove them. But use a scalpel, not a hatchet. My comments (and those of others who made no such accusations) should remain untouched. Or better yet, put a strike through the comments. Parsecboy 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Marking this as resolved -- I think we've gotten as much closure as we're going to, for the moment. I count two or more IPs blocked, apparently related to this in some way or another. Any chance of sock/meatpuppets, I guess? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Luna Santin. This guy's been a bit of an annoyance. I wouldn't exactly call them socks/meats; the original username, Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs) was blocked a few days ago for gross incivility, personal attacks, and removing relevant discussions from the talk page accusing him of thievery. The first IP, the one who started this vengeful post, was blocked for 3RR, and the other two were used to evade the block, and have apparently also been blocked. Again, thanks for your help in the matter. Parsecboy 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Virgile1991[edit]

Virgile1991 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) This young user keeps replacing the current flags of the French regions with the old provincial flags from before the French Revolution. You can find an example of this here: Île-de-France (region) (check the page's history). The same is repeated across a majority of the 26 regions of France articles. This user was warned several times on his talk page that he should stop doing this. A discussion was also opened at Talk:Nord-Pas de Calais but he has refused to take part in it so far. It seems there's no way to discuss things with him, and I don't know what to do. This user's behvior forces me and others to watch and correct these articles on a daily base now, which is time consuming. Also note that this user's misbehavior is not limited to the French regions articles. I noticed he has also vandalized the Maine article by adding French as an official language in that US state infobox. Godefroy 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If they don't quit edit warring and start discussing, I'll block away. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say "they"? It's just Virgile1991 who refuses to discuss things and revert all these articles, despite having been asked to provide references for his changes by other users such as Kiwipete, ThePromenader, and myself. Anyway, if he continues to revert (which he'll probably do I'm afraid, given his past behavior), I'll report him here again. Godefroy 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"They" is simply a gender-free way to avoid using awkward constructions such as "he or she", "he/she", or artificial abominations such as "xir". --Calton | Talk 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What Calton said. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the 'artificial abominations' wording :P —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an IP who keeps removing templates from the Drew Barrymore talk page. Can someone either block the IP or protect the Talk page from unregistered users? Thank you. --David Shankbone 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a clear violation of WP:3RR. Because it is so recent, I'll take it to WP:AIV. YechielMan 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I might have blocked, if I'd spotted this at the time; however, it seems they've stopped for now, and we don't know if they're even still on that same IP, so a block may not have much use, by now. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Truth_seeker_69[edit]

Truth seeker 69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appears to be all that one would expect form a user with that name. I have blocked this account, primarily for the creation of Joel Stuart Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a blatant POV fork of Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Joel Hayward maybe? ViridaeTalk 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Corrected, thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

sock of banned User:Arthur Ellis needs blocking[edit]

Resolved: Account blocked.
  • User:Arthur Ellis is under community ban. See also partial log of blocks.
  • Typically he creates throw-away socks to use until they are blocked and then use the next. For his socks, see here and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis.
  • His attention is focussed on two pages: Mark Bourrie and Warren Kinsella, who once had a legal dispute over libelous statements of Bourrie's that Kinsella sued (or threatened to sue) over. Ellis' socks often try to insert links to a blog attacking Kinsella (see [52]) or insert negative material (some of which was the subject of the threatened lawsuit) into the Kinsella article [53]). (There are serious BLP concerns with this material.)
  • He will also attack or harass editors who revert him (e.g. [54]).
  • If a few admins can watch these pages, revert, and block, it would be greatly helpful. Eventually, I suspect, he'll get bored and move on. Bucketsofg 15:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a similar case pertaining to Falun Gong with User:Samuel Luo socks.. What has been decided is to follow WP:DENY. Revert, notify an adminstrator by putting the suspected sock in the proper category, and then it's blocked. No recignition anymore whatsoever. Evilclown93(talk) 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not anyone's sock. I am concerned about errors in the Kinsella article and rerverted to a properly-sourced entry. Bucketsofg is a friend and political colleague of kinsella who has a vested interest in keeping an inaccurate entry. Nortel Survivor 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the version I reverted to is accurately sourced, and is amply footnoted. The links are tr5o articles in Canada's mainstream media and from sites such as the Government of Canada's Gomery Inquiry report. Nor is any of it a matter of litigation. In fact, the version that Buckets reverts to contains information that is subject to a pending lawsuit, Earnscliffe v. Kinsella. Buckets is lying when he suggests otherwise. I hope someone in authority will check my claims. Nortel Survivor 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article version reverted - slowly - to is the favourite of Arthur Ellis. Checkuser jpgordon (talk · contribs) stated here that this editor can be identified by the duck test. Now, Nortel Survivor has gone around TropicNord (talk · contribs)'s user and user talk page and tagged them with sockpuppet tags, stating that TropicNord - who was the last editor to deal with Ellis socks, and who clashed with them - is the subject of the article, and has been blocked indefinitely (false). There's a lot of quacking going on here. This is almost certainly Ellis, and needs a block. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen enough, between the strong suspicions of sockpuppetry and the vandalism of others' userspace, and blocked Nortel Survivor (talk · contribs) indefinitely. MastCell Talk 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper image[edit]

The problem is this picture and the comment under it. Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been involved in a series of disputes and edit wars with several editors, and has [in my oppinion at least] vandalized several articles. A couple messages have been exchanged (by 3 people who question whether formal action should be taken next time User:Anonimu vandalizes) in the talk page of the latest article he kept vandalizing, Fântâna Albă massacre (the article is now pretected). I suspect that as a result of this open exchanges of oppinion, the user Anonimu has placed this photo and the comment underneath it.

Why is this image and comment offensive and inappropriate: Anonimu uses explicite Nazi symbols and symbols of a pro-fascist Romanian party during 1930s (green shirt, and the three-bars-by-three-bars cross) to imply that the people who want formal action against Anonimu's behavior in WP would be pro-fascist and Holocaust deniars. It is a disguised form of personal attack, especially offensive since the users that seek Anonimu to stop bad behavior are anti-fascist, and have contributed in WP in particular to telling the truth about the Holocaust, in both its size and horibility. Anonimu has been told many times that although some users have anti-communist views, while he is openly communist, his personal political views are not a problem for dialog with other users, and only the content of the edit can theoretically be, and if the later is a case, only the content of the edit can and must be judged, not the declarative political views, whatever extreme they could be.

Requested action: the user should remove the image and the comment from his user page, and should be warned that such actions on his part constitue a serios breach of civilized behavior on WP. :Dc76 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In essence, Anonimu is trying to convey the idea that whoever disagrees with him does it because he's a proud Communist, and is thus a Nazi-minded bully. This is only one -- so far, the most pictographic -- episode of a long series of accusations of Nazi-mindedness.
Everybody knows the long series of Nazi crimes. Anonimu's attempts to compare his editorial opponents with genocidal mass murderers over disagreements over tagging are extremely inappropriate, and lead towards hostile editing environment. Under WP:CIV, I support the request to remove this image, and express my general condemnation of throwing lightly around accusations of Nazism. Digwuren
I concur. I will delete the picture and give the user a warning. Sasquatch t|c 19:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Frequent Vandalism[edit]

Someone from IP 81.137.221.153 has engaged in ongoing vandalism for several months and has received warnings from bots and users alike.

I warned the user. If he/she continues to cause trouble, please notify WP:AIV. YechielMan 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing but nonsense, WHOIS doesn't suggest it's shared, and it all looks similar enough that I might venture it's the same person, anyway. Either way, it's a drain on resources better spent elsewhere; blocked. If anybody disagrees, feel free to let me know or release the block. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian football clubs[edit]

All of the articles in Category:Slovenian football clubs are being hit by vandals, both anons and registered. Since I have no clue as to which of the seemingly nonsensical edits may or may not be true, could somebody with some knowledge take a look, or are we going to have to semi-protect all of the articles in the category? Corvus cornix 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From the ones I've investigated it looks like they were all nonsense. Oldelpaso 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

safavid dynasty page vandlaised by suspected sock user:Tajik[edit]

There is heavy edit war on Safavid Dynasty launched by anonim IP 82.83.155.124 which is suspected sock of banned user:Tajik. Anyway, there are several rv's done by him during today .--Dacy69 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JupyMelon[edit]

Resolved: Indef blocked. howcheng {chat} 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this user attention. Even though this user has made only a few contributions so far, all of them have been made to a hoax article called Skipper: The Great One. Why am I reporting this user now? Well because Skipper: The Great One seems to fit the pattern and format of the many hoaxes created by User:Danny Daniel and his sockpuppets. It mentions Robert Cait, a person which was mentioned in some of the Danny Daniel hoaxes (User:Poppapop, a Danny Daniel sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser, edited Robert Cait). It also mentions a parody of Code Lyoko. The final point I want to bring up is JupyMelon's username. If you compare that username to the the sockpuppet usernames listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel, you can see that they are similar, especially when you compare it to User:Jugglemuggler. Anyways, do not block this user unless I find more evidence that this user may be a likely sockpuppet, which will be when JupyMelon makes more edits. I just wanted admins to be aware of this user. Pants(T) 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The user has recently edited 2 Stupid Dogs, an article related to Secret Squirrel (recently, suspected Danny Daniel sockpuppets have edited the page). Pants(T) 22:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this user should now be blocked. Just look at the hoax Jaden is Done / Speak No Evil / Dr.Crowlerbling and the Hip-Hop Mammoth. User:ShreddermanHides, an indef blocked sockpuppet, created a few pages related to Yu-Gi-Oh. It also contains references to Fairy Idol, The Fairly OddParents, and The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy articles that checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets (and User:68.37.205.18, a confirmed IP sock) edit and The Mime Trio. Pants(T) 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Smacked appropriately with a wet fish. howcheng {chat} 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott[edit]

Can someone please take into consideration Ned Scott's editing of Wikipedia? I noticed that another editor is complaining about him above, I don't know the substance of that issue. I can say that he's been reverting work without going to talk. Perhaps a warning from an uninvolved admin might help here? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandal[edit]

IP 71.107.145.200 keeps blanking their talk page and spamming others talk pages. Link User talk:71.107.145.200 Hmrox 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

He's been blocked 24h by Wimt, and Alison is keeping an eye on the unblock request. YechielMan 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review of MagicalPhats[edit]

Resolved

MagicalPhats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has just been blocked by myself for a week. He was blocked yesterday (also by me) due to vandalism after a final warning. The user claimed he was just making test edits and another admin unblocked him after MagicalPhats promised to only edit in his own user space. He did this and created a bunch of user subpages that consisted of a bunch of redirects (1 redirected to 2 which redirected to 3, etc.). Another user tagged these for speedy deletion today (since they were popping up on a list of active double redirects I presume). MagicalPhats went on to blank the user's user page and replaced it with a "Please don't edit other people's pages" message (see this edit). I then blocked him, reinstating the orignial 48 hour block I had put in yesterday. After some personal attacks against me and a warning about those attacks by me, he was disruptive again so I extended it to a week. In response to that he added this to his talk page.

I haven't locked his talk page or anything, but could some other admins review this and weigh in to make sure I was acting appropriately and not "biting the noobs"? Thanks, Metros 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. It's the time-honored vandalize-block-personal attack circle. I'd even lengthen the block for the "piece of shit admin" remark right after.--Atlan (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Fuck you. I'll just make another account" - sounds like it escalated and the editor has no desire to refrain from being disruptive. Endorsed block, however you should probably not have extended the block with "Congratulations" - that's just rubbing it in and precipitated the quoted comment here - Alison 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
He had more than a fair share of patience yesterday, and given the history I think the block is reasonable. Based on his non-stellar debut here, starting a new account would be a good way to blank his slate. I'll encourage him to do so, and I'll also counsel the person who did the tagging that one should be cautious when tagging other users' pages for deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Skipsievert[edit]

I have blocked Skipsievert (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for this edit. He later went on to give his retort a a header for some reason.[55] I've been trying to mediate over at Talk:Technocratic movement for a while, and Skip has already been blocked once for provoking another user by mass-quoting WP:CIVIL- I assume the fact that he did this implies that he has read through the policy. He's been very aggressive on the Technocratic Movement page, and I feel this was a tipping point. Since I've been quasi-involved in the article (mostly grammar and source advice though), I feel someone should check what I've done. Thanks.--Wafulz 23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by another Arthur Ellis sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved

It would seem that that after a a short hiatus, Arthur Ellis has returned...sigh...

The sockpuppet which is currently under investigation for the 13th time,[56] this time as Nortel Survivor [57].

has without any authority placed a block on my discussion page and suggested for a 2nd time that I am a sockpuppet[58].

Words fail me at this point in time to try and explain the actions of such a person(s).

Could the admins remove (or permit me to remove) the illegal block and allegation of sock puppet which by the way was dealt with sometime ago.

Thanks TropicNord

I've indefinitely blocked this user both as a likely sockpuppet and for vandalizing your userpages. You can just revert the edits to your user page and user talk page; this user doesn't have the ability to block you from editing. Just remove the templates - see WP:REVERT for technical help if you need it. MastCell Talk 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, MastCell. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IPs[edit]

I (and another user) have blocked a number of IPs that appear to be the same individual.

I am not entirely sure what to do about this range. Help from a more experienced admin would be greatly appreciated. ck lostsword T C 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on a dynamic DSL service (i.e. not really blockable). An admin could block the entire IP block being 88.108.0.0/ 14 but that would block quite a few addresses. Just be patient and monitor the pages. Request semi-protection if necessary. Sasquatch t|c 01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
NB: You can only block /16 IP ranges and smaller up to /32. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, this is banned user Light current. —