Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive303

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

Noticeboard archives



JJJ999 (talk · contribs)

This user has... interesting views as to notability. For instance:

Look, I'm fucked if I understand any of the science, but a room mate of mine had some he gto from Russia, was awesome shit. I could have the name wrong, but after googling all day this link I found appears to justify me belief it is correct.

-JJJ999 on why he made a rambling article about a homeopathic remedy that combined information for two different remedies with his own special rambling.

I think he might need a little watching. Adam Cuerden talk 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, [1] Pete.Hurd 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How many Ghits did those two things produce? Hardly inarguable either way...JJJ999 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I look through the list of this user's "contributions", a single word keeps coming to mind. It's "troll". -- Hoary 06:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeh, the creation of the ACTDU page... very troll worthy, or adding footnotes needed for ANUSA, or calling for the retention of Muten Roshi and Bulma's page. Nice one thoughJJJ999 06:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • rhymes with "knoll". Maybe worth a RFCU to see if he's related to another troll with predilection to Australian and Chemistry topics. Pete.Hurd 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Was discussed here a few days ago; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#User:JJJ999. There is some timing in the contribution logs to support the idea of a RFCU, but nothing I see dispositive. Based on where I've noticed JJJ999, I'd say there is an interest in and bias toward atheism. I don't see that topical interest in the contribs of any of the suspected puppets. So I'm unwilling to conclude puppetry in the absence of a RFCU. I do think there is a need to learn civility norms and adhere to them. If the user intends to continue participaring in deletion discussions, learning notability norms would be wise also. GRBerry 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm baffled as to what I'm meant to be seeing here...JJJ999 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Zer0faults editing, not blocked, plz handle[edit]

Resolved: Account blocked indefinitely.

Special:Contributions/Zer0faults --Milto LOL pia 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In light of this[20] we may have to reconsider the latest suspicions regarding sockpuppetry[21][22] which people feel are unfounded. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess this settles the question of whether SixOfDiamonds was a sock or not. Worst part is that I had some considerable interaction with Six, and while he was a pain in the butt, he was mostly able to contribute well. But he just couldn't stay away from MONGO (and vice versa) or avoid edit warring. Shame. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As a recent RFCU[23] could not substantiate the suspicions of sockpuppetry would this warrant a recheck (new RFCU) as we now have a "fresh" IP to compare with? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
except that if you look at the recent contributions they are all from sept of 2006 not 7, so to old. and doesn't change the arb situation any, even for those who would like it to. --Rocksanddirt 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The diff has been deleted, due to harassment against User:DHeyward. Admins can see that Zer0faults left the message on MONGO's talk page. --Aude (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Maybe this can finally be resolved then, in a way that will stick. --Rocksanddirt 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see how that diff settles the question of whether or not SevenofDiamonds is a sock of Zer0faults. I see nothing in the message that casts any suspicion on SOD, nor anything that would seem to exonerate him. Natalie 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing suspicious? SOD declares he's leaving Wikipedia forever (with a rant directed at MONGO) and a few hours later Zerofaults makes his first edit in over a year by (insults directed at MONGO). I'm not sure what could possibly be more suspicious. Chaz Beckett 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
To modify a quote by Jeff Greenfield,
Found here Spryde 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Occam's Razor is more appropriate for this situation. What's the simplest explanation here?
A. A user totally unrelated to SOD, who hasn't edited in over a year, just happens to show up to make one edit insulting MONGO, mere hours after SOD says he's leaving.
B. SOD edits under his old Zer0faults account in an attempt to stir up some trouble.
No conspiracy here, just a run-of-the-mill sock. Chaz Beckett 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the razor. I ressurect what is suppose to be my super secret sock to vindicate me ... when it would only implicate me. I was editing at the time zer0 posted apparently. Or, zer0 was following the case and people told him just above where you posted, that he wasn't actually blocked. What is the simplest answer here? --SevenOfDiamonds 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone with Checkuser can reveal the punch line since they know where I work. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
One simple explantion would be that you had someone else make the edit using Zero's account. Or you made the edit yourself from a location you usually don't edit from. Seriously, you've had your sockpuppet fun, give it up now. Chaz Beckett 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Another simple explanation would be that he thinks that he was just driven away for being against MONGO, and is annoyed that someone else had the same thing happen to them. Stop pretending that there's only one explanation please. -Amarkov moo! 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, at this point, there's only one explanation that makes an ounce of sense. The number of "coincidences" here is beyond astronomical. Just call a spade a spade and call SOD a sockpuppet. Everyone's time is being wasted at this point and SOD/Nuclear/Zero is having a nice laugh. Chaz Beckett 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes the razor says its more likely I have hired ppl to make posts on Wikipedia on my past sock account from alternate locations to hide my identity, thats some razor. An arbcom member can see, where I work, is no where near the IP presented. --SevenOfDiamonds 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As much as I hate vandals and abusive socks, I have spent the time between my last edit and this edit looking at the evidence presented by all sides. Taking a look at it without any bias, I see a set of coincidences that were rather tame that eventually escalated into a full blown ArbCom and one of the most uncivil discussions I have seen since joining in 2006. This whole affair is now threatening to ban a productive user. Nothing presented so far is conclusive or even damning. Take a step back. Clear your mind. Read it without any prejudices. There are a lot of eyes on this whole affair from so called "badsites" to blogs to casual observers (like me) who just want to make the project better. I hate to say this but even making these statements above may cause people to suspect ME as being a sock of someone. This whole thing smacks of a witch hunt. Those who clearly have shown nothing but contempt and disruption of the project should be banned. Those that have disputes that do not escalate on occasion should be admonished but move on. Quite a few people involved in that ArbCom has done something against the spirit of the project during that process and anything done as the result of it will stain the project unless a smoking gun is produced now in the 11th hour of the case. Someone fired a gun today. See if it leads where you think it does. Spryde 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That really doesn't seem like a slam dunk to me, although I do not follow SevenOfDiamonds edits and thus didn't know he had declared himself leaving. The speculation about SevenOfDiamonds identity was also followed at WikipediaReview, so it's not like there's no way this person isn't following this. I've gotten emails from a banned user after mentioning them on ANI; should I then conclude that someone I'm addressing is actually this banned user? I also note that the last checkuser did not come back inconclusive or stale, but pretty affirmatively unrelated. Natalie 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone produced an IP that belonged to zer0 apparently, this was ignored. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZZZ--MONGO 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And the second (third?) checkuser has come back as unrelated. I would suggest that everyone who has spent the better part of their time attempting to make something, anything, stick against SevenOfDiamonds step back and try doing something else with their time. Natalie 12:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A few more than that, with some pages having multiple requests:
I suspect there will be more, but I also suspect the outcome of the arbcom case will result in little to no lasting changes. Around and around we go... - auburnpilot talk 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AuburnPilot. --Rocksanddirt 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users on one account[edit]

Topsecrete has admitted that there are five users on that account and at least one has written an article about himself Waleed A. Samkari. Any input on what to do? IrishGuy talk 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... block it as a role account? That's what I'd suggest. Group editing is generally frowned upon, as I understand it. MastCell Talk 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that an actual Jordanian general would be farting around on wikipedia, and taking direction from Topsecrete. This looks more like a group college students with an interest in those subjects, probably living together. It also sounds like he is admitting to some possible accidental role accounting, rather than intended account sharing. There is a positive contribution history, so maybe getting a commitment to log out when the user leaves his computer, and a commitment to not use each other's accounts will resolve the problem, rather than a block. Dean Wormer 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I read it as As a group they decide what to be written and that then one particular editor makes those edits under above username. In all other case each of them has their own login. Agathoclea 08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One for WP:LAME[edit]

Thedocjd (talk · contribs), Medicalhistorian (talk · contribs) and multiple anon IPs are tag-teaming to get round 3RR in adding an unsourced redlink to Dr Joseph De Soto to assorted articles. (Hueneme High School‎, Oxnard, California, List of Mexican Americans, List of notable Hispanics from the United States, Berkeley County, West Virginia, Gerrardstown, West Virginia is a representative - and not at all exhaustive - list.) From the username of Thedocjd, I think there's a reasonable possibility of a COI here, too.

I've semiprotected the two that were coming under the highest volume of IP edits, but as Thedocjd account is a couple of weeks old, it's not affected and is continuing to re-add the link. I am extremely reluctant to full-protect any of these articles over such a trivial matter, but the edits aren't disruptive enough to warrant breaking 3RR over. This has been going on for over a month now - the earliest I can find dates from 15 August - so it doesn't seem like they're going to get bored and go away any time soon.

Thedocjd also appears to have a history of POV-pushing and serious BLP violation on other articles as well (e.g. [24], [25]). Much as I'm sorely tempted to hardblock everyone involved until they can come up with reliable sources for anything they add, I don't (sadly) think that's fair. Any thoughts?iridescent (talk to me!) 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, given the established pattern of contempt for Wikipedia policy. Review welcome, of course. Raymond Arritt 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I note, per here that Iridescent is considering a block before utilizing the full array of warnings, to give a new editor all the available chances to become a good editor. ThuranX 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Reread my original reply to you, particularly the line "Except in the case of really bad offenders (blatant sockpuppets, serious BLP violators etc)". Since these are the two things I'm proposing a block for in this case, there's no double-standard involved.iridescent (talk to me!) 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA "vandalizing": an editor I blocked that I almost kinda sorta mildly regret (maybe)[edit]

Need a double-check on myself, if you don't mind.

Earlier today, I indefinitely blocked User:Hopeshopes for vandalizing RfAs (example). It wasn't until after I'd blocked Hopeshopes and reverted all his edits (either by rolling them back[26] or striking them out with a note[27]) that I realized he wasn't inserting new content (such as "gay" [28]) into the RfAs, it was converting existing words into the strangely formatted version.

Very curious, and I semi-regret going off on him as much as I did... but, looking at his contribution history, his only edits have been to "Strong Support" all the open RfAs (and in half of those, he was also converting choice words to the strange script formatting, usually "bad words" of some sort). So, I might have nailed a SPA by accident, which is good, but not for the right reasons, which is bad... gah.

Second opinions are exceedingly welcome. :) EVula // talk // // 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What in the world would be the point of scriptifying bad words? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that was done so that people editing while under keword-based restrictions from parental controls will be free to edit the page..? You Can't See Me! 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt do anything for me... should it? ViridaeTalk 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Make them stand out. Anyways, I'll support this block once I get this big mallard off my desk... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I just see the code. Firefox perhaps? ViridaeTalk 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm certain that Wikipedia filters out <script> tags. There's too much potential for trouble otherwise. --Carnildo 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It does; it would be a severe security risk if it didn't. --ais523 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Disrupting RfA and no constructive contributions. WP:RBI and move along, lads. Raymond Arritt 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, but I wanted (and still want) some additional opinions. When you bust vandals for too long, you can start seeing malice where none exists, and I'm trying to make sure I'm still clear-eyed. :) EVula // talk // // 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy[edit]

User:Larryfooter is constantly updating this article with a straight copy and paste from It was speedied for copyvio on the 20th Sept. Originally added by this editor. If I can use that term. I recreated it as a stub article, sourced the bio in references. Then the copyvio got put straight back in again. Can we please keep an eye on this editor? Personally, I'm tempted to block them for good, but instead I'll note the incident here and ask admins to make a decision on what to do. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a single user who insists on re-adding a copyvio, and you've warned them sufficiently, I suppose you may block them. It's better than protecting the page altogether, at least. Melsaran (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Math rulles[edit]


Using the account only for vandalism. Have had to revert all his edits. --Endless Dan 12:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.--Isotope23 talk 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:AIV next time please. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation is as much of a mess as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism was. This recently deleted page was resurrected by User:Digwuren, and the debate has been degenerating swiftly, with people accusing each other of "transparent provocations", leaving "keep" comments twice, and soliticing support on their national noticeboards. In response to my concerns that the debate is dominated by ethnic cliques, someone started spamming links to the Romania-, Hungary-, etc.-related noticeboards, although the page appears to have nothing to do with these countries (which are not even mentioned in the text). As a predictable result of these attempts to inflame the debate, a clowd of Transnistria-related warriors arrived to argue whether the Commies were much more wicked than the Nazis, and a passerby proclaimed that he read an article in a local newspaper which concluded that "Hitler and Stalin were both equally bad". This off-topic bickering is really distracting and annoying. In short, I request a neutral sysop to keep an eye on the page, lest it degenerates into a new Denial of denial of occupation/liberation-type saga. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wathing over it, and I'm sure some others are doing so too. I picked this up through an RfA, so I think I', very neutral here. Maxim(talk) 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, considering that it was you who demanded to have me "banned of the project" earlier this month on this very noticeboard and that you seem to be close with Giggy, who controversially promoted the page to good articles before it was speedily delisted. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
For context, the accusations presented at this diff are provably false. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. To clarify things I would like to note that Neutral Administrator means administrator who agrees completely with Ghirlandajo but not with his opponents. Not to inflame matters just to clarify the situation and to avoid further confusion. Suva Чего? 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Describing [29] as "transparent provocations" is obviously accurate. Your baseless accusations about "attempts to inflame the debate" are nothing but attempts to inflame the debate, and your attempt to discuss a content matter on this noticeboard is forum shopping. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Digwuren, this isn't the place to spill disputes. Maxim(talk) 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but it is not him who brought it here this time, and he has a good point about inflammatory tone of Ghirla's message which has no place here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You will be well advised to investigate the issue before rushing to endorse Digwuren's comments, as you have been wont to do. Over the recent days Digwuren referred to me as "a troll without a specific gender", accused me of being a Stalinist, etc, but have you seen me posting complaints on this noticeboard? I don't wish to emulate either you or him in this respect. As you point out below, he ended up by being blocked, but this was due to six reverts within several hours and a formal complaint on WP:AN3. An unblock followed four hours later, based on off-wiki communications. I have concluded that Digwuren has a free pass to insult me and he enjoys impunity for comments which, would I say something along those lines, would get me banned from the project for good. As long as the benefit of good faith is extended indefinitely to people like him, I see no point in complaining here or on some other noticeboard. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not accused you of being a Stalinist. However, for any offense you refer to, here is my sincerest apology. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again, indeed. The conflicts between you and Digwuren now has an ArbCom; one would hope we wouldn't see you guys still reporting each another here all the time. Sigh. That the AfD is not going as you'd like it to is not a reason to complain about it here. And I wonder why don't you complain that the debate was also "spammed" to Russia-related noticeboard? It is common to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting to announce deletions in related projects; those which don't have deletion sorting sections use main noticeboards. Please don't use derogatory words like "spamming" when talking about perfectly normal practices which even have their own dedicated WikiProject.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, please stop taunting. There is no complaint, just a plea for additional oversight. I don't care about Digwuren inasmuch as I did not care about Molobo, Bonaparte, and other tendentious editors whose activities you were at pains to encourage in the past. I am disappointed that you chose to ignore my concerns about your unqualified and unmotivated support for Digwuren's actions, no matter how disruptive their may appear to a wider community. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The first diff provided here is an award to a random editor who's clearly not involved in any of this brouhaha. The second diff contains more random accusations which certainly don't hold water. As for "unquestioned support", have you checked out this? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just chipping in as the speedy delister - I delisted it for the two {{cn}}s and the one {{OR}} that were on the page at the time of delisting. If I knew that an Eastern-European user had added the tag (due to the eternal war of attrition), I would've put it on GAR. Still, it can't be un-unlisted now due to the edit war over it. Will (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, can anyone tell me why the new article shouldn't be G4'd? Also, when you undelete and restore pages to userspace following AFD, please don't move it 30 times and delete the redirects, it took me a really long time to find the original article... ^demon[omg plz] 14:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can: because it's not the article AFD:d; it's a new article. It's got a new title, a better-defined topic, more thorough sourcing, and its composition is improved by using the criticism from the original AFD. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: User blocked. Melsaran (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeps vandalising Boy Wanted, still edits Wikipedia despite several warnings Gareth E Kegg 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like this should be reported to WP:AIV, not here. I've blocked the user, however. EVula // talk // // 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my[edit]

Well, I really didn't want to have to bring this back up for fear of WP:FEEDING, but the community has done nothing in the past day or so. But apparently two confessions by SevenOfDiamonds [30] [31] that he is a sockpuppet of Zer0defaults, and the amazing coincidence that Zer0defaults returned to harass MONGO within a few minutes of Seven "quitting" (and therefore NuclearUmf) aren't enough to block this new account, and he continues to edit war. Gosh, he is editing even now. Just as he himself has said: "the community here is amusing". How in the world is anyone going to contend this isn't worth an indef block? Sheesh, if this is what passes as assuming good faith, then I guess we might as well forget the duck test. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How did everyone get the sarcasm but you. If you had not noticed I resulted to sarcasm when dealing with Chaz because I find him amusing as well as the community of editors who have filed 7 RFCU's all that have been shown to be false. Stop forum shopping, there is a pending RFAr. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Further proof of the amuzing community is The Evil Spartan who has accused me of edit warring because of one revert. But not his friend DHeyward who reverted against 2 users, 2 times: [32] [33]. Good job with that second link. Who is zer0defaults? As for accepting the block as a sockpuppet, you can see the previous comment here [34] where I do not "confess" at all, just give up trying to defend myself and wait for the Arbcom ruling. I believe The Evil Spartan has now filed 3 unsuccessful RFCU's, no wonder he is now forum shopping. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The Evil Spartan, there's really nothing remotely productive about this thread. You clearly misread SOD's comment, as he and others have shown. We get that you think he's a sock, but it's time for you to realize others don't agree. Let the arbcom do its job. - auburnpilot talk 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:IAF[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked IAF (talk · contribs) (aka "Indian Air Force"). He was blocked for one week. He has since edited as an IP user to continue his campaigning and disruption, including curiously accusing me of being a Jain involved in some conspiracy.[35][36][37][38] He has shown an intention to continue disrupting the wiki, so based on advice I received when I put the one week block up for review, I instituted a block with an indefinite duration. I have blocked the three IP addresses he has used with an anon block, including preventing account creation, for one month. I tagged all three IP talk pages with {{anonblock}}.[39][40][41] I have also semi-protected Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week to help prevent any further disruption.[42] I have avoided semi-protecting the talk page, as it is generally frowned upon, but may do so if he continues to use multiple IP addresses to disrupt discussion there. Feedback, comments and suggestions are quite welcome. Vassyana 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While I believe it normally inappropriate to use admin tools when engaged in a content dispute (no matter how marginal the content may be) I note that IAF has never attempted to disguise that he continued to edit as an ip to evade their block, nor have they attempted to request unblock. In this instance I believe the actions were appropriate, but I think a better course would have been bring this matter to this board before taking action yourself (especially as the user was still under a one week block). Of course, this will not stop the user from editing via ip - and I strongly suggest you get an uninvolved admin to deal with any future edits. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was the one who implemented the one week block. I asked for a review of the block, because I was reminded after the fact that I had engaged with the user on a similar issue about six months ago, by reading his talk page. I did not want to engage in an inappropriate action by community standards, so I made sure to solicit input. In the most recent action, I acted in harmony with the advice of the only editor to respond, who suggested an indefinite block if there were any further issues. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104#Block review (possible_conflict). I hope that helps clarify the situation. Vassyana 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, fine by me. It's just that indef is - while not permanent - a serious block. Extending a short term block (to ensure prevention of damage to WP) while you seek input is possibly a better course of action. Again, there is the question of the initial block but if you were following consensus (even if part of that community) then that is okay, too. Ultimately, if you believe that the most expedient course is (was) to block and then seek retrospective agreement then that is your decision. In this matter I feel you were justified. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I do appreciate the concern and feedback. You are correct that a shorter extension while soliciting further feedback would have probably been best, regardless of how justified it may have been. I will bear this in mind in the future. Cheers! Vassyana 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


This might not make sense unless you're familiar with the history of Proabivouac.

Proabivouac has taken to editing policy pages disruptively, see this. He also said I threatened him because I reverted his edits telling him "don't push it". He also edited Wikipedia:Attack sites claiming that "By these criteria, Wikipedia is currently itself an attack site". In the past day or so, all he has done is edit policy pages disruptively, and appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Opinions? --Deskana (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Proabivouac is obviously trying to make a point, only editing for effect. The edit on attack sites alone is proof enough. Jmlk17 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Under Proabivouac's probation, "He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior." Thatcher131 10:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Those diffs are disturbing to me. He does indeed seem to be being, in one word, disruptive; this diff is probably the most disruptive. Have you made any attempt to have a polite discussion with him Deskana? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That happened, so it was hardly disruption. Arrow740 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous Dissident, this may sound to you a little circular, but if this language had been there to begin with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I aim to prevent another situation like mine.Proabivouac 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've not "edit[ed] for effect," but to honestly apprise potential contributors of what they are likely to encounter here, and spare them from damage which can result from ill-informed decisions. As I don't edit war, I've been reverted, the end: I've taken it to talk.Proabivouac 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
is there a link to the Arbitration probation ruling? Neil  11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Not one that won't send Proabivuoac into another conniption fit. Go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests and search for his name. Thatcher131 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, he's been blocked by User:FT2 for a week. I was just going to ban him from editing policy pages for a couple of weeks on pain of a block (per the wording of the ruling), but I guess a block is understandable. Neil  11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Probivouac was unblocked within half an hour, and I actually welcome this decision, provided that he takes his grievances to talk pages (as he promised to do). --Ghirla-трёп- 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
He's on probation for a reason and all he's done for the past few weeks is disprupt. Bad unblock in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are not meant to be punitive. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't punitive given the crap that Proabivouac has caused over the past few weeks, I very much doubt it will stop now and this block was a way of stopping that disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You are really exaggerating spurious reports of disruption. Probaviouac uses the talk page quite frequently to voice his statements, and I dont see the need to apply punitive, capricious, measures to a user in good standing like him.Bakaman 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This certainly seems like a textbook example of WP:POINT. Under the terms of his probation, any single administrator may ban him from any page that he edits disruptively. Is there any objection to banning him from Wikipedia:Username policy and Wikipedia:Attack sites? I don't propose banning him from the talk pages of those policies (for now); if he'd like to make any constructive suggestions there he's welcome to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Talk pages would be fine. Neil  12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is room for legitimate disagreement with some aspects of how Probivouac's situation was handled a few weeks ago, but edits such as the ones he has made this week to policy pages are not helpful (and editing the page for an already-rejected policy seems particularly unnecessary). Probivouac should be aware by now that the issue he flagged has been noted by arbitrators and other administrators. On the other hand, it is difficult to see what can be effectively changed at this point. He is welcome to continue the discussion on the arbitration talk page if he believes it would be helpful but otherwise I would prefer to see himn and it might be best for him if he would, direct his efforts to other matters. Newyorkbrad 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How is referencing his own situation (which obviously has occured) on an "already-rejected" policy in any way disruptive? What did it disrupt? What's wrong with posting something true on an already-rejected policy page? Arrow740 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I was actually going to essentially say the same thing that Newyorkbrad did. I see little compelling reason for anyone to be making the type of edit Pro did to what is a dead proposal; it's just completely unnecessary.--Isotope23 talk 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Proabivuoac is rapidly wearing out his welcome as far as policy pages are concerned. All he has done in the last couple of weeks is push the same barrow on as many different pages as he can think of. However, the correct application of the probation would seem to be a ban from editing policy pages, not a complete block. (To be enforced by blocking, if necessary, and it could be escalated to include the talk pages if he edits disruptively there as well.) If he voluntarily respects this, there is no need to formalize it for the time being. Thatcher131 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The need to formalize it appears to be psychological, not practical.Proabivouac 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this[edit]

I am concerned how Slrubenstein thought it was okay to ignore an Arbcom ruling, and unblock Proabivouac on an incredibly specious reason ("it's not disruptive if it didn't break 3RR"), particularly as Proabivouac was not blocked for breaking 3RR, and no effort made to discuss it with the blocking administrator (FT2) was made. Neil  13:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, 3RR is not the be all and end all of disruption. ViridaeTalk 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this unblock for the same reasons as Viridae and Neil. --Deskana (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The stated reason is somewhat specious. However, under the terms of the probation it would have been more appropriate to ban him from editing policy pages, and only enforce with a block if he continued to edit them. Certainly admins have the discretion to ban users in excess of any prior rulings if the situation warrants it, but since Proabivuoac's disruptive edits are confined to a relatively narrow set of policy pages, I think a topic ban would have been a more appropriate first step. The goal here is not to drive the user away, after all. Thatcher131 13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So are we saying "Due to an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing, Proabivouac is banned from editing policy (guideline, essay) pages. Editing of such pages will result in a block."? Do we need to formalise this somehow? Neil  14:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a very good idea, and I'm sure that everyone agree's that this is needed. It's sad, but I believe that we should also attempt to nip this in the bud, with a strong warning to Proabivouac that future disruptive behaviour, however minor, will not be tolerated. Basically, he needs to drop this now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Per the probation it should be logged on the Arbitration case page, as well as noticed to his talk page, of course. Thatcher131 14:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there is no reason to WP:WHEEL over the block, but a policy mainpage topic ban would probably suffice (excluding talkpages).--Isotope23 talk 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think the unblock was unwise. Disruption does not just mean 3RR. I am often astounded by how quickly admins are willing to substitute their judgment for anothers even when the block has been strongly endorsed by third parties. Objections to blocks should be raised on this board and unblocks should happen where there is a consensus that the block was inappropriate, not just where there is one admin that disagrees with it. WjBscribe 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Policy page ban implemented ([43], [44]). Neil  09:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    I welcome the decision to implement the policy page ban. A 1-week block from all pages (including talk pages) was hardly warranted, but Proabivoauc's solicitation of an unblock via private channels was even less appropriate. Hopefully we may archive the discussion at this point. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Soliciting unblocks via private channels happens all the time.Proabivouac 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

They're baaackk....[edit]

As previously reported, the Internet Coffee Phone people are back. I just killed the term in Macintosh and Nespresso which were added in the last few minutes. A quick search shows nothing else but I thought I would make others aware. Spryde 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few more that are popping up in Recent Changes. They all seem to be from different anon IPsiridescent (talk to me!) 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Some searches to help...
Special:Whatlinkshere/Internet_Coffee_Phone is also a good one for spotting them - just caught 3 in the last 5 minutesiridescent (talk to me!) 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI, it appears they are no longer linking it but merely substituting the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talkcontribs) 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IP user apparently wikistalking Rktect[edit]

I noticed an odd additon to CAT:CSD and found that the IP editor who sent the linked article to the deletion queue has been following a certain Rktect around, removing what looks to be sourced content and leaving edit summaries to the tune of "Reverted continued additions of OR and POV by User:Rktect." I need to get some sleep before work tomorrow, but if someone in a brighter timezone could look through the edit history of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and make "corrections" as necessary, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to go too, but any admin who handles this should look at the situation in depth. Rktect has a long history of adding... "idiosyncratic"... perspectives to articles in this general topic area. In the past his perspectives have not necessarily been supported by the sources he provides. Thus, the IP may be making legitimate corrections. Or not. Again, it will take some digging. Raymond Arritt 07:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed that as I was inadvisedly spending even more of my sleep time on Wikipedia. The block history of Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) does make me a bit more uneasy about the quality of his or her edits. There is a problem brewing here, though, and it would be good of someone who actually should be awake right now to see if they can get to the bottom of it. Good night, all. --Dynaflow babble 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
that particular article was deleted as CSDA1 by Jreferee at 2:55 despite a hangon by Dynaflow. The article does looks somewhat incoherent to me, but not necessarily hopeless. DGG (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Looks like Rktect has possibly violated his or her Arbcom ban against editing articles on weights and measures: diff. --Dynaflow babble 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [EDIT:] He or she is also creating preferred versions of articles in his userspace (User:Rktect/Ancient egyptian units of measurement, User:Rktect/mile, User:Rktect/History of Measurement, User:Rktect/pous, User talk:Rktect/cubit, User:Rktect/degrees, User:Rktect/Imperial Unit, etc.) that he would otherwise be barred from editing. He or she is even creating new weights-and-measures articles in namespace: diff. More: diff, diff, etc. --Dynaflow babble 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Now also reported at WP:AE. --Dynaflow babble 08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for one week for violating the ruling - this is the maximum the ArbCom ruling allows for. Neil  08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the offending Rktect articles in userspace be deleted under CSD G5? Caknuck 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The ones mentioned in this ANI have been deleted. I will check his contribs for any further that I've missed. SirFozzie 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of material here: Special:Prefixindex/User:Rktect/. Be careful in deleting, though. Some of these things seem to be POV-fork drafts of articles, while others are archives of talk-page discussions which are allowable as subpages. Also, could someone better-versed in ancient history than I am look at that IP editor's contribs, specifically what it defines as "massive POV edits?" Its main activity seems to be following Rktect around and reverting him, even in articles he's not barred from editing. Even though I'd like to AGF, that could possibly be more indicative of wikistalking or vendetta'ish behavior than helpful NPOV policing. --Dynaflow babble 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Maplefan - Adding unuseful information to RuneScape and MapleStory[edit]

I am reopening this after an archival because a consensus at Talk:Runescape and at Talk:MapleStory is pretty clear on that this is an issue which has to be handled.

Old ANI:

In the discussion above, the only response by one not regulary maintaining these two articles was left in by User:Zscout370. "Think MapleStory" was the response, and I had no idea what did he mean by that. This is not meant as a harassment, only that it left be unclear how was this handled.

Policies User:Maplefan has broken[edit]

I apologise for the use of headers, but this is meant more as a clear display.

Constantly adding in unsourced text to the articles - WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT[edit]

This is a list of edits by User:Maplefan which got reverted. The edits include in a statement on that the actual number of players are less in the game as a player could create multiple accounts. This is constatly kept to be added by User:Maplefan, all of which have been reverted:


Mentioned in the old ANI:

Issues not listed above:

WP:3RR has not been broken by User:Maplefan, but the information he keeps adding in is the same.


I found out that User:Maplefan has been unhelpful here too, as seen from these reverted edits:

WP:OR and WP:NPOV as "one of the most popular MMORPG" in the world". There is no useful way to determine that unless very accurately sourced.

The mention that the actual number of players are less in the game as a player could create multiple accounts is kept removed from this article, as seen from here:

It makes perfectly sense that this is a violation of WP:NPOV, the user tries to remove the "negative" away from MapleStory and add the same "negative" into RuneScape. There is a clear consensus in Talk:RuneScape#10_million_players.21 that the edits he made to RuneScape, as I listed above, are not to be allowed into the article. Talk:MapleStory#Clearly... is also a mention that the edits into MapleStory are considered as vandalism.

While it might be understandable that if an MMORPG article mentions a statement which should be in that another MMORPG too, such edits between a different group of people maintaining the articles should be usually discussed before editing. This is a WP:POINT, as User:Maplefan has never started a discussion about this. However, since the player is removing this information from MapleStory and adding it into RuneScape, it can be determined that this user has an unneutral point of view towards these articles, violating WP:NPOV.

Sockpuppetry - WP:SOCK and userpage as a web space - WP:NOT#WEBSPACE[edit]

In case this is not possible to be included in a whole report to ANI, please inform me to move this part to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.

Talk:RuneScape#10_million_players.21 was a header started by User:Runescapehater. The username is itself a violation of WP:USERNAME, as a username that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view. However, this is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Maplefan. Why are these two suspected as the same user is that they entirely focus on the same issue. User:Maplefan started to add in the statement of the actual player number being less, and User:Runescapehater commented about it in the talk page that the statement is fake.

Contributions by these two accounts compared with each other:

Both have made edits to RuneScape, and a single edit by User:Runescapehater to Talk:MapleStory [48] is a strong evidence on that these two accounts are highly likely to be sockpuppets with each other.

In the userpage of User:Runescapehater, the second clause is: "Welcome to my webpage!" Wikipedia is WP:NOT for free webhosts, and the content os the userpage is inappropriate per the policy of WP:USER, as a weblog of non-Wikipedia related items and just a collection of point of views.

Page-move vandalism - WP:VAND[edit]

User:Maplefan moved RuneScape into Runescape the flea bag. [49] This is highly inappropriate, and shows a bad attitude to RuneScape. The edit was reverted immediatly, and the user has been warned. I also told about this in the old ANI.

Previous reports[edit]


User:Maplefan has violated WP:NPOV by WP:POINT, and what I can see that this user likes MapleStory more than RuneScape, and wants to somehow prove it by inappropriate switching the content of the two articles I mentioned.

I request a supervision for User:Maplefan, meaning that this user should not edit MapleStory or RuneScape in any case, unless the edit is useful and neutral to the article. Then I also request a temporary block for him, maybe about a length of 1 week but the length of the block is not really the important part. Plus, an indefinite block to User:Runescapehater, if it is proven as a sock puppet.

I am breaking my "Wikibreak", but only because I felt that something had to be done about this. I won't be commenting about this unless it is very urgent and you need to get in touch with me (E-mail me if so.), as I want to continue the break I have. I'm also posting a notice that I opened an WP:ANI about this, to Talk:MapleStory and to Talk:RuneScape, so the people reverting the edits or otherwise willing to comment about this are welcome to do so.

Thank you, ~Iceshark7 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The sockpuppetry is pretty obvious here; I'd say you might be in better shape filing this report at WP:SSP though. The users I would say need to be blocked for POV pushing and sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan 18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked Maplefan and his obvious sockpuppets after a checkuser. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Very much appreciated. :) Legendotphoenix 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IP Address[edit]


A quick look at his editing history will show that every single one of his posts has disrupted the Wikipedia community. He was brought to my attention regarding the DirectBuy article. I am guessing that he currently works for the company because he always edits/reverts it to a version that is written as an advertisement, and removes any information that is critical of it. Please block his IP address from making further edits. Cmcfarland 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Article has been semi-protected for 1 week pending a resolution on the talk page. I will post a notice for the anon editors on their talk pages advising them not to remove cited material. Caknuck 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Now it's fully protected. A possible sleeper account User:Wiseard made the exact same deletion. Caknuck 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't have to guess. Clicking on the WHOIS link at the bottom of the IP's talk page shows it is allocated to UCCTOPS aka Direct Buy. Spryde 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IP address[edit]

I've come here out of despair more than anything else, this IP has been constantly adding uncited info and messing up infoboxes on roller coaster related articles. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but almost all of this IPs edits have had to be reverted or amended and they continue to ignore warnings placed on their talk page. In particular, there has been continued addition of "none" to infobox fields, despite being told numerous times that these need to be left blank, as well as unecessary decapitalisation. A few examples:

Edits from this IP address are becoming too much for a few regular WP:ROCO editors to handle, everytime I log on there is another list of unecessary work created. Many thanks in advance, Seaserpent85Talk 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that the ip hasn't seen your messages. There is a bug that means some ip's don't get the "new messages" bar. I will perform a short block, so they are "forced" to read the talkpage, with a comment to please use the page to talk to concerned editors. In the meanwhile, have you tried the various article talkpages? LessHeard vanU 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. No, I haven't tried the article talkpages - there must be hundreds of such edits by this IP, all on different articles, I'm not sure that they would be able to read the talkpage in such a short time. Hopefully this block will force them to read their talkpage though! Thanks again, Seaserpent85Talk 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

If anyone fancies some current event work, WP:ITN/C hasn't been looked at for 24 hours - only one suggestion from that long ago, but it shouldn;t have to wait that long prior to processing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive ban-evasion by User:Flavius Belisarius/User:Shuppiluliuma[edit]

Can a few admins please help watch out for ban-evading socks of Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs) (aka Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs))? He's ban-evading on a daily basis with massive editing sprees, partly through throwaway socks and partly through IPs. I've had to take drastic measures by repeatedly range-blocking two /16 IP ranges, plus semi-protecting a dozen or so articles.

Every activity of or on Turkey-related articles should be stopped immediately, and all appearances of new accounts on Turkey-related articles making long sequences of edits, especially relating to the choice and positioning of images, are highly suspect.

He was banned for repeated edit-warring and he's now evidently waging a war of attrition on Wikipedia: just go on editing until admins tire of blocking him. This must be stopped by all means. (Here's a complaint by an affected user; I couldn't have described the situation better: [54]) Fut.Perf. 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Um, first time mentioning anything here, so unsure of exactly how to go, hope I am following correct procedure. Now, a silly change was made to the "Empress Matilda" article, and didn't seem worth mentioning. However, I looked at the IP's talk page, and it is full of cautions and 2 temporary blocks so far. The blocks don't deter the person, however the person (or people maybe) doesn't seem to make silly changes often, only once a month maybe. I'm not going to suggest anything really, but would be interested to know what happens to him.
For details of the change, see here
Bistromaths 22:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, in the future, obvious vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. Mr.Z-man 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppets?[edit]

Resolved: all obvious socks, and per WP:DUCK, all blocked

On talk page Talk:Resident Evil (film), User: created a vote to not merge the article. I find it very strange how the user accounts that contributed have been recently created (about 2 minutes apart) and went straight to the talk page and voted "yes."

This includes:
Alien102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Blackdood222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Don't write (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Unstoppable Juggernaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
School what (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Look you! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
--əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Quack. All blocked. ELIMINATORJR 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up[edit]

The difficult arbitration concerning external links which harass rumbles on, and there are some very significant resolutions being considered here. Most controversial probably 'Malicious sites' and I have serious concerns with this one.

The way these decisions are made is of vital importance to Wikipedia, and because they are being made now, I have brought this to the attention of this high traffic noticeboard as a rather unusual 'Incident'.

A policy is being formulated which is intended to supersede the ArbCom's decisions (in time) - I entreat all admin.s to comment both on the talk pages of the Arbitration, and at the policy proposal Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment. Privatemusings 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Check out this [[55]] lovely statement after a block for vandalism. For those who watch/have seen this user before. the full talk page discusses some other sock drawer activity. --Rocksanddirt 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Empty threat. It's not like it a) hasn't happened before or b) is going to matter who the original person was. I think revert, block, ignore should be applied liberally if the person is to return and he/she can be identified.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent threat of violence against me[edit]

I've just received the first threat against me during my time at Wikipedia (diff), and would like to ask that action be taken against this editor; checkuser seems warranted in this case. Thank you in advance for your help on this matter. Badagnani 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the user for trolling, harrassing and vandalising. It is likely that he/she is a sockpuppet of the other Burma protester users. GizzaDiscuss © 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User GATA4001 for violating[edit]

The evidence is located in the Talk page here: - We editors of this page have tried & tried & tried to get him to stop. We talked to him, we asked him politely, we gave him links to help him understand the purpose of Wikipedia, but he refuses to listen to any of us. Every day, there GATA4001 is, making another destructive edit of the HD Radio article. Frankly we're tired of undoing his damage.

Please block him from any further editing. Thank you. - Theaveng 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(Non-admin) I note that there are several NPOV violations by this user, but am unsure if blocking is quite in order. Perhaps a final {{uw-npov4}} warning might suffice. [56], [57] and several other diffs are of note - the user seems to be complaining about sources while introducing original research himself/herself. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the user is making POV edits and talk page style edits, all to the same article, mind you, at times using improper edit summaries ("grammer"). I think someone should give them a "clue", like the one mentioned in the comment above.--Sethacus 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
He just did it again. Even though we specifically told him, "Do not include opinions without citations" he ignored us and reinserted the exact same anti-HD Radio comments/opinions/unsubstantiated claims that we have deleted over-and-over-and-over. I've had enough. - Theaveng 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's things like this, not just GATA4001 but other disruptive persons that I've seen ruin various articles, why I think wikipedia should end its "anyone can edit" policy. There ought to be a restriction that (1) only people who are registered can edit and (2) until that person reaches, say 100 edits, his changes must be approved by an experienced user.

That would help eliminate the schoolkids in study hall just randomly vandalizing articles for fun. And it would help stop inexperienced users (like GATA4001) from making foolish changes, until they become familiar with how wiki works. Just my humble opinion. Most importantly it would help keep my blood pressure down, because I wouldn't have to worry about these jokers destroying several YEARS worth of work in just 30 minutes time. Just my humble opinion. - Theaveng 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that User:Gata4001 has not edited the article since the final warning, so I feel unable to issue a block. A couple of questions, one serious and one not so; firstly, have you tried adding Gata4001's critical edits 'as well as the consensus ones? I haven't checked, but Gata4001 believes they have cites for their edits. If so, there is nothing to stop both/all viewpoints being represented. The serious question is; should you be editing Wikipedia if you suffer from high blood pressure - really, no piece of cyberspace is worth your health! If it was just a figure of speech, well.... Anyhows, if Gata4001 continues to act against the consensus then report it to WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I added a couple of GATA's edits, such as the paragraph about the new NDS "pay to hear" licensing with HD Radio, but where Gata worded it "this sucks and will lead to no more free radio", I worded it using a non-judgmental/neutral viewpoint. ----- Unfortunately the amount of trash GATA adds outweighs about 10-to-1 anything useful. He keeps adding comments like "HD Radio will be dead by 2009" which is not in any way helpful. ----- Worse, he deletes things like 30 links to external citations (why? who knows?), and I'm concerned we'll end up "losing" something because of one of his careless deletions.
As for wikipedia's policy of allowing anonymous and/or newbies to trash articles, it seems rather silly to me. Like deciding to eliminate border guards along the Canada line. Yeah sure, MOST canadians are decent people, but there are also those whackjobs who ought to be kept out until they've been properly "naturalized" to comply with the new U.S. rules (i.e. Registered). Wikipedia ought to have some kind of barrier to keep out the riff-raff, until they've proven themselves to be decent editors with, say, 100 established user-approved edits. (I guess what I'm trying to say, is that ALL articles ought to have semi-protection, by default.)- Theaveng 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That kind of stuff is brought up almost monthly, and that would be tantamount to (a) falsehood in advertising ("Anyone can edit provided you're registered!") and (b) biting newcomers. Vandals are easily dealt with; it's POV-pushers that need to be kept an eye on and reported to the proper authorities. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
What you say is partly true, but this "anyone can edit" policy is also the reason why various persons refuse to accept wikipedia as a valid citation of information. And why students are banned from using wiki for their reseach. I've lost track of how many times I've said "Wikipedia says this and that", and the opposite party replies, "You might as well have cited nothing; wikipedia is not a valid resource." Quite frustrating.
Perhaps if wikipedia modified its policy to make all articles semi-protected, such that modifications can only be made made by registered users, then wikipedia would be accepted as a valid citation. - Theaveng 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Then go pester Citizendium and stop wasting time here. AFAIK, Citizendium does not allow anon editing. Either that, or cite the source behind your argument, not the article. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No need to be rude ("pester" and "wasting time"). Learn some tolerance. All I did was express my opinion, and all you needed to do was say, "okay" or "I disagree" without the juvenile, insulting tone as if you think I'm scum.
As for Gata4001, it appears the warning worked. He's stopped vandalizing HD Radio. Hopefully he'll now learn to *cooperate* with the other editors. - Theaveng 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: I unprotected my talk page—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please ask User:Ryulong to unprotect his talk page at user talk:Ryulong. He has had it protected for over a month now and it makes it impossible to respond to his, well let me just say it makes it impossible to respond. 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While I should remove the semiprotection on my talk page, I have specifically requested to you to make any correspondence to me on your talk page, where I initiated the discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Which I never saw until 5 days later because I don't get the same IP address every time. You aren't the only one I have been trying to contact who has a protected talk page, Bishonen, mentioned below is the other. I am not replying on the IP talk page because if I did I would not be able to see any followup from you for the same reason. I often get bumped off the net mid edit and come back on with a new IP address. And don't ask me to register a name, I'm not interested. Aren't there plenty of bots and others that revert nonsense? Your talk page is not the only target for vandalism on the net. 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's against the letter and spirit of the protection policy? ➪HiDrNick! 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
While not why. ViridaeTalk 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
! It took me over a minute to parse your comment, Viridae. I even Googled the phrase "while not why" thinking it might be an idiom. You mean '"While" not "why"'! That makes much more sense; sorry Ryulong, I misread your reply. ➪HiDrNick! 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why does asking someone to respond on their talk page make it okay to protect your talk page for a month? You are certainly with in your rights to ask someone to respond in the way you want, but it's unacceptable for you to use your sysop bit to force someone to acquiesce to your demands. Further, Dr. Nick is right that semi protecting a user talk page for an extended period of time is violating the protection policy. Natalie 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not "forcing" anyone to acquiesce to my demands. My talk page has been semiprotected because of someone who thought it was funny to replace my talk page with "fuck you" or changing the transclusion of my header template from User talk:Ryulong/Header to User talk:Sucksondong/Header (I consequently registered that username so if I felt like it, I could just create a new subpage there). Right now, because I realize my user talk is semiprotected, I would prefer not to unprotect it, but rather reply to the IP on his talk page, which is what it is used for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the second such instance of an admin protecting their talk page this week; User Talk:Bishonen, see [{WP:AN]]. To me, this is abuse of admin powers.Rlevse 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection of user and usertalk pages are fine, if the admin draws a lot of abuse. Sometimes being an admin is grounds for abuse. Will (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just create a sub-page for anons to talk to you on and put a clearly visible link at the top of the page saying something along the lines of "Due to abuse, this page has been protected against anonymous edits, use my [[/anon talk|alternate talk page]] to talk to me if you cannot edit here". Then everyone is settled. It is really only abuse of admin powers if it is used to gain an advantage in a dispute in my opinion. There are enough admins really abusing their powers that we don't need to blow this out of proportion. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No editor should have their user talk page protected more than briefly. If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Wikipedia is not for you. Friday (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If being abused by random strangers is an integral part of Wikipedia, then there is something horribly wrong with it. --B 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, sure. But, as part of the internet, the things that are wrong with the internet are also generally wrong with Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Admins should be contactable, even by anonymous users. If there is a coordinated attack on an admin's talk page, they may briefly protect it, but long-term protection should never be used on talk pages of active editors, especially not when they're admins. Communication is vital to the workings of Wikipedia, and denying anonymous users the right to communicate with an admin (who needs to take responsibility for his actions) is a bad thing to do, even though it may seem necessary. Melsaran (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC) long as his/her email is enabled that's fine.--MONGO 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Only registered users may use the email function, as far as I know. - auburnpilot talk 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe you're right. I've received quite a few Wikipedia e-mails and they always have a registered user in the From line. Allowing non-registered users to e-mail would be a complete disaster! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Email is not optimal. We have the wiki for a reason; let's use it. Friday (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some users should not be relegated to a sub page of a talk page. Also note that Bishonen's talk page has been protected for months, this is not a "short time" nor "briefly". If an admin takes an action, the person(s) affected should be able to contact him/her on their talk page, even if it's an anon. If the user gets out of line, the admin has many tools available to handle it.Rlevse 17:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"My talk page has been semiprotected because of someone who thought it was funny to replace my talk page with "fuck you" or changing the transclusion of my header template" Sometimes people vandalize talk pages. That's unfortunate, but it's part and parcel of being an administrator and it's highly unfair to prevent all anonymous users from contacting you because of a misbehavior of a few. Talk page vandalism is the easiest vandalism to detect, since the orange message bar alerts you to the change. And several other people have mentioned it, but you are violating a policy by keeping it protected indefinitely. Natalie 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And how many times has your talkpage been vandalized?--MONGO 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea because it's not that important - revert, block, ignore. Your welcome to count if you want. Natalie 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
(Just noticed the resolved) Thank you for unprotecting your talk page, Ryulong. Natalie 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's not abuse. This thread gives the impression that as soon as Bishonen and Ryulong passed their RfAs, they semi-protected their pages permanently, so that those unimportant anonymous users wouldn't ever be able to bother them, and then sat back, blocked people, deleted articles, and protected pages with absolutely no accountability. Nobody has explained why it's so important for an anon to be able to contact Bishonen and Ryulong, and why no other administrator will do. I wouldn't be in favour of semi-protecting a talk page for frivolous reasons, but surely Bishonen has earned enough trust from the community that we can give her an assumption of good faith in this (I'm not so familiar with Ryulong, but I see no reason not to extend that assumption to him as well, especially as any anon who really needs to contact him can find some way around it, like asking another user to pass on a message). The anon who wanted to contact Bishonen recently left a message at User talk:Bishzilla, and everything was dealt with satisfactorily, as far as I can tell. There are hundreds of active admins with their talk pages open. There's really no reason to get upset if a very small number have their pages semi-protected. If the anon wants to leave a personal message, unrelated to admin duties, it's probably not urgent, and can in any case be left on the talk page of a friend of the admin. If the anon wants to leave a message related to admin duties, another admin can deal with it. I've known cases where pages were semi-protected because of the kind of trolling that we should all want to protect users from. And I imagine that in such cases, the trolled user would not have wanted to make a public announcement. The time wasted on something like this which is completely harmless when it only involves a handful of admins (known to be productive, and not known to make frivolous demands) could be far better spent on writing new articles. ElinorD (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There's really no reason to get upset if a very small number have their pages semi-protected. If the anon wants to leave a personal message, unrelated to admin duties, it's probably not urgent, and can in any case be left on the talk page of a friend of the admin. If the anon wants to leave a message related to admin duties, another admin can deal with it. This is entirely wrong-headed, it's irrelevent why an IP editor might want to contact a specific admin, the facility should be avaiable. If admin are unable to deal with a bit of talkpage vandalism they are in the wrong job, especially when most admins via the course of their business end up with teams of people watching their pages, who will also revert vandalism. --Fredrick day 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It may not be abuse, but that doesn't mean that indefinitely protecting your talk page is right. Admins are given an array of power regular users don't have, because we have shown ourselves to be trustworthy. When an admin uses their powers, either wrongly or with a less than clear reason, it's important to be able to contact that administrator. If we really believe that anonymous users are just as important as regular users (and we still allow anonymous editing, so I assume they are still equal), then they have the right to be able to contact the relevant admin.
It's one thing if a particular vandal is on a spree, or an administrator has been linked from another website and is experiencing an unusually high level of talk page vandalism, and their talk page is protected for 15 minutes or an hour, so be it. The anon will wait, the new user can find someone else, and no harm is done. But the pages we've been discussing were protected for months, with no explanation on their talk page as to why the page was protected, what a user should do if they're unable to leave a message, and maybe even an apology for the inconvenience. An entire class of users, the class that includes all of our new users, is left on their own when they have been told by templates and policies that a user talk page is where they can get help. Without even an explanation as to why that is, how does this make us look?
New users in particular often have a hard time understanding everything on Wikipedia. The software is not intuitive and block or speedy delete reasons can be obtuse, particularly when no policy is linked. We are also attracting more and more users that are not that net savvy and more and more non-native English speakers. We throw acronyms and policies around like we all grew up on a wiki, forgetting that we were all new once and floundered around for 30 minutes trying to figure out what WP:V meant or why people kept using the word pointy and capitalizing it oddly. New users aren't always going to find the administrators category or list, and if they do they've found a list of over a thousand people with no indication as to who they are supposed to talk to or which administrators are active. If they guess wrongly and pick an inactive administrator or someone taking a wikibreak, they may never get an answer. They may leave the encyclopedia that anyone can edit because they couldn't get an explanation as to why they couldn't edit. We tell people on policy pages, in templates, at the help desk, and on article talk pages, contact the admin and talk to them. It is only fair that people are able to do as they have been advised to and, when they are not, there is a polite message explaining why and what to do. Natalie 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say that the above entry by Natalie is one of the most sensible things I've seen posted here in the weeks I've been watching it.
(And before you ask, I starting watching this page when a dispute I was involved in was posted here, and because I learnt a thing or two, I continued to watch it after the dispute was resolved.) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it? I wonder...did everyone forget that blocked editors can still edit their own talkpages? It's pretty laughable when people are worried that a blatant vandal needs an explanation as to why they have been blocked.--MONGO 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter for blocked users no matter what, because they are supposed to be blocked and not editing. But perhaps you have forgotten that not all blocks are indefinite, and it's entirely likely that a user will want an explanation after their block expires, or will simply wish to discuss the situation. Maybe they even want advice on how not to err in the future. And, although we all wish it would never happen, some people are blocked for no reason, for a spurious reason, or on accident. These people deserve an explanation, whether they are an IP or not. It's pretty laughable to think that the only people who ever have issues on Wikipedia are blatant vandals. Natalie 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is semi protection not but a temporary thing, that after a few days or something like 50 edits no longer applies to new editors. From what I have seen, there have been very few times that a blatant vandal has requested a serious is generally only to continue trolling. I am always amazed by those that have contributed almost nothing as far as articles here, lecture those that have made huge contributions.--MONGO 15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A one+ month semi-protection, which was enacted as indefinite, is by definition not a temporary measure. And not everyone wants to create an account, nor are they currently required to, so requiring them to create an account and wait for four days certainly violates the spirit of "anyone can edit". I'm not sure what you're comment about contributions is implying, but perhaps you'd be better off just saying it straight. Natalie 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think MONGO said it very straight and a semi-protection of a talk page, even long-term, sounds fine to me. We clearly aren't the encyclopedia anyone can edit but the one almost anyone can and we sghould always try to encourage people to create an account and not worry too much if people don't want to and then can't edit semi-protected pages, SqueakBox 16:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As someone who was blocked for being a sock puppet when I wasn't (and no one had even accused me of being other than the Admin who blocked me) I wholeheartedly endorse Natalie's comments. Its bad enough that once you get blocked a stigma attaches to you on here without the blocking Admin stopping you from speaking to him. Kelpin 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if the admin's talk page was unprotected, how were you planning to leave a message there while you were blocked? If the admin agrees to watch your talk page and reply there, and as long as {{helpme}} and {{unblock}} are available, why do you absolutely need to leave a message on their talk page? I agree it's an annoyance for good-faith IP editors, but not an insurmountable barrier. In very rare cases, I think it's a reasonable compromise. The key is to keep it rare, and make it clear to new IP editors what there options are. --barneca (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was actually referring to after the block was lifted. In my particular case for some time some other users treated me as a sock puppet and I tried to deal with this by asking the Admin (not Ryulong) who had originally blocked me for help. That particular Admin hadn't protected his Talk Page so I was able to do so. Kelpin 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's awkward this same basic conversation is happening both here and on WP:AN. I think I sort of addressed your concern in a comment over there. Since this isn't an "incident" anymore, I wonder if closing this thread and directing further discussion to the AN thread makes sense? --barneca (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Admitted sockpuppet of indef blocked user User:KillerPlasmodium. This ip was blocked for a month earlier for being a sockpuppet of another user, which he claims he isn't.--Atlan (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock of blocked user, therefore blocked. Neil  14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


This user insists on posting a vanity article under "Brent paxton." Naturally, the last name isn't capitalized. However, this guy seems to know his way around a wiki. He's removing deletion notices and sockpuppeteering through his IP. --PMDrive1061 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't recreated the article since it was deleted, or after final warning, using his account or the IP. When he does, feel free to list it at WP:AIV which will generally trigger a quicker response. --DarkFalls talk 08:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject importance rating alterations[edit]

Earlier this month, Wikipedian06 (talk · contribs) altered importance ratings on Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl [58][59] and Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee [60]. We responded to his discussion for a while before moving it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo#Questioning imporatnce of Super Smash Bros.-related articles , after which point it failed to recieve any responses from the Wikiproject members themselves. During the course of this discussion, it was explained several times that he ought to leave the decision up to the appropriate WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games [61] [62] [63]. Wikipedian06 stopped for a while. Today, however, he altered Melee's importance ratings again. From what I can see, Wikipedian06 is still not a member of either relevant Wikiproject, nor has he edited anything in Wikipedia Talk: namespace which signifies that he did not partake in any discussions relevant to the Wikiprojects' importance ratings of those two games. You Can't See Me! 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to him on his talkpage about it; that might get a response. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 08:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
He did... --DarkFalls talk 08:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Is this kind of thing really appropriate: [64]? My understanding is that campaigning to have another User permanently blocked from Wikipedia is actually in itself a blockable offence. This is just the latest in a pattern of distasteful behaviour from that User and his multiple ip sockpuppet/meatpuppet pals. --Mais oui! 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've warned Breadandcheese (talk · contribs) not to do it again. I think that's enough for now. Neil  10:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Fairy nuff. --Mais oui! 11:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail addresses[edit]

Given that WP:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information only applies to articles that are biographies, what is the right thing to do about e-mail addresses placed elsewhere? What if they are spammed [65]? Philip Trueman 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove them, what reason could there be for keeping them?--Jac16888 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think it applies only to actual biography articles? "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis as in original), and many similar statements on that page. There's no need to include them anyway - the journal, volume, page, DOI etc is sufficient citation, without the author's contact details as well. It looks like someone has just clumsily cut and pasted more than they should have from the Nature page. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was reading "Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons ..." (emphasis added). Why biographies and not articles? (Perhaps I should take that to the BLP talk page). Without a clear 'they should be deleted' policy wholesale deletion is as bad as the original spamming, isn't it? Philip Trueman 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The different idiom is probably just an artefact of the fact that different bits of the policy have been edited at different times by different people - if you read the policy as a whole it's fairly clear that the spirit of it applies to all articles. Indeed the policy makes no sense if it only applies to certain articles - material about Joe Bloggs is no more or less harmful just because it's not on his own biography. It's also pretty clear to me that the Email addresses add nothing to the articles, so can safely be removed, regardless of what you do with the rest of the three identical paragraphs which seem to have been inserted into half a dozen different pages (I'd suggest having a close look at that too - I haven't read the articles in detail, but I find it improbably that it's necessary in all of them). Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
PS If you really need a policy you could cite WP:CITE#HOW, as the references aren't formatted properly at the moment anyway. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnandbob and copyright problems[edit]

Last night, I noticed that this user was uploading a series of copyvio articles about public works projects. When I dug a little bit deeper into his talk page, I noticed that he had already received received similar notices on multiple occasions in the past, as well as other types of disruptive behavior such as re-creating deleted articles and uploading images without source info. It seems like his m.o. is to upload things without regard for copyright and then only fix them when confronted by another editor. He may well just be confused, rather than malicious, but he doesn't seem to be getting the message, and I don't know where to go from here. Does anybody have any thoughts? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Christian Group Vandalism[edit]

This IP ( has vandalized the following pages in this manner:

There is no encyclopedic purpose for those inclusions. I have already warned him twice. WAVY 10 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that the correct IP? I don't see it as having any contributions at all? --Bfigura (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The link was malformed, and linked to a page called "Special/Contributions". I've fixed it. As for their edits, they seem to have stopped for now. I'm not sure exactly what admin action is requested here. Natalie 13:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I did put an alert on Wikiquette alerts (there) but I was told that it was an issue for this section. So I copy paste it here : This user put links leading to his website on talk pages of many articles. He adds links to the talk page in the Reference section. He reverts editions that delete his links. This user also claims that Google (and other "lobbies") censor him . Check his entries fore more details. Scorpene 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam account, no edits other than spamming or complaining about his spamming being removed. Indef blocked. Neil  16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet is back[edit]

Indefinitely blocked user Tweety21 (see above post), is back, this time as Wiccawikka, playing the other side of the issue from her last one, Gayunicorn. Precious Roy 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MLFAM98 making a legal thre