Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive327

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

Noticeboard archives


Attack after attack[edit]


Im here to report the many attacks on newcomers coming from User:Calton. As seen on his talk pages and archives, many other users have tried to resolve the disputes that Calton has created. One of them was me. He bit me for putting a template warning him not to write on a persons user page. He started "yelling at me" and an edit war started. Many other users have also been bitten by Calton, saying that he has been making rude remarks to them, about trolling, and that they are claiming authority. I see that Calton has been blocked once before already. If you would like evidence, please go to the talk pages of Caltons and see the unofficial "testimonies" already made by fellow users. Please consider this case as I would not like any more new users to be attacked by Calton. Gunnerdevil4 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What this appears to boil down to is that you templated a regular and Calton quite understandably didn't like it. You've admitted that you don't know why you put the template there and your overreaction - threatening to take it to ArbCom - is just short of hilarious. I'd suggest that you simply let the matter fade away gracefully into the night, because you're digging yourself a hole with every post. FCYTravis 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that I may have overreacted but what about everyone else that has tried to talk with Calton? And besides, Calton shouldn't have overeacted himself. I threatened to send this to ArbCom because of his failure to display Good Faith. Again, this isn't just about me too. Gunnerdevil4 05:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And another thing, on the WP:DTTR article it says that if I templated a regular by mistake, the guy that was templated shouldn't bite the person that templated the regular.Gunnerdevil4 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You've been advised to stop digging the hole. You would be well-advised to heed that advice. Unless, of course, you want to keep digging, in which case I'll get out some popcorn and watch, as it's kind of humorous. K. Scott Bailey 06:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine, just resolve it. Gunnerdevil4 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AWachowski long term use of affilation to discredit other editors[edit]

I warned this user several times [1] [2] [3] [4] under his previous incarnation of Lwachowski to stop broadcasting my (many times stated) affiliation with the BKWSU. However he persistently uses this technique to imply untrustworthiness and an agenda on my part [5]. In the linked example he's complaining about the removal of a link to a community site that was established to be inappropraite by an rfc [6] [7].

Whatever the complexities of the article may be, I hope I get some support for the principal that these constant comments about me and other editors and their affiliations by AWachowski will now have to stop. I would appreciate some kind of assertive remedial action to enforce this in no uncertain terms. I have suffered this abuse pretty-much for as long as I have been registered on Wikipedia. AWachowski is just one more of a long line of incarnations that seem to find this technique useful. I suspect Green108 is a notable previous incarnation.

There are many more examples of this. Just look at any post made to a talk page by these users.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Aren't AWachowski and Lwachowski username violations for being confuseable with famous real people? 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you may well have a conflict of interest. Maybe if you are involved in this new religious movement you shouldn't keep editing its article? Secretlondon 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are a Christian should you not edit articles on Christianity? Also I have left the really major changes to the article to other non-involved editors. For the record, AWachowski has quite a major conflict of interest, otherwise why would he edit the article and post comments in such a blatantly aggressive way? If you believe what he is saying that my membership of the BKWSU is a show-stopper then his propaganda campaign to discredit other editors is obviously working. I would hope my willingness to accept an NPOV article and work in a reasonable way with neutral editors would determine how much of a COI I really have.
I hope that you are not implying that perceived conflict of interest on my part means that no action should be taken to enforce a basic NPA policy? Either he is intimidating other editors unfairly or he isn't. Please enforce the policy. That's all. Thanks. Bksimonb 05:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I appear to have ranted. A more appropriate and considered answer would be that, yes I probably do have a COI and I would be happy to discuss the issue and explore solutions for ensuring the article doesn't become defamatory and misleading as it has done in the past. However, right now, I would really appreciate that the specific problem that I have highlighted is addressed in some way so that I have at least some chance of working on a level playing field in a civil environment. Much appreciated Bksimonb 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
If Bksimonb has a COI, then AWachowski has just as much a COI if not more being an ex-BK (and a particularly vehement one at that). COI does not prevent one from editing; one must discuss changes and gain consensus on the talk page and refrain from controversial edits. This position should go both ways here. Right now there is little attempt to get consensus on the talk pages. AWachowski makes huge wholesale changes without discussion and Bksimonb is reverting back to the previously agreed-upon version and trying to get discussion on the talk page to gain agreement on changes. Renee 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Without getting involved, it's apparent that User:Reneeholle is also involved in this edit war, so again, objectivity in this argument doesn't seem to be apparent. It's pointless crying 'COI' at someone if you yourself have an obvious COI. I'd suggest that perhaps page protection for a while, to let everyone cool down might be a good idea. Perhaps an RfC in the duration. ColdmachineTalk 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
hmmmm...let's see, I've made one edit to this article in 6 weeks and that edit was to revert Wachowski's complete overhaul of the article, made without discussion on the talk page. You'll see on the talk page I took the time to give feedback on each change he made, which was virtually ignored. Please check the facts Coldmachine before you accuse people of being involved in edit wars. Renee 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted, completely unrelated to anything above, I have blocked the account for violating our user name policies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Shazaam!. Let's see what account name comes back.
In response to the previous posts, I'm curious, as a principal, shouldn't WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA been enforced regardless of any other COI or editing issues. I thought that nothing excused personal attacks or incivility, especially if it is directed with purpose over a long period of time. Regards Bksimonb 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator violating Wikipedia policy[edit]

It is clear that from the source of this image from WWII in Color that the "Copyright : unknown"

Even after knowing this information, the user Akradecki chose to revert this copyright tag twice.

Image History page

  • Additional violations:

Please see: User Akradecki contributions history and discussion

-TabooTikiGod 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because a copyright is unknown does not mean the image is free, or in the public domain. If an image isn't free, and doesn't meet specific criteria, it can't be used. There's no admin abuse here. --Bfigura (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Striking my last comments since on my first pass, I had the roles reversed in my head. I'm not sure the tags should have been reverted as the copyright status seems unclear, but I'm not sure this counts as admin abuse, since no buttons were invoked that I see. --Bfigura (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already said those exact words [above] a bazillion times already on two separate projects. I'm not going to repeat them. O2 () 03:08, 16 November 2007 (GMT)
Then how do you explain the logic posted here? Please read the section with the images and reasoning that Akradecki uses to cite why the image is "okay" to use.

Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg: This was clearly taken from another Army air corps plane...and is obviously PD.

Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg: same as above...air-to-air inherently must be PD because of where it was shot. Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg: same, air-to-air First 3, saving before looking at more. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg: This one could go either way. Bzuk, you noted on your license tag that the author had released it...I don't see that on the original site, can you point me two where you got this info? Image:P-39N.jpg: Given the location and setting, could not have been taken by anyone other than another serviceman. Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg: air-to-air during a bombing raid. No one was in the air except servicement. Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg: Another obvious one. As the plane is british, the brit tag is most appropriate. Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg: Copyright is claimed at source, so if you want to use this, add Fair Use rationale (it would be certainly way to reproduce that!) Incidently, the website URL for the copyright isn't working. Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg: Bzuk, need clarification on S. Kunker's release. I'll leave this one tagged for now. Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg: Bzuk, this one too. Incidently, there was discussion somewhere recently about captured Nazi material being PD...does anyone recall where this was discussed? Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg, Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg, Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg, Image:Junkers 88.jpg More for Bzuk. Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg: This was properly tagged, as it is clearly before 1957.

Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg: UK image older that 50 years, so PD.

-TabooTikiGod 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You were told that their reverts weren't vandalism here, and it's obvious from the discussion that this might not be a clear-cut case of a copyright violation. So please stop edit warring, TabooTikiGod. You've already violated the three-revert rule at least once [8] [9] [10] [11], though I haven't really bothered looking for more. -- RG2 08:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Burma[edit]

Background: at the end of September/beginning of October there was an extended and highly publicised requested move discussion, archived here, the result of which was to move the article Myanmar to the title Burma.

SqueakBox does not seem to have accepted this outcome. After revert warring with Husond over the closure of requested move opened a few days ago, SqueakBox opened another requested move discussion a few hours ago. Vegaswikian, noting that the discussion was premature this soon after the earlier one, altered the heading to redirect it into a discussion to try to build consensus in anticipation of a future requested move, and removed the pointer at WP:RM. SqueakBox reverted that alteration and accused Vegaswikian of trolling.

Having noticed this as a result of this thread above, I closed the requested move discussion, on the basis that the matter was only recently discussed in a very extensive debate, and there was no reason to suspect that consensus had changed so quickly. SqueakBox reverted, with the edit summary "rm trolling POV pushing sigh this is not welcom". I re-closed the discussion, reminding SqueakBox that as I had not participated in any of the earlier discussions (I don't think I've ever edited anything related to this country) I was an uninvolved administrator, and that if he wished to contest the closure he could do so here at ANI. Apparently accepting my closure on that basis, SqueakBox instead re-opened an earlier discussion which had been closed on exactly the same basis, with the edit summary "trolling the proposer canot speedily close". I then re-closed that one, exhorting SqueakBox to follow Vegaswikian's advice and continue to work on his arguments.

SqueakBox has now spliced the two closed discussions together in a new section ([12], [13]), with the edit summary "sigh following instructions you activists NPOV is non negotiable". I don't want to revert SqueakBox anymore, but I think that this conduct is not appropriate. Thoughts? --bainer (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A block should be in order. Not only he doesn't stop this massive disruption as he won't listen to explanations on why should he stop, and ultimately resorts to attacks towards those who revert him. Húsönd 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I also call for the current new move proposal at Talk:Burma to be speedy closed (again). Totally out of process. Húsönd 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I also call for a block. This is clearly disruption. DEVS EX MACINA pray 03:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked him for 6 hours. If someone wants to extend to 24, I won't gripe. Tomertalk 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? Blocks are preventative, i.e. to prevent further or imminent disruption, not punitive. Why then did you block SqueakBox two hours after his last edit? --Iamunknown 09:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to register your point of order near the top of this page with respect to the block MastCell imposed upon me. I was not engaged in either disruption nor edit warring. My block here was meant to be a signal, more than anything else, to SqueakBox that his disruption and edit warring are unacceptable. That is not punitive, it is preventative. It is also barely more than symbolic at this point, especially since, as you point out, he was apparently finished editing for the evening. Tomertalk 09:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not qualified to comment on the block of your account, as I am blissfully unfamiliar with the intimate details of the AOA arbitration.
As to the matter at hand, your block of SqueakBox, I do not consider your block "symbolic", I consider humiliation of an established editor. This is not a statement of your intentions, which you have clarified were fine and just, but it is a statement of the community's perception of blocks. SqueakBox is an established editor and, though he can be disruptive at times, I feel deserves to be engaged in discussion rather than blocked as a common troll. In the very least, he has shown good will with regard to accepting criticism and thereafter acting more appropriately. I do not understand why the article was not simply move-protected. --Iamunknown 09:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, SqueakBox did not move the article, so discussion of move protection as a remedy is a non sequitur. I apologize if I sounded dismissive of your inquiry above, but I was truly incensed that you should take such a strong stance in support of SqueakBox when you have said nothing about me. As I said on SqueakBox's talk page when I blocked him, he is an established editor, well enough established to know better than to editwar (ah, new verbs, thank you WP) and disrupt the project with his call for a new rename vote. I can understand how you could perceive this as a punitive move, but it was my intention that it should be regarded as preventative. We may regard the boundaries between preventative and punitive somewhat differently, but I don't think it is at all fair to characterize this block as indicative of the sentiment, on my part nor on that of any others, that SqueakBox is but a "common troll". Your registering your strong dislike of my blocking of SqueakBox "as a common troll", and at the same time, failure to say a word above about my having been blocked "as a common troll", apparently, was grievously offensive to me, whether you intended any offense or not. In that vein, I hope you'll understand the source of the somewhat harsh tone I took with you previously. Tomertalk 09:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block of your account, as before, I am unfamiliar with the details surrounding anything or anyone mentioned in that thread and so my uninformed opinion would be useless.
Otherwise, I think that difference in perception is probably in part an explanation. I am aware that my thoughts about blocking tend to be a lot more malleable and relative than others'. I would vehemently argue against a strict set of criteria, but that would be more appropriate at another forum. --Iamunknown 10:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In any case, rightly or wrongly, the block is about to expire. Hopefully the aforementioned disruption and edit warring will not continue. Tomertalk 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about alleged disruption but I do recognise that edit warring disrupts the project. My point is that a user who legitimately suggests a move should not weeks later close a continuing debate on the subject, its a clear internal COI. And he speedily closed citing that the debate was not listed at RM. So I listed at RM and this was the result. This episode shames wikipedia and all who were involved in it (which is me too). Thanks, SqueakBox 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
My two cents - most people don't have any POV regarding the title of the page (i.e. I call it "Burma" because I always have, not because I support political party/junta/etc X). The move therefore should be based upon what the most common name is. But anyway, as long as Myanmar redirects to Burma or vice-versa, it's all moot. As it was only moved a month ago, with at least a 2-1 (and possibly a 3-1) majority to move, leave it be for a few months, then reopen discussion if enough people have a valid (i.e. not "filthy anglo/american imperialists") concerns. We don't want more drama than there already is. Will (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with non-binding discussions to gauge if consensus has changed. There apparently are a number of editors who are giving their comments who did not participate in the previous move debate. Shutting down discussions because a similar discussion by a different set of people happenede before is very un-wiki. --Polaron | Talk 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Veesicle[edit]

After Veesicle made this edit to David Gerard's userpage, and then when asked about it replied that it was a point, JzG blocked indefinitely for "abject stupidity", Viridae unblocked saying there was no warning, and I reblocked for 24 hours since clearly some block length was in order. Before this escalates into a wheel war, we should discuss it here. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block without warning on an established account is clearly out of line. I support the 24 hours though for the sillyness. ViridaeTalk 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As I stated on Guy's talk page, considering that the user did not request an unblock, and even appears to be accepting of his block, you should have at least attempted to discuss it with Guy before unblocking. It may not quite be wheel-warring, but it is certainly a matter of admin-admin courtesy. - Crockspot 06:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. Next please? GRBerry 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to block people for "abject stupidity" then please propose such a policy and gain consensus for it first. Until that happens, it is not an appropriate reason for a block. That being said while a block may have been in order for other reasons, I don't think an indefinite block is in the best interest of Wikipedia. The new 24 hour block is much more appropriate. 1 != 2 06:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless WP blocks are now punitive, no block is in order. A simple warning, to go along with monitoring him for continuation of the disruptive behavior would seem a more prudent and policy-abiding action. K. Scott Bailey 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You have a strong point there, but from Veesicles reaction he knew what he was doing, and just might do it again. I dunno :S ViridaeTalk 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This was a deliberate, calculated act of disruption. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This was a deliberate and utterly unacceptable action. Looking at Veesicle's actions before and around that action, I would say that it was intended to get the account blocked. Veesicle has been disruptive for some time. This is no, I think, the first time that Viridae has reversed a block with absolutely no prior discussion whatsoever. At the very least, Veesicle should remain blocked until wehave some assurance that this kind of thing will not happen again. Labelling User:David Gerard as a sockpuppet of User:WordBomb is not even remotely acceptable, especially when his user page was then under attack by vindictive sockpuppets. The statement that it was deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, on Veesicle's talk page, makes it much worse. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG, these actions had precisely nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Given that Veesicle didn't even ask to be unblocked, I am at a loss to understand why Viridae felt the need to reverse the block without discussion. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You simply do not indef a long term contributor without warning. As with what Until(1 == 2) said. ViridaeTalk 09:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite does not mean forever, it means until they have undertaken not to repeat the utterly bizarre and completely unacceptable behaviour. And I do mean completely unacceptable. Long-term contributor? Debatable. Look at the mainspace edit activity: [14]. Not that much of a contributor, compared with disruption like reopening a debate started by an anonymous editor using an open proxy bringing an allegation made by a banned editor with a grudge. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1 != 2 has made a reasoned point. User:JzG's reasoning was invalid, at least when concerning influential blocks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The behaviour was disruptive, identified by the user themself as deliberately disruptive. Since when was that not a reason for blocking? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In this instance, I feel an indef block in this case might be uncalled for, and that the mod of time was a good move. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Guy's point above. There is no problem with undoing the indef block when the editor promises not to repeat such a disruptive action. A fixed-time block is not really constructive as it does not affect the editor's ability to merely repeat such an action when they are unblocked, being effectively a "slap on the wrists". ELIMINATORJR 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • If a "slap on the wrist" helps, then it's better than a "summary execution". |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 13:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an editor who has almost stopped editing, comes along and does something truly bizarre and completely unacceptable. That says to me that he's actively trying to be blocked and run. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hum. Ok, I'll have to admit I didn't check up on the context of that action. But maybe Veesicle will yet come around to do more useful contributions? Not sure though, and certainly not my call. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If the editor does intend to be disruptive and does something like this again we'll give him a long or indefinite block. But we shouldn't indef block simply over a single edit from an otherwise productive user (even an that is highly disruptive, offensive and trying to make a point). Also, our block summaries really shouldn't be things that read like the block summaries at Conservapedia. That should be a bad sign by itself. JoshuaZ 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point that this user may have been aiming for a block through this action, but I don't think it is in itself deserving of a block, although a warning is certainly in order. He might very well have apologized and promised not to do such things in the future, while a poor reaction to the warning might have confirmed the need for a block (but still probably not indefinite). Everyking 16:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Request restoration of image speedly-deleted[edit]

Resolved: image restored and fair use rational added. Avec nat...Le Wikipédia Prends Des Forces! 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request restoration of Image:Hasbara.png, which was deleted in this edit:

20:16, 14 November 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Hasbara.png" ‎ (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale". using TW)

This was speedy-deleted after the image had been up for some months, and was deleted without any discussion, other than perhaps with the uploader. CSD I7 may have been applied overly aggressively here. It may be necessary to fix the fair-use rationale; but with the image deleted, that's hard. I'm not the uploader of this image, so I can't just upload it again. At least a temporary restoration is needed. (Policy note: the image deletion procedure, unlike almost everything else in Wikipedia, assumes that the uploader of the image is responsible for it thereafter. If the uploader is absent, even for a few days,, the image tends to be lost, without an opportunity to correct the problem. That's a policy bug which needs work.) --John Nagle 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What article would that possibly be appropriate in? —Cryptic 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It was used in Hasbara Fellowships; it's from their web site. --John Nagle 06:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the image so that non admins can take a look. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty straight forward: WP:NFCC#10c (cited by the deletion warning) requires the exact article name to be used in the fair use rationale, which it does not. Probably caught by BCBot and tagged appropriately. --MASEM 06:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Added appropriate fair use template to image info to keep bots happy. (We welcome our new bot overlords.) --John Nagle 06:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Severe violation of WP:CANVASS[edit]

Archiving, as it appears that the original complaint has been discussed. -- Relata refero (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)



User has been making very disruptive edits in the Sandbox, as indicted by these sample diffs 1, 2, 3. I am not sure if "sandbox vandalism" is AIV reportable, but I thought that this should be checked into. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not a valid AN/I report and anyways, people are encourage to edit however they like in the Wikipedia Sandbox. Regards, Avec nat...Le Wikipédia Prends Des Forces! 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think it was, but posted it here just to be on the safe side. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Turns out this was either a sock of Grawp (talk · contribs) or a copycat. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

personal attack[edit]

personal attack on the page of Prince Henry of Wales, with the words "schwul und hasslich" (gay and ugly) in the first line of the article 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: was reverted by Kateshortforbob
Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Crucible[edit]

Resolved: Reverted copyvio material. ArakunemTalk 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The book The Crucible has a its whole plot summary plagiarized illegaly and without permission from --Malarc41 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been added around 2 October: [15] by IP: The problem seems to be mainly with Acts One and Two. I will revert the affected plot sections if no-one has any objection. (non-admin) -- Kateshortforbob 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I put up the copyvio template. If you want to go ahead and revert, feel free, as that's what is likely going to happen anyway. :) ArakunemTalk 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverted plot summary to last good non-copyvio revision that Kateshortforbob located. Thanks for the digging :). ArakunemTalk 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Participants are counseled to prepare a detailed report to support their complaints. No action is justified at this time. - Jehochman Talk 10:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User or adminstrator (I can't figure out what he pretends to be) User:Dbachmann insinuates I am a neofascist. I don't have anything to do with fascism, I despise fascism and don't know what he is up to. To me it seems he recurs to ad hominem for lack of arguments to support his point of view, since I always take effort to source as well as I can. Maybe it sounds silly (it probably is), but I suspect his personal commitment to the Kurgan hypothesis is the root cause of his impolite attitude. Anyway, I don't think such a personal grudge is healthy and it feels as if he is rallying people against me. I don't think throwing dirt and loose insinuations are acceptable. Recently he dedicated in removing a lot of what I contributed, and only came up with a lot of personal accusations to have this justified. I think he needs a break. Please take a look at this discussion: at User_talk:Dbachmann#Kurgan_hypothesis: [16]. Thanks! Rokus01 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is an administrator. Prodego talk 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"...I have never been prepared to compromise with disingenious pov-pushers. Intelligently argued neofascist pov-pushing is just the same to me as dumbly argued Afrocentrist pov-pushing..." [17] is a pretty unwarrented insinuation and is counterproductive on Dbachmann's part indeed. — Save_Us_229 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
dab overreacted, but is understandably frustrated given what Rokus is adding to these articles. I've interacted with Rokus in the past, and his M.O. is to add large globs of text to inappopriate places in articles, usually sourced to obscure Dutch authors, and usually written like an essay. Perhaps an RFC is in order. - Merzbow 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? I'll vouch that dab is very frustrating in his zeal to wipe out nationalism, and what he calls fringe. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have followed Rokus's edits you will understand both of Dab's comments about Rokus's disingenuousness and his "fascism". As Merzbau says, Rokus's MO is to create impenetrable bodies of obscure argumentation with elaborately mystificatory claims apparently supported by citations which often turn out to be only tangentally related to the arguments he is making. He is a master of WP:SYN. He will always react strongly to the accusation of fascism, for the simple rerason that all his edits are tied to a POV that the "Nordic race" of north west Europe were the original Aryans and that a pan-Germanic mythology underlies cultures in Northern europe, which is somehow associated with this 'racial' identity. This is standard mystical Aryanism familiar from the early 20th C. Paul B 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, you and DBachmann lost a chance to prove how sincere your "battle against fascism" really is, when DBachmann failed to support me in the revert discussion I had with one of his protegés (you): Talk:Nordic_theory#This_is_NOT_a_good_article. And you even refused to have the folly of the masterrace addressed in terms of racist ideology, and dared to idealize fascism with WP:OR, contradicting academic sources forwarding something so basic as to define nazism being a characteristic feature of fascism. Sincere? I rather have the impression DBachmann and you are abusing such would-be anti-fascism to create a false pretext of "neutral credibility", like DBachmann is doing now in the other intolerant battle against Afrocentrist pov-pushing. This is not sincere, this is hypocrism. Maybe you think you can fool somebody sometimes, but you can't fool everybody all the time. Rokus01 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you are barely intelligable. Nazism is not "a characteristic feature of fascism". How can Nazism be a "feature" of fascism, since fascism predated Nazism? It's a particular form of fascism with its own unique features, as everyone on the fascism page pointed out to you. Paul B 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There is extended revert-warring on the part of Dbachmann and he was recently warned by two administrators on his talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Afrocentrism and related articles are a mess, and those of us who frequent WP:FT/N are very grateful to DBachmann for taking the lead in keeping unsourced nonsense out. I see that's what the 'warnings' are about. Relata refero 06:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Not, he's a bane, and does nothing useful but makes others angry and frustrated. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I sorry if you feel angry and frustrated, but perhaps you should realise that Wikipedia articles can't always look the way you want them to look, and it isn't always other users' fault. Relata refero 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is trying to keep fringecruft out of Wikipedia articles, and Rokus01 is very often criticized by other editors for adding such material, see e.g. Talk:History of the Netherlands, Talk:Frankish mythology and Talk:Paleolithic Continuity Theory. I think that Dbachmann is doing his job well as an administrator.--Berig 06:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to review Rokus' contribution history and find a major edit that isn't a complete head-scratcher. For example, [18] - "Applied on the issue of origins of the Indo-European languages, the approach resulted into a set of prepositions supported by generally accepted principles that lay the burden of proof on the shoulders of competing theories, especially when relying on invasions." His contributions are filled with text like this, and invariably they are either unsourced or the conclusions are synthesized. Another: [19] - "the Netherlands could be considered one of the worlds most underestimated cradles of people and civilization." I can't figure out exactly what type of weird pro-Dutch pseudoscientific agenda he is pushing, but it's not encyclopedic.- Merzbow 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, it is impossible to communicate with everybody on the same level of understanding, still I am grateful you made your problem clear by quoting a sourced phrase that was literally copied from Alinei. Did you challenge yourself? In the second phrase you missed the key word "underestimated". Equally, I could forward similar compelling arguments to label the contribution to civilization of Sub-Sahara Africa "underestimated": or did you already know that Europe's Neolitization was accomplished by people of originally Sub-Sahara stock? Very easy to call this Afrocentrist pov-pushing whenever mentioned, still I am convinced some facts deserve special notice, especially with people that miss an open mind. Rokus01 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can challeged Rokus' contribs. But there are many others who have a problem with Dbachman. He is uncivil, arrogant and is just as bad as those he refers to as trolls. I'll be back with more examples. But, I may not because I don't really want to waste my time. I'm pretty sure there is another AN/I about his behavior somewhere in the archives. He's actually threatened me and other's with his powers while engaged in an edit war. This is but one of many edit wars he's been in. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently I've also had issues with this particular administrator very similar to the issues you've mentioned above. Not only is he exceptionally uncivil to the point of blatantly rudeness and insults but also has a habit of reverting without note, as can be seen here: [20] One may also note that he's taken a short quip from a small review here that is basically an off the cuff insult and used it as the descriptor for this page's article here, which I removed and gave my suggestion as this obviously is an attempt to frame an opinion and violates WP:NPOV. The response? A simple reversion on his part without explanation. I've had past disputes with Dbachmann [21] but I've noticed he's becoming more bullying and bullying lately and I simply don't have the time to go through his edits and pick out what he's called (or lumber together wtih) "fascists" today or "Neo-Nazis" yesterday without a source. Because of this and my concern for Dab's edits as well as his reckless usage of these terms and the associations they bring on to their subjects, I've decided to speak up here. :bloodofox: 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A reminder: will those who don't spend time around nationalists and supremacists of various descriptions please not throw the first stone here. Relata refero 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Rokus. Dbachman is very rude and Impolite. He is never objective in his arguments and always tries to comment on the motivations of the user. And the comments pretty much drop down to insults. He also keeps on editing articles he has no clue about. Some one should take action upon this admin. He is a real menace to wikipedia. Xyzisequation 09:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Xyzisequation (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I filed the Sadi Carnot arbitration case about fringe theory pushing. Before coming to ANI with complaints, I suggest each of you prepare a detailed report offline to document the fringe theory pushing, or the administrator misconduct that you allege. If you provide clear evidence, either here or via RFC, I can offer advice, warnings or sysop services as needed. For the moment, I see scattered diffs that don't tell a coherent story. ANI is for complaints, not investigations. I recommend you better organize your evidence. If you wish to collaborate in private, Google Documents is a useful tool. You can place the final report in your userspace and reference it in your complaint. Here's an example: User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. The mere repetition of complaints won't be either addressed or considered relevant on AN/I. If those who object to Dbachmann's efforts can pool together their complaints, it might be reasonable to ask if there's a case for ArbCom to accept, but I don't think that this will get anywhere. Relata refero 10:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is merely trying to enforce Wikipedia's core policies. After all, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopaedia here. If POV-pushers are allowed to skew content and add inaccurate information, then we're failing at our primary aim. More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated. --Folantin 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No action? This user has been highly uncivil and has responded to my request for civility with disdain and generally questioning my good faith as an editor. Saying: "Just teaming up with any editor that happens to be "pro-Afrocentric" no matter how pathetic their output is unwikilike, disingenious, disruptive..." He implies that all users who disagree with him are unintelligent. This isn't what I expect from an admin. futurebird 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget the process wankery, leave Dbachmann alone, and try to help him out. He's one of our best contributors and has done an absolute mountain of good work. If he's getting frustrated, there's a reason why. Look for the subtext, look at the content! I'll try to get my head around this over the next 24 hours or so, provided the India wars haven't completely killed off my sanity by then :) Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway thanks, if somebody thinks it is worthwhile to fight blunt and incooperative attitudes, especially when the methods employed to enforce a point of view increasingly point to an utter lack of tolerance and respect, we could do it together for each of us not having to waste too much time on this matter. I think this whole POV-pushing fighting, would be anti-POV-pushing heroism and "self sacrifice" is a sham as long Administators so overtly abuse their powers to advance their own intolerant POV-pushing: like DBachmann fully engage in having his one and only Kurgan religion prevail. Without the willingness to compromise and without the encyclopedic interest to harbour different points of view, such a war against otherwise undefined "POV-pushers" (always "them") will only result in a display of power and abuse. To me, a user that prevents other points of views (especially scholarly views!) to enter "his" article is nothing more than a troll. I never seek to push other views out, only that at times I try to push some new views inside. Who is pushing harder? Only trolls lack the ability to compromise and I think it is obvious that trolls are the real POV-pushers in this story. An Administrator that engage in POV-pushing and refuse to compromise is a King of Trolls that should be disposed of inmediately. Of course I don't mind to gather information as long as this behaviour (or culture?) doesn't change, or grow worse: still I have a practical attitude and feel such actions would involve me in activities that really don't interest me. Until now I found DBachmann, at the very end, also willing to compromise, even though I can't evaluate the grudge of an administrator if compromise to his POV feels like losing control. For instance, I am amazed at the grudge that Merzow has displayed here (another admin by the way?), I was totally unaware of this for in my opinion we achieved an agreement in a one-time encounter that greatly improved the quality of a certain article. It feels like if to some the definition of a POV-pusher is "a nasty person that forces others to listen to dreary arguments". As for now, DBachmanns unwarranted insinuations reveal bitterness instead of pride for the compromise he has achieved in the past. Rokus01 (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Haizum - request for further admin action[edit]

It appears a community ban was supported, unfortunately, after user threatened to blackmail Wikipedia and hide under a new username... • Lawrence Cohen 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

US President candidates[edit]

Resolved: Next! -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that all biograph-articles about the candidates in the upcoming US Election will be locked and can only be edited by registered users of Wikipedia.

I think it's vital for Wikipedia that they have this lockdown as a safety procaution to preserve the quality of the articles. Not to mention all the countless hours undoing all this vandalism. 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not protected pre-emptively. Even going to RPP (where this should be) will result in your request getting declined. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. There will be many significant developments in each of these peoples' lives over the next year, and their articles will need to be updated accordingly. If there's persistent abuse from anons, we'll semi-protect for a suitably short duration as needed. -- Caknuck (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Dbachmann (cont'd)[edit]

Archiving as it no longer seems appropriate for this noticeboard. Deeceevoice (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked for one year, and may appeal that block by the normal procedures. Arguements about the conduct Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be discussed calmly at an RfC, should editors wish to pursue the point. Physchim62 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As per discussion above, a formal user conduct RfC has been opened here: [22]. I want to thank everyone for their input.---- Ramdrake (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove indefblock[edit]

Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

I have blocked Giovanni Giove indefinitely for unrepentant POV warrioring (see this note). Giovanni was placed on a revert parole by ArbCom in the above linked case but he has completely ignored this. The ArbCom case mentions that after five breaches of parole Giovanni may be blocked for one month. Given his attitude towards Wikipedia, particularly the editors he fights with, and his already lengthy block log I simply do not think that tolerating several more months of POV war just to give him a one month block is the best course of action here. Hence, I bring it for the community to review. – Steel 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this Steel. The arbitration case only closed at the end of August and although the case states that after 6 blocks his block length should be extended to 1 month, since the close of the ArbCom case he's only been blocked once, so in effect the 1 month block should be enacted after 5 more blocks. I haven't looked into his actions too closely, but if his behaviour is a bad as you say it is, I would have expected more blocks since the close of his case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the case closed in October. Since then there was apparently one revert parole violation later that month which went unnoticed by admins (User:Kubura has the diffs, I think). Then there was another violation earlier this month, and now two today. Over the past year Giovanni has completely disregarded our policies on edit warring and has also racked up four violations of an ArbCom restriction in as many weeks. I cannot see him changing anytime soon. – Steel 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah so it di d(probably should have had my glasses on). Presumably the committee found something constructive with Giovanni's editing or else they would have banned him. As the case only closed in October, this is his only block since the case closed, so the remedies given in the case haven't been tested. Some users don't understand the severity of ArbCom - If Giovanni is subject to some short sharp blocks for every violation (it's unfortunate the earlier ones weren't caught) then there is a strong possibility he will change his ways, I just can't agree that banishment is the best course of action here when the other method hasn't been given chance to work. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence at all for the supposition that "there is a strong possibility he will change his ways," and think indef block will be the ultimate outcome. Nevertheless I prefer we adhere to the letter of the arbcom ruling to forestall endless disputes over the propriety of blocks, which likely would waste even more of our time than putting up with GG for a while. -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's his second block since the case closed, and seventh block overall. As I say, I am pessimistic about the prospects of him reforming given his multitude of blocks for edit warring and deeply ingrained pro-Italy, anti-Croatia PoV. – Steel 18:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Steel, have you waded through all of the reports at WP:AE? If so, then I trust your judgement. However, some of the diffs Kubura has are from before the case was finalized, and Giovanni has alleged edit warring by a faction including Direktor, who was also placed on 1RR, and other editors working with Direktor. Some of the complaints are that Giovanni is generally disruptive (on talk pages even) which would normally call for an article ban under a probation, which Arbcom did not put in place for this case but which could be requested from them. Thatcher131 18:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that a lot of the links and information posted by Kubura on various pages (including WP:AE) are reports of general disruption by Giovanni Giove, not specific violations of the one revert per week ruling. I'm open to the idea of article bans if people think it's worth it. – Steel 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Who was Giovanni edit-warring with? Have those persons also been sanctioned by ArbCom? Are they on revert parole? My experience at Republic of Ragusa is that the pro-Croat editors are at least as dedicated to pov-pushing. I'm too lazy too look into the incident, but if Giovanni Giove is edit-warring, then there's someone he's edit-warring with, who should also be sanctioned. If the other edit-warrior isn't on the ArbCom Dalmatia list of participants, a checkuser may be in order. Argyriou (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That is my thought too. I will delve into this tonight. There's no particular urgency though since violating the 1RR would warrant a block of some length anyway. Thatcher131 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I dropped his block to 2 days, as I feel there are extenuating circumstances, described here. Thatcher131 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) and can't restore it[edit]

Resolved: Will be handled by mail, nothing to be done here. — Sebastian 19:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone put their e-mail address on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). In order to protect their privacy, I wanted to delete the revisions with the e-mail address which should be easily accomplished by deleting all the revisions and selectively restoring the edits without the e-mail address. Unfortunately, this particular page has 11,676 revisions and my browser (Internet Explorer 7) seems unable to handle the huge page being generated by the Wikimedia software. I don't know what to do in order to resolve this. Can someone else take a look or contact a developer? Thanx. Sorry for the mess. ---- Richard (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That explains why wikipedia went a bit crazy 15 minutes ago. I'm not sure anyone will be able to restore it, so I'm asking the devs to sort it out from there end - I'm sure they have an easier method. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If that is the explanation for the lag, what the heck were we deleting yesterday? The entire French Wikipedia? :) spryde | talk 18:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! My Opera doesn't seem to handle Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) too. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And Brion's undeleted it for us so it should be back up and running when he servers catch up. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The page is back but there is no revision history. Personally, I think we should move the revision history off to an archive file somewhere and make sure to archive the revision history every few thousand edits. ---- Richard (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not going to be needed soon as we're going to have the ability to delete single revisions from the page history so we'll never have to delete a whole page to remove problem revisions (It's coming very soon I believe). The revision history will come back gradually. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've added a new section to WP:NAS/Deleting warning not to do what Richard did. We can take it out as soon as revision deletion is ready. -- Ronnotel (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not exactly right. Not every kind of personal information qualifies for oversighting, so sysops have to delete less serious leaks themselves. The problem is that deleting/undeleting pages with huge history is extremely server-hoggy, and therefore it shouldn't be resorted to unless it's crucially needed. In this particular case, email is somewhere on outer limits of what could be considered personally-identifiable information. Oversighting may be in order if the user explains why it's so private, but deleting a village pump section... Too tough on my liking. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Requests for removing things like e-mail addresses and that kind of stuff should be sent to --Deskana (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. ---- Richard (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[23]... but do people even read that? east.718 at 20:54, November 16, 2007

For the record, an other page that mustn't be deleted is Wikipedia:Sandbox. Brion will hunt you down if you do that. AzaToth 01:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, could an email address be oversighted, or is that not serious enough to be permanently purged? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Email the oversight list, if they don;t want to do it, they;ll tell you why. Unless its on a page will a bazillion revisions, an admin can delete it; its just that deleting certain pages with big histories breaks the server. Thatcher131 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unusual disruption by an editor and socks[edit]

Earlier today/or before we had an incident where Cheesegrater2003 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) randomly started harassing Qst (talk · contribs) for their first edits and later on they asked a potentially illegal request of the editor to somehow gain them "a passport to the United Kingdom" so they could live there and of course they were blocked for this. I don't know the seriousness of this but, later on today another editor appeared called Cheesegrater2005 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) who immediatly appeared on Qst (talk · contribs)'s talkpage again asking the same illegal request, looks like sockpuppetry to me. Any opinions on this? -- The sunder king (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That user is a sockpuppet, but if we can't prove it he was still making an illegal request that needs blocking for. You can put in a request for chaeckuser if you want--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)|||
I will be watching those pages incase it happens again, and I am going to see if there's more socks in the line before this one. -- The sunder king (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Found Cheesegrater2004 (talk · contribs)- made no edits but the account does exsist, could be a sleeper sock. -- The sunder king (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the magic tool is necessary here :) Qst 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is real suspicion of other accounts that aren't grating cheese, it's probably better to just treat it as a case of WP:DUCK and treat them as sockpuppets, rather than waste checkuser time (they'll probably decline it anyway for that exact reason). Orderinchaos 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait a while first then if happens one more time I will register a request, but I possibly will anyway. -- The sunder king (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering it was created today, it's an obvious sleeper. east.718 at 21:10, November 16, 2007

Lulu Margarida[edit]

Despite having been banned recently for edit warring, as soon as the ban was lifted Lulu Margarida once again has started edit warring and trying to revert the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article to a bad version despite multiple editors telling him to stop, trying to claim WP:Ownership of the article by deciding who can and can't edit the Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira article, attempting to meatpuppet by asking other users to go change the article to way he wants, and being rude and incivil on the Talk:Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira page. This editor continues to be disruptive to his pet articles and refuses to listen to any other editor who doesn't agree with him. Further assistance would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this user has an open RfC/U under her previous username, which was endorsed by 5 users (including 2 admins). She has also been banned for one year from the Portuguese Wikipedia for issuing personal attacks when others have tried to edit the same articles as she does so here. This seems like a clear case of a user with ownership issues and admitted POV-pushing motivations becoming belligerent whenever someone points out something on one of her "pet" pages. Also, her latest comment on the Simone talk page,
...the "edition" on left the side (Revision as of 00:21, 16 November 2007) is YOURS and it already has plenty of disruptive, misleading, tricky erros. Simone is famous for calling her lawyers as soon as she sees any damage to her image. I mean it: Watch out! I would advice you to give up "editing" and confine your editions into that cut/paste/copy
could be construed as a legal threat as it's basically telling us to "stop editing or she'll sue you". Where before I was mulling sending this to ArbCom, this is clearly spilled over into plain disruption when she engaged in vandalism and personal attacks (again). Considering the very same behavior, on the very same articles led to her ban from the Portuguese wikipedia, I can't see any room for second-chances or excusing it on "language".---- Dali-Llama (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have applied a one week block for disruption and intimidation [24] following a very recent pattern of shorter blocks. At the next incident, I think an indefinite block would be appropriate. The only reason I didn't do an indefinite block now is that the evidence was not comprehensive enought to justify a longer block. - Jehochman Talk 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The editor doesn't seem to understand the concept of NPOV and the need to cite sources; hopefully, the block will be a wake-up call. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Metal to the Max![edit]

User talk:Metal to the Max! left a message on my user page, deleting the Wiki Pro Wrestling Project userbar, saying I didn't know enough about the project, so I was kicked out. He then left a link to Ron Simmon's talk page, to a discussion from a few months ago about his current catch phrase. I had said it wasn't a catch phrase, he had only said it once. He then replied a few months later, saying I wasn't a real wrestling fan, how I was dumb, etc.

Could someone please let him know that he has no authority to kick somebody out of a project, and to not edit someone's userpage without permission, if anything their talk page. Thanks! -- Kris (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already done so, please come back if they persist. east.718 at 21:07, November 16, 2007

Okay, thank you! -- Kris (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: ··coelacan 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Account created for the sole purpose of vandalizing User_Talk:IrishLass0128 page. See [25] for violation. Could be Grant_Chuggle again, but they've only made one edit using the account and that was to place the message on IrishLass' page. CelticGreen (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Come back here or to my talk page if the harassment continues. ··coelacan 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of a block[edit]

Hello, for a while, I have been observing the behavior of TougHHead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and I have seen repeated bad behavior. S/he was blocked on Wikia and is harassing Wikia users here, not to mention several other offenses. I would like to propose s/he be blocked for a week (or any other time period). It has gone on for too long. Examples of bad behavior:

Incivility: [26] [27] (in edit summary) [28] [29]

Harassment of users: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

Other bad behavior [35] [36]

Note that these diffs are all recent. Looking at the user's contributions, one can find more disruptive behavior. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please leave this peace loving user alone. I did not do that and in fact the days of bad behavior will never come after my first block. I only asked questions to know them not harass them. Also the Civil articles I only tried to tell the truth on the articles not lie to the articles.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

  • I would support any block of this user. I would do it myself right now, but I'll wait for a few more admin opinions before action is carried out. Metros (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

TougHHead, if you are so peace loving then start acting that way. Stop being uncivil. Stop taking your Wikia conflict here. And I removed your irrelevant comment about fuck, Wikipedia is not censored. And something else, alol my diffs provided were in the last few days. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure it's actually a good idea to delete another editor's comments when those comments may be useful in assessing that user's position. I take your point about WP:NOTCENSORED, but then you act directly against that principle. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I am currently trying to be the Protagonist here not the bad guy all because I am trying to talk to old friends I meet before notably Mikael GRizzly, Eldarone, Angela, Dantman and even Catherine Munro. I also tried to tell the truth on webpages and articles not lie in them. I am trying to help and someone plots to block me for more than one month.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

If you're the protagonist, why have I found so many recent diffs regarding your bad behavior? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

She is not the protagonist, since this is your proposal. This is not the forum for a one-on-one argument, but I suppose the admins will have taken note. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 908, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Circuit 2002). --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I say you leave me and my edits alone right now. Stop having concerns for random users and why you had to keep an eye out for my edits? Can't you see I am new here and I did not poster a long history in anywhere. Some guy name Rosicrucian and Metros reverted edits for out of no reason when I put down facts on Trivia pages.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

There's some useful guidance at the top of your talk page about what Wikipedia is and is not. Could you read it before arguing without ammunition? Also, my advice above applies to you too. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not have concerns for "random users", only those who constantly violate policy. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I blocked this guy last time, and I, too, and within a hair's breadth of blocking again, especially following Angela's comment that my intial block might have been too lenient. This edit where TougHHead tried to impersonate an admin was a bit over the top, but though the edits border on disruptive, I'd like to have another admin weigh in. After the last block, this user pledged better behavior, and as this user is clearly a kid, a lot of what I see is simply kid stuff from someone who doesn't yet have the maturity to see how his edits look to others. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone do something about this RfC?[edit]

It's devolved into a stagnant cesspit of ABF and incivility. One of the participants, Anittas (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), was banned (again) as a result at it.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonimu

Thanks, Will (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do what? Put the closing tags on it? Block/ban Anonimu? Clean it up to take to ArbCom? Argyriou (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... not quite resolved[edit]

I was just trying to add a section.

Does this user have CheckUser status? Why are they saying that anonymous IP address (myself) is TBSDY? See this edit. Why are they harassing an anonymous editor? All the points were valid. - (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone thinks you're ta bu shi da, but you're obviosly not. I'll remove it--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a candidate for a strike out to me wouldn't you say? ---- WebHamster 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why "obviously"? ---- WebHamster 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been clear. I am (have scrambled my password, just following up a few things before I go - I've been here a long time!), but it doesn't give them the right to make a positive ID of an anon as another editor. In a few hours this IP address will be recycled into the Optusnet network. I respectfully ask that the editor backs off and gives me my privacy. - (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
By not declaring who you are (were) given the circumstances surrounding this MfD, you were in effect sockpuppeting and trying to have some effect on the discussion without putting your cards on the table. Someone else did what you should have done, i.e. declared your vested interest. ---- WebHamster 00:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users meaning you will have greater privacy--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Friend, after a minute or two I found this, which is pretty convincing. If you're here just to "clean things up", you have no need to sweat over the edit. If you're coming back for some other reason -- don't. I could tell from our discussion on Slashdot you were burned out on Wikipedia; there's no need to keep stirring up the ashes, since you know full well that doing so is only going to make you even more unhappy. Just go & God be with you. -- llywrch (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Just read this. Yeah, time to go: I agree. Don't want to get into arguments with WebHamster or 12Noon, all of whom have been accusing me of horrible things. It's hard to leave, but best to do. Thanks Llywrch. (talk) :( 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Add'l IP of Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Notre Dame vandal[edit]

I suspect that (talk · contribs) is another sock account of Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Notre Dame vandal (which includes a similar IP: (talk · contribs)). Evidence includes a recent edit at Joe Montanta that matches the edits of Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs). What are the next steps? --ZimZalaBim talk 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've referred this to WP:RFCU and would be willing to do a WP:DUCK block if the problem continues. FYI: this vandal was the one who tried to pull a joe job on a legitimate editor during the