Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive337

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

Noticeboard archives


Second opinion?[edit]

I wouldn't mind a second opinion on a speedy I did, though it's not a review. I deleted Chris Hunter (author) as nn-bio, now I've since had User:Lynseydalladay leave a message on my talk page here saying she is this authors publisher, and having pointed her to WP:NOTABLE and WP:COI which she claims isn't an issue I've now seen she now created another author, I presume in her stable Sheridan Simove. Is it COI, Spam, nn do I delete the new one (which has now been speedy tagged), warn or am I not AGF here?. Cheers Khukri 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I note his sole "published work" is not yet released (release date 11 Feb 2008). I would AFD, as notability is asserted so it's not a viable A7 speedy. Neil  15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Done put it up for AFD. Now what about the user, as a publisher in my opinion it comes under COI for them to be creating an article for every author they have. Thgouhts? Khukri 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does violate COI, and the ed. has been warned. But they cannot be deleted on the basis of COI alone-- but that's good reason to be suspicious about claims to notability. DGG (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP inserting copyright violation into Quanell X[edit]


I spotted an anonymous IP inserting a copyright violation into Quanell X. Their edit [1] directly pastes in the content of a Houston Chronicle article [2]. The article's been seeing a lot of anonymous IP activity too. Can someone help me with the right template to put on the IP page to warn them about violating copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talkcontribs) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be {{nothanks}}. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The directory of warnings is at WP:UTM, for future reference. Natalie (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier I filed a conflict of interest report on this user. Subsequently, he has gotten increasingly belligerent to the point of absurdity. I have already reported him for 3RR, but he may need a more stern blocking since he is now basically threatening complete disruption of the cold fusion page and seems to have taken a personal interest in personally attacking myself and Michaelbusch. I have never seen someone so convinced of his martyrdom status and so convinced on his need to go on a crusade. It's actually scary.

Some relevant diffs:

Please do something, and quickly before this mess gets any worse. I recommend a community ban.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block for Disruptive editing. Anyone see's fit to modify the block longer or shorter please advise. Those edits are quite disturbing--Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab and played a part in the original experiments. Even he does not believe in cold fusion, at least not in the terms these kooks promote. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In 24 hours, if he resumes, we can just block again. Let's watchlist the page and be patient. Do we have any idea who this is? - Jehochman Talk 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
On his Talk page, this IP editor identifies himself as "Jed Rothwell Librarian,". It is not clear if is more than his personal web site. Since he has used such strong language in his comments, and he seems insistent on including inappropriate references in Cold fusion, the admin response seems appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on the public whois info, it looks like his personal site. Perhaps we can explain to him what Wikipedia is for. Lots of forks have a misperception. Ideally this should come from an uninvolved party. - Jehochman Talk 21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As Ed says, yes, we know exactly who he is. I believe he formerly edited as JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If lots of forks have a misperception of WP, do sporks see the project for what it is? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping in to voice support for JzG's serious solution to the problems, let's hope it holds. ThuranX (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion spree by Angr[edit]

Angr has long been of the opinion that the Wikipedia is too loose with regard to fair use images. A quick look at his user page shows that this issue is quite important to him. He has taken off after what seems to be a somewhat gray issue. The standard fair use templates all include phrases like "the copyright is believed to belong to the artist or the record company." Not good enough to satisfy Angr. Today, he has disputed fair use on a large number of images, including:

The list goes on. While some of his requests are quite valid (missing source info, no article names, etc), these seem to be listed simply because the template is, by his standards, incomplete. He may even be right, but enforcing it by going through the deletion process instead of trying to get the template to include the copyright holder seems to be a particularly disruptive way to go.Kww (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While the relative usefulness of tagging an image rather than fixing it is debatable, these all are legitimate disputations of fair use rationales. It says that we need to have the "copyright holder." Not who we think might be the copyright holder, or who is the most likely copyright holder, we need to specify the exact holder of the copyright. These taggings are back by policy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I realise that by the end of March next year this debate will become largely jejune. However, if we have, for the time being, acceptance of Fair Use images with appropriate rationales (and I accept "is believed to be" is a weak rationale and could be replaced by <insert name of film studio/record company> etc, this seems a little extreme. I wouldn't want to see this encyclopedia become a cold, dark place because it lacks pictures, simply because people are turned off by pages full of text and nothing else and will vote with their feet; result- death of Wikipedia. RIP. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As a casual editor, I was certainly suprised to find out that Wikipedia's boilerplate fair-use templates are apparantly not in keeping with standard policy. The first I learned about this discrepancy was when Angr disputed the template's phrase of "copyright for it is most likely owned by..." as a rationale for deleting an album cover I uploaded. I get the feeling that my contributions are colateral damage from an arcane admin dispute. -- rynne (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

95% vandalism/nuisance edits[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Looks like 95% vandalism/nuisance edits. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see some edits, but it isn't a vandal only account and hasn't edited since being warned.Balloonman (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to reveal purported personal information about a user[edit]

Resolved: Oversighted Guy (Help!) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See this. I've been involved in the discussion in the past, so request an uninvolved admin to review and delete the edit, if appropriate. -- Donald Albury 22:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That clearly calls for Oversight - it's patently libelous information. FCYTravis (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oversight, definitely. DurovaCharge! 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)::Agreed, Dalbury, the relevant policy is at WP:OVERSIGHT and requests for oversight need to be via email - the address and list of information you need to supply, basically the diff you posted above, is at WP:RFO. Tonywalton Talk 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Working on that. My first e-mail bounced, I guess I typed the address in wrong. -- Donald Albury 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The diff is no longer accessible. Has anyone else already notified oversight? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks that way. Donald, for your future information, just go to WP:RFO and click on the Link in great big red letters at the end of the page. No need to type in any addresses. Tonywalton Talk 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the two remaining edits and e-mailed oversight. WODUP 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I also e-mailed oversight about those two, so I think we're covered. -- Donald Albury 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Clicking on an e-mail link in my browser opens up Outlook Express, which I don't use. I guess I need to take the time to set things up right. -- Donald Albury 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite sure why I'm laughing, as I've done things like that as well, but this is funny. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, I'm talking about Donald's e-mail story, not the main point of the thread.


I have unblocked Anonimu so that he can participate in his arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu. He is restricted to editing case pages only. Paul August 23:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that (at least in the past) the technical capacity existed in Mediawiki for someone (I dunno in whom the power was vested) to restrict a given account to a subset of namespaces (with the particular intention of allowing someone, such as the otherwise blocked subject to edit their arb case but not the encyclopedia). Does this capacity still exist (heck, did it ever)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. Here, all we can do if we see Anonimu editing outside of the case is to warn, then reblock. Thatcher131 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baruch Lanner[edit]

User:IZAK recently posted some comments on this article including sources. I removed part of the comments because I believe that per WP:LIBEL they are potentially defamatory and the sources involved are not reliable for these types of claims. Since I am involved in the article and interact with this editor, would appreciate it if another admin could double-check and either restore the edits or OK permanently deleting. Thanks, Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the Oprah video, and the woman he was talking about did actually claim to have killed babies as part of devil worship. She also claims to have mutliple personality disorder and to have "not recovered all of [her] memories." The rest of what you deleted was completely unsupported by his links, as far as I could see, and the links were not reliable in any event. So while much of that was a BLP violation, it was not entirely without merit. As to the Oprah video itself, I don't see a problem with. It's just a primary source, straight from her own mouth. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The person is identified on the Oprah video as "Rachel". The edit cites certain other sources who claim that "Rachel" is actually another person in real life. The question is whether these other sources are sufficiently reliable to support a claim about "Rachel"'s identity. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha, oops? I looked at the title of the video, and it never really clicked. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I endorse Shirahadasha's action. I'm an involved party as I created the article and have participated in the thread. There is no need to repeat poorly sourced derogatory information about living people, even when it is in the context of disparaging them as reliable or noteworthy commentators. While critical analysis of sources is sometimes necessary we should try to avoid making it personal, gossipy, or hurtful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I also endorse the deletion. they were used for impeaching a source, but it seems to be agreed on the talk page that the source is not really needed or appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IZAK has protested and posted a detailed reply on Talk:Baruch Lanner that repeats his claims and sources. I have deleted most of User:IZAK's reply, believing I am required to do so by WP:LIBEL, and explained my reasoning on User talk:IZAK#Talk:Baruch Lanner. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: This New York Times article refers only to "a guest using the pseudonym Rachel". The reliable sources who covered the Oprah Winfrey Show episode, which did receive press coverage, were very careful not to make a claim about who Rachel was. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Subgen (talk · contribs)[edit]

I need some help with him. He's continuing to make personal attacks and fails to assume good faith over at Talk:Universal Life Church. GJ (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I came here to report subgen (talk · contribs) WP:SPA for the sole purpose of making is employer look good [[3]] JDBlues (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we get some help please? I feel like this problem is being ignored. GJ (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What have we done to be ignored? GJ (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You may have noticed a lot of traffic on this page. Sometimes things get overlooked. Please don't take it personally. You might want to proceed through other steps in the Dispute Resolution process. Powers T 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying, but this is a really neglected area that desperately could use some intervention. GJ (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistently disruptive editor[edit]

This is a somewhat unusual case. User:Marxus (talk, contributions) has a history of disruptive edits. In the past he has created hoax articles (by his own admission on his talk page), and has been blocked for this. He has also created at least 12 articles that have been deleted, not for totally spurious content, but because the subjects clearly fail to meet the requirements of notability. According to other comments on his talk page he has on several occasions made edits to existing articles that were factually incorrect. He apparently never uses edit summary comments. In light of this history, and because some of his edits to an article I watch seemed questionable I recently undid these edits of his. I left a note on his talk page insisting that he provide comments and references for future edits; see here. He persisted, simply replacing edits I had removed, still without comments or references, and without responding to me on his talk page. I repeated my warning to him, again with no response.

It seems to me that this editor is still deliberately being disruptive, though now he's doing his best to stay within the letter of the law; making edits that don't break any rules, but which he hopes will cause annoyance and wasted time.

RedSpruce (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the policy that states that edit summaries are absolutely required? Surely if they were absolutely required the software would make it impossible to make edits without a summary (which I am 99% sure is possible). None of his edits since your second warning appear to have been disruptive (with the exception of violating Wikipedia:You must use an edit summary). I don't think all of your edits fully abide by Wikipedia rules either. [4] FunPika 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Better clarify why that linked diff is WP:RPA states "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.". And the "f***tard" in that summary could be interpreted as a PA. FunPika 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
FunPika, you didn't read what I wrote, with the result that your first response is irrelevant. Your second response is off-topic. "Fucktard" is most assuredly a personal attack (duh), but it was directed at a different user, not a part of this discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean it is irrelevant that part of the reason you are reporting him appears to be a violation of a non-existent rule (at least no rule I have seen) involving edit summary comments? FunPika 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I meant that you didn't read (and still haven't read) what I wrote, with the result that your responses are irrelevant. Clue: Pay particular attention to (i.e., read) the last paragraph of my original entry. RedSpruce (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the neophyte for chiming in here, but how are "duh" and suggesting that others get a "clue" helping your case that some OTHER user is being a git? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no Pauli exclusion principle for git-itude. :-) RedSpruce (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message for Marxus. DS (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Topdoolin is repeatedly adding spam.[edit]

A look this user's contributions ([[5]]) indicates his only interest in Wikipedia is to use it for purposes of advertising a theatre group with which he is involved. He has been warned about his addition of spam, but apparently did not take the warning seriously. I would argue that he is deserving of a block, if not a ban. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Such editing is better reported at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The admins and editors there are more experienced at diplomatically handling this sort of contributor (the important first step is to get a dialogue going). — Satori Son 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Topdoolin isn't on very often - his edits tend to come on one day, all in chunks. He'd miss the COI report. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
But when you file a COI report, other editors will likely use his or her talk page to start a discussion. My main point is that we need to engage these new editors to find out if they are intentionally being disruptive, or they simply don't yet understand our policies. Blocking is a last resort after dialogue has proved futile. — Satori Son 15:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS[edit]

EncycloPetey has accused me of violating the WP:CIVIL policy and has warned me against violating the WP:HARASS policy. EncycloPetey is an administrator, and given the fact that his role is to enforce policy I would like the opinion of this board on whether I have, in fact, enroached on violating either policy. See the bottom of his talk page here and our interaction at an Rfa here. He has asked me not to use his talk page, and I view his warning as an effort to prevent me from commenting any further - even to defend myself against his accusations regarding policy violations. AvruchTalk 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about this further is pointless and will only lead to bad feeling. This dispute would be easily solved by both involved stepping away from the keyboard and going to have a cup of tea. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Tea is sometimes taken with milk.
I appreciate the sentiment of walking away from a conflict -- I'm not arguing with him any further directly. I am concerned, however, about the warning of having violated a policy from an administrator. Either I violated it, in which case I'd like to have that confirmed, or I didn't - in which case invoking it just serves to stifle criticism. Which would you say it is, in this case? AvruchTalk 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
On a whim, I checked your talk page - and noticed EncycloPetey had asked you for assistance because I "will not desist." AvruchTalk 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I will post only this short response to clear up two errors above. (1) The RfA in question is here, and not at the link posted above. (2) The quote on TimVickers talk page says: "I may need help dealing with this case: User_talk:EncycloPetey#Transhumanist_RfA_.26_Uncivility if the individual will not desist." (emphasis added). That is all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate:

1) Avruch, you are being accused of incivility because of edits like these.[6][7][8][9][10] Specifically, this kind of edit can be viewed as a direct statement towards another user, which can possibly evern be viewed as a personal attack. Always ensure that the tone of a comment you make is calm and focused on the contribution, not on the contributor.

2) Everyone really needs to cool down. Try taking a break for a half an hour or so, and come back after you're relaxed. Everyone needs some time to relax once in a while. :) Maser (Talk!) 08:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice on netiquette issue[edit]

Vandalism of a page[edit]

I don't normally patrol pages but I happened to be doing so via recent changes and spotted a vandal on Yuuri_Chinen. Here's the relevant diff:

I warned them (using the level 1 vandalism template). I'm just reporting this to be sure I did the right thing. Moonsword (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - well done. Manning (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't normally warn people - the vast majority of the times I spot vandalism, I just quietly fix it, mark it as vandalism in the edit summary, and move on. This time, the vandal appeared to be brand new, so I warned them, but wasn't quite sure of the situation due to inexperience (while I've been around WP for a while, as I said, I don't normally warn people). Moonsword (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Swarm Internationale[edit]

I believe this one is a sock of some sort. The contributions make it fairly obvious that it's not a new user, and the userpage (and contributions) show it's a POV pusher, not too unlikely that s/he's been blocked before. I'm thinking this one, but I don't know enough to be sure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no obvious evidence in the contribution history to indicate a connection between this account and User:His_excellency (who had a history of being involved in Islamic-related topics). A cursory glance didn't find anything objectionable or "POV Pushing" in this user's edits, however if you can provide diff links they will be reviewed. Manning (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensium issue[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was (also) wondering about a consensium-issue.

If consensium is reached.

And and agreement is being made about POV flags being removed from a section.

And then another user immideatly adds new POV flags, when there haven't been any changes made sine consensium was reached.

How should one go forward with this issue?

Thanks very much for the help in advance!

Johncons (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep discussion in one place (in this case, two threads up). The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Businessplan - spam account?[edit]

Resolved: user warned - Jehochman Talk 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This user created an account that has added blatant advertising information to Business plan and Private placement. The account has made no other contributions beyond the spam. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He's only made a few edits. Please read Don't bite the newcomers. In a situation like this, you want to go to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and pick an appropriate warning template. I've given him a {{welcomespam}}. See also wp:delicious. Thanks and happy editing. - Jehochman Talk 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this diplomatically and pointing me to some links to handle this in the future. 11:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talkcontribs)

Vexatious reports to noticeboards[edit]

I bring this here with great reluctance, but I'm afraid that I can't see any other way forward.

I seem to have become bogged down in a dispute with User:Johncons, which began when I reverted him and warned him for adding unsourced material/vandalism on Grandiosa

The content that the user was adding was WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE, and the user subsequently admitted that he has an agenda, namely that they are "putting dead people in the food" [11]

I stand by my reverts and warnings, as being appropriate in the circumstances. I attempted to engage with the user, and explain our policies to him. This attempt was an unmitigated failure (I attach no blame to User:Johncons for this, clearly I'm not explaining well).

Subsequently, User:Johncons has made no fewer than four reports to admin noticeboards;

  1. Report to WP:WQA claiming that I was uncivil - a claim which hasn't been met with any agreement there
  2. Report here claiming that he is being stalked - archived earlier today as inactive with no positive resolution
  3. Report here complaining that I refused to participate further at WP:WQA - correct, I have refused to continue the engagement, as it isn't going anywhere
  4. Report here (closed with a request not to add multiple threads), asking a leading question about consensus (given that consensus was never reached on the article, this is just a straw man)

I have reached a point where I can only describe this continuing pattern of sending reports as a vexatious attempt to warn me off, in the hope that if I'm out of the picture, he can get on with pushing his fringe theory.

It would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin would review the matter.

Mayalld (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please edit your above remarks to add more diffs and links as evidence of improper editing. If there is sufficient evidence, and administrator might block the account or issue a final warning. Helpful information is available to the right. - Jehochman Talk 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, you only have to peruse this board to see the notices and links to others. There are two here,and a link to the wikietiquette board. It seems Mayalid will have no time for editing if he has to respond each time Johncons makes another report. Jeffpw (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The reports may slip into the archive before this discussion closes, so permanent link to the sections would be ideal. Beyond that, Mayalld has alleged Johncons violated WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE. I'd like to see diffs to back up that remark. If there is solid evidence, we can take some sort of action. - Jehochman Talk 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed the content of the WQA (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mayalld) and the dialogue on the Talk:Grandiosa page. While Johncons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has not been guilty of WP:NPA and has maintained the appearance of civility, there is certainly reason to believe there have been bad faith attempts to subvert WQA, and AN/I.
I concur with JzG's assessment above that the sources are completely unacceptable. This diff shows a huge section of some rambling consipracy theory quoted from an islamic forum in Norway that the company is secretly using pig gelatin but claiming it is soy protein. The majority of the reverts throughout the history seem related to this "pig gelatin" issue. Mayallid has been remarkably patient in repeatedly explaining WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE.
The edit history of the article indicates at least two further examples of complete reverts of consensual versions of the article to this unsubstantiated claim.
I have blocked the user for 24 hours for (a) instigation of administrative actions in bad faith, (b) deliberate refusal to comply with the policies outlined above despite repeated explanations from some remarkably patient editors, and (c) for unjustified reverts against consensus on at least three occasions.
I have left this discussion open for the moment, in case there is need for any further discussion, but feel free to close and archive. Manning (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a longer block is in order. If you look at the history of Grandiosa, you will see this user repeating the same FRINGE push many times, [12] [13] [14] [15] [16][17] and he has received many warnings. Note that Johncons (talk · contribs) appears to have edited as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) before creating an account. - Jehochman Talk 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but opted for the 24 hour as it's a first block - WP:AGF and all that. I suspect a longer block isn't far away once the current block ends, but we shall see.Manning (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


When an article goes through an AfD and the result is delete the article, is it usual to delete the talk page also? Or are there cases when the article is deleted but the talk page kept? BCST2001 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If an article is deleted there is no reason to retain the talk page. If anyone needs to see the contents it can be un-deleted. It doesn't matter if the article is deleted via AfD, CSD etc. You might find for future that you can ask questions like this at either WP:HELPDESK or WP:AN unless there is an urgent incident you need looking at? Pedro :  Chat  12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes, I am looking at Talk:Archimedes Plutonium. This talk page should be deleted, then. BCST2001 (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Eeek. I think that might actually need a history merge on (very brief) review. Pedro :  Chat  12:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm unclear what that means. Shouldn't the page simply be deleted? BCST2001 (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe not. I think it may be deleteable / redirect to new article actually. I'm digging but I'd appreciate more input. Pedro :  Chat  12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not clear about what you are saying. Why would a talk page for a deleted article redirect to another article? BCST2001 (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is a valid redirect from an old article title to a new one then the talk page of the old article should redirect to the talk page of the new article. Looking at this the original Archimedes Plutonium, it was redirected to Notable Usenet personalities but the talk page was not. Now, Archimedes Plutonium is just an entry on that page. As far as I can see this looks like it should just be turned into a re-direct for the talk page as well. As that won't have any GFDL issues I'll do that, and someone can soon revert if I'm wrong. Pedro :  Chat  12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
CSD #8 is probably what you need. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't see why. CSD G8 is for orphaned talk pages, where the article is missing. In this case the article exists, but as a redirect. I'm more than willing to be wrong though :) Pedro :  Chat  13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And, on a related but not relevant-to-the-case-at-hand note, a general reminder to people that G8 is best not used on talk pages where discussions of the deletion have taken place. We get people frequently jumping up to have them deleted ("why didn't the closing admin nuke this?????") or going on spring cleaning exercises tagging any they can find, but any deletion discussion should usually stay. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I feel compelled to point out that, although the talk page now redirects, the history of that talk page is still available, and contains many probable violations of WP:BLP, one of the reasons for the deletion of the article. When an article is deleted for WP:BLP reasons, the history is, of course, deleted at the same time, and the same ought to apply to the talk page. As mentioned, there is a strong argument to be made that these revisions violate WP:BLP: they should be deleted too. BCST2001 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the reason given shouldn't be "G8". Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Amen. I think we're a little too fast on the draw on G8 deletions... the talk page for a recently deleted article can be a good way for people to provide evidence of notability so that an article can be undeleted. EVula // talk // // 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
When an article is deleted by AfD, surely the ruling applies equally to the article and to the talk page. Both should receive the same treatment, especially where there are clear WP:BLP issues involved. Otherwise, those violations will be perpetuated on the talk page or in the talk page history. Is this not clear? BCST2001 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about this particular instance, I'm talking about in general. Whether the talk page should be deleted or not varies from AfD to AfD, and I don't think a blanket ruling is needed. BLP is a totally different issue and trumps everything else. EVula // talk // // 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I've gone through the talk page prior to my re-direct and I can't see any major BLP issues. And on the general note, I agree with EVula that G8 can be used too hastily at times. Pedro :  Chat  16:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So can we agree that the talk page history for the case in question should be deleted? BCST2001 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Per my comment above, can you provide these BLP violations you reference within that talk page? Pedro :  Chat  16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "That assertion states only that Giaccone did not seriously believe Plutonium was associated with the murders. It doesn't state that "he was never seriously suspected of any wrongdoing", or even "he was never seriously suspected of being associated with the murders."" This comment leaves hanging the false implication that this person may have been suspected of involvement in a murder. Remember that this person is essentially non-notable: they do not deserve to have this implication left hanging in Wikispace. It would seem to me that unless there is some good reason why this talk page history is kept, it is clear it should be treated in the same way as the article itself, that is, the history should be deleted. BCST2001 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this to someone else, as I'm about to go off line. However that is a fair comment, and I'm sure another admin will review as well and make a decision on what's best. Pedro :  Chat  16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Floyd Davidson[edit]

Resolved: User has been reported to 3RR Noticeboard. (User:Jeffpw) Jeffpw (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

This User has *way* violated 3RR on Barrow, Alaska. Four different editors have inserted material into this article that it is the setting for the graphic novels 30 Days of Night as well as the film starring Josh Hartnett. User:Floyd Davidson does not want this mentioned on the Barrow page. In the last few days, three editors have inserted the material, and Floyd continues to remove it, or put it down at the very bottom of the page (past the Alaska navigation box) with a "trivia" tag. He has reverted five times in the last 24 hours. --David Shankbone 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have given the editor a 3RR warning, and have reverted the article, since his last reversion removed sourced material. Jeffpw (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
He was warned several times. --David Shankbone 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Request ban[edit]

Resolved: Tagged. Deal with him as before.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to propose we ban PWeeHurman (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). He has used over 40 sock puppets (1, 2) to vandalize and harass users. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a list of his contribs here, and there's a long term abuse report here. -Goodshoped 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the ban policy. If no admin is considering to unblock them considered on their behavior...then they are considered banned. IMHO, I think time is better spent writing than proposing to ban people. Miranda 05:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
And if one has time on their hands and sees a trouble-making user to be dealt with? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
He's considered banned anyway. Why codify it? Banning is not a process. —Kurykh 05:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that's having him come back are his repeated IP recycling. How do we stop that? Also we don't know his ISP, because if we did, that would be really helpful. -Goodshoped 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFCU Mr.Z-man 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) And apparently, he's thinking of attacking Jimbo Wales' talk. [18] and been there, done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s (talkcontribs) 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a username violation? DurovaCharge! 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this case is that the user is indef blocked. His sockpuppets are indefinitely blocked on sight because they are being used to evade the block. How much more can we do? (For example, we don't know his ISP, so we can't ask them to cancel his account, & there's a good chance they'll blow off that request anyway.) As pointed out above, the only difference between his current state & being banned is that no one has said he's banned. If it makes anyone happy & we can move on, I'll say it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with designating someone as banned after an indef and 40 sockpuppets. I'd have no problem with a long term vandalism report either.DurovaCharge! 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that we're presently treating this user as a banned user. It's like the comment in the UNIX man pages about zombie processes: they can't be killed because they have already exited. He may not know it, but this guy's been punted far & away from Wikipedia's door, & his chances of getting back in are halved with each new sock he creates. -- llywrch (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And I'm just curious. I just got this message on my talk page. I wonder what does anyone think of this? -Goodshoped 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a report to LEA and a visit from the FBI might persuade him that this sort of thing is, er, inadvisable, even as a joke. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you want me to work up a sock on him? -Goodshoped 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. Refer to WMF. DurovaCharge! 02:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he'll be as interested in pulling a web Jihad in two months anyway. If anything, he's just another Willy on wheels, without page moving. I'm ready for him, and I think all the people he has "working for him" is probably his kid brother, maybe some friend from school. This whole thing reeks of immaturity. He won't be able to cause as much damage. That being said, we should block him and all his socks ASAP. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)All have been blocked, and he keeps coming back. Check the log. And what's the contact for the WMF? -Goodshoped 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if worse comes to worse, we'll keep fighting him. BTW, how will contacting WMF help? Just curious. And maybe someone could explain an RBL. What does that mean? I've seen it in vandalism reports, but from what another user has told me, it's basically a more extreme way of blocking someone, whcih doesn't sound quite right. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There's this encyclopedia that has the answer -- although it was a bit tricky to track it down so I could link to it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time! So just clear this up for me, how does it apply to Wikipedia (and vandal fighting)? J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC) DurovaCharge! 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


This user is leaving question on all RFA's currently. Almost certainly going to be a sock. 4th question is a standard but the 5th certainly goes against AGF. I'm going to remove his 5th question on all the RFA's anyone think otherwise? Khukri 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support removal of all. Telling is this edit [19] to WP:USELESS--Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, this one looks a lil' POINTy to me. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to block for disruption yet, but I'm toying with the idea. - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
OK I'll remove all the 5th questions as un-agf and we'll see what happens. Khukri 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed a few, linking to this discussion--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I rolled back the rest, I'll leave a message. Thanks Khukri 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal; I just don't trust an account whose only other edits have been vandalism to ask good, productive questions on RFAs :-P TomTheHand (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(u)Had concerned me as well, I was procrastinating on doing the same thing, good work, Khukri! SQLQuery me! 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the Durova incident, I think a potential admin's views on "back channel" discussions affecting an established user's block would be highly relevant given how the incident has affected Wikipedia's reputation. Takenages (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand the assessment TomThehand makes, I agree thath te question of backchannel talk is relevant to the project. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have revert you re insertions Takenages, please refrain from adding them back--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note -- Takenages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) responded to my comment, on my talkpage, stating that they were a long-term user, that had exercised their m:Right to vanish. SQLQuery me! 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
And perhaps a number of the current RFA candidates would appreciate the chance to discuss one of the most contentious issues we've encountered for a long time? Devil's advocate style comment The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That was my opinion, although after five edit conflicts trying to add it, the questions had already been removed. But think this is a perfectly valid question, and I can't see how it fails to assume good faith anymore than the standard question about being open to recall. Those questions are, furthermore, optional, so the choice of answering them should be up to the candidates themselves. Could be a good place to demonstrate one's ability to diplomatically explain a position. Natalie (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and partially answered his questions. --A. B. (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't really sure what to make of this, so for now I decided to follow the herd and post brief responses at User talk:Takenages. No objection to moving them back if others think they are legitimate questions. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Block for 3RR on User talk:Durova[edit]

Check mark.svg ResolvedThe block was not contested, and will expire in a few hours. The discussion here is beginning to diverge from the original topic, and can be continued on my talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a reality check: CBM states "the block was not contested", but actually Ian requested an unblock, and he was denied. Also, an admin closing an incident about himself is really poor form. --Nehwyn (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As one final note (I know it's closed, it was veering off on a tangent, but this is a bit more germane to the original topic anyway) - until I edited it two minutes ago, the box at the top of Durova's talk page strongly implied that "here" (i.e. her talkpage) was where comments should ultimately be directed after reading the village pump thread, and this may have contributed to some of the confusion. —Random832 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:[edit]

This is logged for information purposes only, although other admins are welcome to review and comment on my decision.

Generally I avoid using admin powers in a case I am editing (Ed_O'Loughlin), but in this case I feel my actions were justified.

User: received a block of 72 hours. I exceeded the normal 24 hour first block for a number of reasons.

  1. User has received two seperate 3RR warnings.
  2. User has received three seperate NPA warnings, and has described another editor as "a caterpillar", a "Goebbels apologist" and a "Roman Catholic inquistor".
  3. User demonstrates a consistent pattern of harassment of any dissenting editors. (See here)
  4. Once a formal RfC was initiated on Talk:Ed_O'Loughlin, User deleted/altered/relocated RfC comments of other editors (including myself) as evidenced here and here.

Manning (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you acted inappropriately, and if the user were to contest the block I would probably consider shortening it. The user did deserve to be blocked, but you should (IMHO) never do the block when you are personally involved. You should have come here, posted your reasons. What you would like to have done, and then indicated that you would have added the block yourself, but were involved.Balloonman (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Acknowledged and agreed. I shall remove the block and allow others to take action as they see fit. Manning (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Update - block now removed. Manning (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Since removing the block, the user has now vandalised my User page see diff. Review is requested Manning (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
KnowledgeOfSelf gave him a warning for that. I agree that you should not block in relation to an editing dispute. However, I think it would be appropriate to block him if he continues to vandalize your userpage after having been warned.--Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This user isn't making a positive contribution to the encyclopaedia and is harassing and insulting other editors. I have reinstated the 72 h block and would consider lengthening it dramatically if there are further problems once the block has expired. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I was gonna block him... you beat me to it!Balloonman (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention, gentlemen (and ladies, if any were involved). Manning (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Block was warranted, of course, but I should clarify that he did not quite call me a Goebbels apologist or a Catholic inquisitor. He said that I would probably remove negative information from Goebbels' bio because neo-Nazis think he told the truth, and that I "would have Galileo wrong because he was not sanctioned by the Pope". I think that his disruptive conduct was more than enough to justify a block, but I don't want to give him the opportunity to scream about a smear job. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the insults were a little exaggerated in the report, but the long-term pattern of a problematic editor combined with the vindictive vandalism of Manning Bartlett's userpage were what convinced me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I exaggerated - he wrote so much stuff that I when I saw what appeared to be an personal attack I possibly failed to AGF. Manning (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Grant Chuggle[edit]

This user continues to evade his ban by editing anonymously. All the accounts that have been identified as related to him (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grant Chuggle) come from the range User: I was thinking about a long-duration soft rangeblock. Does this seem reasonable? Is there a smaller range we could block that I'm not seeing? Mangojuicetalk 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok; no input so I blocked the range for 1 month. If someone sees a way to improve the rangeblock, feel free to modify it. Mangojuicetalk 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


May I have some uninvolved feedback here? Please reply/talk on the user talk page, I want to centralize discussion. Thank you in advance, Mercury 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved. Is that correct, Mercury? If so, good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Due to edit warring probably resulting from the latest Register article about Wikipedia, I have protected Any admin who believes this step was taken in error is free to lift the protection. Any admin who believes the article was protected appropriately but is willing to heavily monitor the page to prevent further edit warring is also welcome to unprotect. Last time I checked, I wasn't part of the secret Wikipedia ruling cabal so this is not part of some great conspiracy. Though you are free to speculate (though not here). --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I wasn't part of the secret Wikipedia ruling cabal
Only someone in the cabal would say that. Thatcher131 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've undone the protection. I'm sorry, but only members of the secret Wikipedia ruling cabal are allowed to protect articles. I'll make sure to send you a memo about our next meeting; don't forget to bring the sacrificial goat. EVula // talk // // 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you publicly acknowledge the existence of the cabal proves that you aren't part of it :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Is full protection necessary? I won't change anything already done but I think semi-protection would suffice.↔NMajdantalk 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the warring is being done by some established accounts, so semi-protection would do very little. EVula // talk // // 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Deft diplomat needed urgently[edit]

I just stumbled across something that looks like it may get very ugly, very fast:

I think there's some history between these two established, normally productive editors. I think a desirable outcome would be to calm things down without either party losing too much face. --A. B. (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vitriol subsequently moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell. --A. B. (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A. B., I think you're doing a good job with the diplomacy so far. :) Corvus cornixtalk 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Pronoun Vandalism?[edit]

Resolved: IP has been warned. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this a lot recently but here's a good example: [27].

I'm REALLY confused as to how to handle someone who does this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talkcontribs) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Warn and revert. If they persist, take the IP to WP:AIV. I have warned him for the diff. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing unfounded suspected sockpuppet accusations[edit]

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_7#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TTN. What is the policy/precedent in these cases? Corvus cornixtalk 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this, but the DRV seems to be ongoing so probably should let it take its course. El_C 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Death threat from anon[edit]

FYI, here. I reverted it, probably needs admin action. Lawrence Cohen 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: Blocked

Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He's spamming his his talk page with insults and unblock templates now. Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and protected. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Sorry to bother you. (talk · contribs) seems to have an issue with population statistics from the 2001 census details that were previously shown in these boxes. S/he has changed all the statistics. There is no previous history of vandalism. Just these uncommented changes. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First thing to do is... try speaking to this individual. El_C 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom sanctioned User:The Dragon of Bosnia on a spree[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions admins may wish to review

The Dragon of Bosnia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

  • Removing maintenance tags from articles skewed heavily towards Bosniak POV ([30])
  • Removing negative information about Bosnian Mujahideen ([31])
    • Or just removing all Wikilinks to, and use of, the term "Bosnian mujahideen" from articles ([32], [33], [34]), etc.

He may feel justified because of the acceptance of a WP:MEDCAB request on Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen. <eleland/talkedits> 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


This is completely wrong and false accusation. As you can see I contributed much to Wikipedia. And I source all facts I include in articles just with relaible sources per WP:RS. Regarding Serb propaganda article I improved it with five different International court verdicts (ICTY) as you can see which is very valuable information. Regarding 7th Muslim Brigade, the tag was placed in wrong article. The discussion/mediation is taking place in Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen not in the 7th Muslim Brigade. That is the reasion I removed a link to Bosnian Mujahideen article included in Bosnian war by the above user who reverted it by default without the knowledge about the subject. First, we have to wait the outcome of the mediation, not to include something which might be deleted. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to remove AfDs, regardless of anything; and please, use edit summaries for major edits. El_C 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hakka Troubles[edit]

Could I have an administrator more familiar with the dispute (I haven't had time to keep track of it) please look at Talk:Cantonese people? There appears to be a person on a rotating IP making POV edits to the article and then complaining on the talk page when his edits get reverted. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Special:Contributions/ChakkaDev, refers to me as a "motherfucker" here. Probably from a pattern IP vandalizing my userpage, so an IP block would be nice.Bakaman 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that and he not only vandalized your page, but he also harassed you. He has a Vandal-only account or he is just a jerk that vandalizes pages when upset. I think if he is a vandal-only, I think he should get blocked forever.--Stco23 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response.Bakaman 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, we aim to please. El_C 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Initial issues seem to be resolved for now. Only discussion left going is off-topic so I split it off into its own section, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handling new editors (follow-up to Metsguy234 section), to allow this section to be archived. Date of adding these tags was 9 December 2007 at about 11:30. Hopefully that won't trigger the timestamp for the archiving bot... Carcharoth (talk)

Metsguy234 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing" [35], as IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did [36] earlier. --Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons = blocked indef. Neil  15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"16:23, 27 November 2006 Metsguy234 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account" However, the contributions don't look like much; some clear vandalism is present, especially in the deleted contributions. All in all, looks like the primary reason for existing is vandalism. If the blocking admin believes he has no good contributions, why weren't his "top" contributions reverted? GRBerry 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Putting Glasscobra's "resolved" comment down here, for the record.Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Resolved|User blocked and contribs reverted.GlassCobra 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Only just noticed this. The latest is that several editors have concerns that this was one of several good-faith, if mostly misguided, responses to the story in The Register about the Durova incident. In this case by an account that was created over a year ago by someone arriving from another wiki and not really doing much here. I presume, as GRBerry points out, that Neil misread the date of the first edit as November 2007, when it was in fact November 2006. Since the story in The Register broke, there has been a steady stream of trolls, socks and good-faith editors turning up on Durov'a talk page. She's effectively been slashdotted. A more diplomatic solution than the "revert, protect, block" method has now been implemented, with a notice at the top of the talk page directing people to a village pump thread. Could I ask those admins who can be, ahem, more hasty with the banhammer, to think in future how actions like that look to outsiders?

See also here and here and here and here and here. Reposting lower down for increased visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, and for wider review, the three comments I feel best sum this up are:

"is this really the sign of an account created solely to hassle other users? What I see there is an account created by someone who edits mainly at another wiki (see here), who didn't do much for a year after registering the account here, but recently started editing. Still has a lot to learn, but obviously read about the Durova incident, got upset, posted a few things, and got hit with a banhammer. Indefinitely." - Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


"It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring." — Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


"Guys, sorry for any trouble I caused. I just started using my Wikipedia account recently. When I read about the secret mailing list fiasco- I wanted to know the truth- so, not knowing that it was decided (for whatever reason) to stop pestering Durova with questions- I asked a simple question- which I did not intend to be a personal attack. Sorry if it was taken that way." - Metsguy234 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that clears up a few misunderstandings. Metsguy did post a few other comments as well, but those seem to have been made in anger, and in light of the above apology, he seems to have calmed down. Friendly advice regarding his other comments should probably be made on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes need acknowledging[edit]

No, I'm sorry, the more I look at it, the more the mistakes here need open acknowledgment and apologies. Look at the initial comments here: "Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing"" (Hu12) and "Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons" (Neil). I can accept that Neil misread the date as 2007 instead of 2006, but really, that is a basic error that shouldn't have happened. More concerning is the willingness to jump to conclusions about anyone posting a link to that story in The Register. This reeks of BADSITES culture (zomg! it's an attack story! ban the links!) and a culture of looking for socks around every corner (ironically typified by the very incident the newspaper story covered, how ever inaccurately). Come on guys. Try and think of other ways to handle things before reaching for that banhammer. Take a moment or two to dig a little deeper and check the dates and the clues in the contributions, and remember what it was like to be new around here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dug a little deeper, Clear vandalism is present. More edits to his userspace than wikipedia. Well, except for creating such works as...My Potty and I←Created page with 'I LOVE POTTES I DU' and The Berenstain Bears Cook-It!: Breakfast for Mama!←Created page with 'ME EAT ME'. and [37]"The END!!!!" [38]"Maybe you shouldn't put pro-wikipedia stuff in the anti-wikipedia article! Morons..." [39]"I am looking into your identity, so don't think you can fly under the radar."... Asks Durova, "Are the allegations in this article true? "[40], then blasts another editor who removed the comment .."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[41]. Obvious harassment/trolling.....New accounts don't behave like this.--Hu12 (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I dug a little deeper as well, and I saw all those deleted contributions. What part of "From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions" is it difficult to understand. What part of his apology is it difficult to understand? He's obviously not a new account - because he's learnt his wikimarkup at another wiki and has been lurking here. The Durova story prompted him to de-lurk to express his anger, and we confirm his misunderstandings by hitting him with a banhammer instead of trying to calm him down, educate him and correct his misunderstandings. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is capable of positive contributions. Every troll, every vandal, every sockpuppeteer, is capable of contributing positively. But they choose not to. If Metsguy234 is capable of contributing in a positive manner, perhaps he should have done so here on Wikipedia instead of sticking to a blend of vandalism, incivility, personal attacks, and trolling. However, if you wish to be his enabler, Carcharoth, feel free to unblock him, but you can take the responsibility for his actions. Neil  09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What Apology??...He says on his talk page, " I wanted to know the truth.. I asked a simple question"[42]... but Metsguy234 must have forgotten he previously wrote.."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[43]. ...this part of his apology is not difficult to understand. What he does on has nothing to do with what he's done here. Endorse Neil's block--Hu12 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just unblocked him, as waiting for someone else to do it when I don't mind is a bit pointless. If he goes back to trolling he can be blocked again, and if he doesn't, fine. Neil  09:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Neil, I don't appreciate being called an enabler. Please retract that. I saw an obvious mistake that you made when you said in the block log "account created solely to hassle other users", and I saw someone with experience at another wiki who had the potential to become a productive user here. At the least, a second chance was warranted. An immediate indefinite block as the first block was way too excessive. If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? I may have been overly forceful about this, and I apologise for that, but I was hoping you and Hu would apologise and we could move on, rather than have you both go on the defensive like this and start clutching at straws and continuing to engage in biting behaviour. Hu, the apology was quoted in the section above. Here is a link. Neil, I wish you had waited for me to unblock if you felt you could only leave a terse unblock log reading "On Carcharoth and Wknight94's requests". I waited to give you the chance to do better than that. As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log. And finally, the idea that if you unblock someone you are responsible for their subsequent edits is false. They are still responsible for their own edits and they can still be blocked later if they misbehave. Giving someone a second chance, or unblocking and apologising for a mistake, is not "enabling" and is not taking responsibility for their subsequent edits. You may disagree about the potential there, but please have the courtesy not to call those who disagree with you enablers. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't retract describing you as his enabler - this is becoming a prevalent issue on Wikipedia; too many users who have contributed nothing of merit to Wikipedia are almost encouraged to continue to do so by admins willing to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence it will be repaid, over and over and over. That is the definition of enabler - a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it. End result: Wikipedia is overrun by trolls and users (I cannot call them editors) who are here solely to cause trouble, driving good editors away, and they are permitted to carry on by well-meaning admins. I still believe the block was correct, but am happy to respect the consensus opinion, and for Metsguy to be unblocked. I am unsure what else you are looking for here, the matter does seem to be resolved. Neil  13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) This works both ways, Neil. I can equally say that "a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it" could be applied to you, and I mean that in all seriousness. The problem in this case being the driving away of new editors who, with a bit of encouragement, could become productive editors. His first few edits are clearly experiments. The later deleted edits involved an abortive foray into images. He's explained the "IP outing threat". He's experimented in the sandbox. He imported his user page from another wiki. Made a mixture of minor edits and some questionable removals, and got upset over the Durova incident, but nothing (in my opinion) warranting more than a warning and guidance. I'm currently trying to engage him in dialogue to see if he can be more productive. Why can't you respect that? And no, the matter is not resolved because you have failed to respond to two of the major points I made above:

"If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? [...] As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log."

Since when did we indefinitely block an account with 7 mainspace edits and clear potential because there are "no good contributions"? As long as you continue to leave these questions about your administrative conduct unanswered, no, the matter is not resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Point one - the account may have been created in 2006 but it only really became in use a week or so ago (one edit Nov 06, one in Feb 07, the next was Nov 25 this year). I did not misread the log, I just didn't attach any relevance to it. My one error was using "created" in the block summary - it should have said "being used". I apologise for that. Point two - by all means, show me these good contributions. Not ones that might happen in the future. Now, the account was unblocked hours ago, Metsguy234 is free to begin editing positively if he chooses, and this hand-wringing is pointless. You are invited to file an RFC if you have concerns about my conduct. Neil  14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as the creation date goes, I interpret that as someone who is mainly active on another wiki deciding to create an account here but not being very active. My Commons account looks a lot like that. That, along with lurking, accounts, in my eyes, for the "jumping straight in" behaviour. If I jumped straight into a controversial debate at Commons and started getting emotional and asking questions, would I be labelled as an account created "solely to harass other users"? I would hope not. I would hope someone would ask me first where I'd come from and why I seemed so familiar with the issues. You might say "but your contributions are good ones", but that is tantamount to treating established users with a contribution history differently from those with a short and patchy contribution history. ie. Blocking indefinitely because they haven't contributed much. To put that another way, if I, or someone else with a long contribution history, had made the same edits that Metsguy234 did, would you have blocked me or them indefinitely? If not, why did Metsguy234 get blocked indefinitely? It looks like double standards to me. Those with a contribution history too short to reliably judge are blocked indefinitely and not given any chance to prove they can contribute meaningfully, while those with a long contribution history are given more slack as they have "proven" themselves. In other words, a user's first contributions are intensely scrutinised. If they don't meet your standards and they slip up once, it's in the indefinite bin for them. And let's just ignore WP:BITE. I won't file an RFC unless I see a pattern of such blocks. Carcharoth (