Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive341

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

Noticeboard archives


Anon IP block request[edit]

Hi! I am having trouble with an IP (, who keeps reading inappropriate content onto the RGSAO Wiki page. It will take to long to explain the background (involving schools merging), so I will spare you.

I have given warnings, reverting many times.

Could you please block this user. They have also been a problem to others (see their talk page).

Many thanks, Dewarw (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user is vandalizing after reated warnings, it's better to notify the admins at WP:AIV first, they will get to any sort of block a lot quicker there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, to me. [1] It seems you two disagree over whether pupils from the merged school are considered alumni of the new school. I do notice that this IP has not decided to discuss, though — so, if it happens again, please report them to WP:AIV with a short explanation. --Haemo (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have done so. It is a dispute in a way, but I am right, and have given reasons to the anon ip why. The alumini of RGSW school is on the RGSW page. There are no Alumini for the new school. The IP also randomly, without any discussion/reason blanked the RGSW page and redirected it to RGSAO. For no reason!

The first few times, I thought that it was eg. ignorance. However, the anon IP just reverts with no reason. Thanks for your time,Dewarw (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is just a content dispute. Warning the user for vandalism isn't going to help the situation. The edits by that IP suggest that they think the school should only have one page, not two pages (one for the old and one for the new). --- RockMFR 20:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Please block Special:Contributions/ His/her whole work is vandalism. Here is just one of many: [2].

Thank you. 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user continues to vandalize after repeated warnings, it's better to contact the admins at WP:AIV instead. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion campaign directed against Theosophy & Ascended Master Teachings articles[edit]

I am a homeopathic physician with 27 years clinical experience. One week ago on 6 December I saw that the tone of the Homeopathy article was so POV that it was as if it was a non-encyclopedia article that would be better titled "Criticism of Homeopathy". I wrote a number of comments and suggestions on how the the article could be improved to NPOV standards. I was personally attacked by the "skeptics" that had attached themselves to the article.

Then the tactic in the last several days changed. Several of the anti-homeopathy POV editors went to my user page and checked out my "user contributions". The harrassment started as they started messing with those esoteric/Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles I had worked on - with derision and mockery, and eliminating 3 of them by "redirects" to another not identical article (which I reverted) with no discussion or consensus. Each of these 2 editors had essentially made those articles unavailable.

You can see the derision and mockery directed at new religions that developed in the 20th century that were based on Theosophy at:

I've written some comments there. However the tone became increasingly nasty when User:Fireplace tried to discredit me by dredging up 2 false asccusations that I was a sock puppet.

They have been going to the articles in the "Ascended Master Teachings" category and attempting to get rid of them. See: "Category:Ascended_Master_Teachings"

User:Adam_Cuerden has repeatedly deleted an entire large section of the article on Saint Germain at: Count_of_St_Germain Arion (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the 2 individuals who have been "redirecting" and deleting (all without discussion or consensus) a number of Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles over the last several days.


The Great White Brotherhood article was deleted by User:Adam_Cuerden without discussion nor consensus on 12 December 2007. Arion (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Great White Brotherhood article was an almost exact duplicate, as of when I deleted it, of parts of Advanced Masters Adam Cuerden talk 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It was not a duplicate of Ascended Masters as anyone can see if you compare the text of the two. However - - if it had been a duplicate, your action of deleting it unilaterally with NO discussion or consensus was contrary to accepted Wikipedia policy. Arion (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying text from one article to another with no attribution is problematic for copyright reasons and does not add useful information to the encyclopaedia. Adam would be entirely justified in deleting any material that is a straight duplication of another page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this is not a content dispute. An editor who was interested in improving a particular article would discuss and cooperatively work together with the other editors of that article to improve it to the highest level of academic excellence. The problem in this situation is that Adam Cuerden ignored Wikipedia protocal and simply deleted the entire article - without discussion nor consensus - thus throwing out the many hours of volunteer writing, referencing, and refining by many editors over the last several years. The article was treated as if it were trash, and just thrown out. This was not a show of respect for the other editors. Arion (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again made without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

From the talkpage: "How can I block our students from vandalizing wikipedia from this shared IP? As you can see from all of the warnings above, our students have not been editing angels. -- (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)." That says it all I suppose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't generally block on request. I'm certainly reluctant to block this considering it's only had one 24 hour block. Whois checks out that it is an education establishment however. I'd say no block just yet, but I'll defer judgement to another admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The last time I saw a request like this, I posted a note asking them to identify the school using the SharedIPEDU template, and then subscribe to the RSS feed linked from that template. That would notify them of vandalism, so that they could take appropriate measures internally, and it would also show that the school's administration monitored the page - notifying students who might think twice before vandalising. It would also permit logged in users to edit. It's not a great fix, nor does it sound like it's what they want, but it's the best we can do in the absence of blocking. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am a teacher at this school. I have reverted some edits by our students. If I didn't we would probably see more blocks. Editing Wikipedia is not something that teachers would assign, so I would prefer to see a long term block. -- (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The only constructive edits in the contributions from this IP address are mine. The rest are nonconstructive edits from students. I really don't want to continue to use my time to revert edits from our students. I just looked at the conditions of the schoolblock template. They look fine to me, so please consider using it for us. -- (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note, that although I (and I think other editors aswell, but I am speaking only for myself) very much appreciate your effort to keep vandalism at bay, but that from the Wikipedia point of view, it is not your personal responsibility to revert vandalism made from your students. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since its basically impossible to establish this users identify definitively, it should be recommended that he/she contact WMF or ArbCom and disclose his/her identity and signify authority to make a request on behalf of this institution. Otherwise, who says it isn't one more example of unconstructive editing on the part of a student? AvruchTalk 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats related to the block request. SharedIPEDU is a fine alternative. AvruchTalk 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am the same teacher from before. I am at home now, so I have created an account. I realize that you can't confirm my identity as a teacher, but please be practical here. Realistically, the template that is on our IP address now is not going to be effective. Students won't see it. A block of one hour or one day will have no effect when the next student comes along and decides to make unconstructive edits. Please consider a long term block. --EtonTeacher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this over and over and I've decided to block the address for 6 months as a school block. If students wish to edit, they can still create an account at home and edit in school with their account. I think it's best to respect the wishes of a school, especially when they are making efforts to combat the vandalism coming from their addresses. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your attention to this request, Ryan. The six month block will carry us through to the end of the school year. I highly doubt anyone will complain, except for the thwarted student vandals. :-) --EtonTeacher (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Golden Compass controversies[edit]

Resolved: Two outside opinions given, IrishTraveller warned Will (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue is in regards to IrishTraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This individual has been adding information to the Coca-Cola and Burger King advertising articles about a controversy that does not exist as far as I can tell. He claims that Catholics are protesting these companies because of their association with The Golden Compass (film). The only two sources he quoted are primary sources of dubious qualifications that are heavily biased, and in those sources BK and Coke are only mentioned in passing as partners with Warner Brothers.

Four or five separate editors have removed his contributions, and he just reverted them. One editor warned him with a NPOV level 1 warning and I warned him with a level 2 NPOV warning. I have explained why the additions are suspect and need better sources to justify this inclusion. I explained then just outright told him what he needs to do to make this contribution acceptable for inclusion in regards to issues of article tone, proper secondary sources, reliable sources, and WP:NPOV (his entry reads poorly in this regards). In an attempt to find a source that validates his entry, I did several searches on Google, the New York Times and USA Today and could not find any reference to Burger King or Coca-Cola as being at the center of any controversy in regards to their association with the film.

My searches:

I am thoroughly exasperated with his hardheadedness and am afraid I am no longer partial in the matter. Could some one take a look at this issue and maybe deal with the issue on an administrator level before exasperates someone else?

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

I am not uninvolved with IrishTraveller (though I am uninvolved in the content dispute), but I would advise administrators looking at this report that this is a content dispute, that IrishTraveller is a bit hot-headed but otherwise fairly reasonable, and that prior steps of dispute resolution have not been tried. I mention the last bit, because I think that if prior steps were tried and consensus formed via a third opinion or a request for comment, that this post might be unnecessary as IrishTraveller might concede that consensus is against his or her position. --Iamunknown 20:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am just looking for a truly uninvolved party to look at the issue as a matter of course, this is an attempt to get a third opinion, that is all. As I said to you, I am not looking to get a newb screwed over here. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
Obvious trolling/POV pushing. Looking at the sources, they say nothing about CC/BK being criticised, just that CC/BK are sponsoring the film. Will (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"A rather deceptive practice"? Um, Isotope, as of IrishTraveller's last contribution, his username was "Blohme". It was renamed less than an hour after his last contribution --Iamunknown 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I can confirm this; I clerk at CHU and saw the request. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) Ah, I'd missed the fact that he'd been renamed as Blohme (talk · contribs) shows as unregistered. I've stricken my warning.--Isotope23 talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Alexbot is a bot, that is currently seeking approval. It was approved for trial, 50 edits. However, it has done well over 2000, and in addition to what it was approved for, running unapproved scripts. See this and this for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxred93 (talkcontribs) 14 December 2007

It stopped editing about 8 hours ago. I don't think a block is necessary here. Mr.Z-man 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Craig Wolff[edit]

Resolved: Journalists don't fling accusations of harassment on Wikipedia - that's the realm of journalist fodder. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago, a user named Victimofwolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continually added claims of harassment to the Craig Wolff article. The user was eventually indef blocked. We now have a new user and IP (User: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), NYUjournalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) doing it again. Can we stamp this one out earlier than usual? -- Mark Chovain 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking NYU based on TP warnings and edits. The IP has no edits, deleted or otherwise. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The IP does have edits, the link above is just messed up: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). --barneca (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The IP above does not have any edits to the Craig Wolff article, unless the edits have since been oversighted. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC) does. There may have been an error in the original report. IrishGuy talk 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There was: That wasn't the first IP stated. However, he's stopped after that one edit to the article. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Date warrior[edit]

Carnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is back to his same routine following his latest block. [3] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before his edit, there were two different formats in use in the article. He standardized them, at least. Horologium (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at that too quickly. However, he still hasn't responded to any comments at his talk page about this or sockpuppetry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: neofascism or Neo-fascism?[edit]

There seems to be a battle of the bots (and one assumes some editors) over whether the category should be named Neofascism or Neo-fascism. Both are used by scholars, while Neofascism seems to be the preference of many recent scholars (as is antisemitism, but that's another battle}. I think an admin needs to figure out what is going on, and see if there can be a sensible discussion someplace. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Neofascism was listed for speedy renaming as Category:Neo-fascism. Removed here, added to the CFD working page here and then the bots do their stuff. Being pedantic, it should have languished for another 3 hours or so being ignored at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, but that's a fairly trivial detail. Anyway, this says we should only have Category:Fascism, doesn't it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)



On questioning whether pages on obscure aspects of Victorian cults (Theosophy, Ascended Master are notable:

Just to note, "Arion" is actually User:Aburesz - I've asked him to please change his signature to one that isn't a completely different user.

Then it happens again here:


I realise that people get a bit obsessed about religion, but can someone appeal for calm, and/or throw out some warnings? One doesn't really like being told one is a Nazi simply for attempting to follow Wikipedia notability policy. Adam Cuerden talk 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are four threads on this necessary? east.718 at 23:30, December 14, 2007
Um, sorry, have you posted in the right place? Adam Cuerden talk 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user[edit]

Resolved: Account blocked indefinately

Officer Coon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another one, seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, somebody else can slap the sock tags or whatever on his page. east.718 at 00:50, December 15, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Already done. Thanks East. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Big problem caused by "61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*" IP user[edit]

This is a reply I made earlier to the said above section ("Big problem caused by '61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*' IP user"), but I decided to move it to the bottom so it would be read by admins and because the said section was swamped with later reports making any reply to that section unnoticeable.

Well, let me outline the ones that I recognized. You will recognize the diffs even if I label them differently. "N edits", which I will use in this list, actually show the end result after the number of edits mentioned. Starting with the red flags that alerted me about it in my watchlist: has also vandalized these just today:

Whew! That's as comprehensive as I can get. But I hope this very long list will help because his (or whoever these users are) edits have become a chronic problem. Not to mention, some are not even aware that this is going on. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reposted by 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

I've blocked the following five ranges as being the smallest and covering the whole issue here.

Should this individual return beyond these five blocks, I will look into it and try to elucidate as small a range as to prevent collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But when this same guy vandalizes again, even if it involves another related article, be assured that I'll report it here. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Just send me a talk page message. It's easier.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to state, i'm impressed by the thoroughness of Nanami Kamimura's report. ThuranX (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Film article vandalism?[edit]

There were a string of OTRS complaints about obscene images on film articles about 1 hour ago.

Was there some sort of sneak vandalism of an included template?

I checked the history on Template:Infobox Film and didn't see anything. Can people look around and see if something else was done?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup- it was four articles people reported seeing stuff on, Trust the Man, Disturbia, The Simpsons Movie, and Casino Royale (2006 film). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the mailing list. Cbrown1023 talk 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That template calls on a whole bunch of other templates, some of which may not be protected. Likely one of those has been vandalized, which means the vandalism is more widespread than we know yet. I've been adapting tons of templates to Wikinfo, and have been finding a few that really should be protected, but aren't. I've been reporting them to RPP as I find them. - Crockspot (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee William S. Burroughs[edit]

This user has been editing a lot and as an example of his edits vs. his stated edits see


This is pretty drastic POV editing covered by a pretense of civility. His stated edits are "corrected spellings of Tangiers to the accepted Tangier for consistency,"

opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fairly old edit that has since been rectified. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve Ignorant and Schwartzeneggar[edit]

I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but on article Steve Ignorant states that Ignorant's birth name is Steve Williams, however on Schwartzeneggar the article says "Steve Ignorant {born Oscar Thompson}". I would like to know whats going on, plus a source/sources to back up the right one. —/* abadafa */ +C0 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl[edit]

See User talk:Kitia. BrownHairedGirl has apparently been in a wide variety of disputes with Kitia lately, and today blocked her for 24 hours for a copyright violation. Specifically, see History of Warsaw, which was forked out (seemingly legitimately per WP:SUMMARY) from Warsaw). It's not clear to me that Kitia understands what went wrong. Also, I wonder a bit about that copyright violation but I haven't looked into it. Was that text actually copied from the website wholesale at some point, or is it possible that the copying went in the other direction?

I'm posting this here because BHG said that she would raise the issue on WP:ANI herself but it's been about 5 hours and she hasn't done so despite making other edits, probably an innocent oversight. Mangojuicetalk 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on these edits from September 2005, it appears that the Wikipedia version is probably the original. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Note Kitia is a boy. Neal (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much to Mangojuice for kindly filing this report, since I didn't get time before I went to bed. I'm afraid that I ran out of time after doing the checks on the history of the two versions, which confirm that the copvio was actually the other way round (I have posted the full details at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio)
The first thing is that I am aware that the block might have been seen as inappropriate, because I had indeed been involved in a variety of disputes with Kitia, but I nonetheless thought that an immediate block was justified because material identified removed from Warsaw#History was reinstated by Kitia], after previous discussions about the copyvio when Kitia had twice forked the content to a standalone article (see User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw, User_talk:Kitia#History_of Warsaw_copyright_problems, User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw_again and User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Re:History_of_Warsaw)
It is only in retrospect that I have pieced together the entire history:
  1. At 23:42, 8 December 2007 Kitia copied the text of Warsaw#History to History of Warsaw, intending to split per WP:SUMMARY, but without any edit summary to explain that it was a split. History of Warsaw was tagged 1 minute later by CorenBot as a copyvio of, and Kitia then performed 3 rapid edits, presumably in the hope that a few tweaks would resolve the copyvio, and removed the {{csb-pageincludes}} tag, all without a note in the edit summary. The {{csb-pageincludes}} tag was restored by Guroadrunner, and removed 10 minutes later by Kitia, again without comment.
  2. I spotted the the problem two days later on Kitia's talk page, saw that the copvio tag had been removed, and the article remained substantially a copyvio, so I atgged History of Warsaw for {{db-copyvio}} and left an {{sd-copyvio}} note for Kitia[9]. I had no reply at all from Kitia, and at this point I was unaware that there was a fork involved.
  3. On Dec 14, I spotted a further note to Kitia from Corenbot (see User talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw), so I speedy deleted the History of Warsaw and left a note for Kitia deploring the recreation of deleted content.
  4. Kitia's reply was then to explain that the material was a copy of the history section of Warsaw, and asking that it be undeleted. I relied pointing out that a content fork was not appropriate anyway, and then went off to check Warsaw#History ... where I found that it was indeed nearly identical to, so promptly edited that section to remove the copied material, and left a note at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio.
  5. Kitia commented again on my talk page, accusing me of being horrible and nasty etc[10], asking me again to recreate the History of Warsaw article, and threatening to involve other admins, to which I responded that a report would be fine[11].
  6. I then discovered that Kitia had reverted the removal of apparent copyvio material from Warsaw#History, so I restored he removal and blocked Kitia for 24 hours.[12]
So despite the fact that the coyvio eventually turns out to have been a false alarm, a copy from wikipedia (rather than the other way round as it appeared until the early hours of this morning), I still think that the block was justified. Rather than take any of many opportunities to discuss the apparent covyio (or to ask why a few textual edits don't make a coyvio OK), Kitia chose to edit war. It was only through the research of others that the exact nature of the copyvio became apparent.
As can be seen on Kitia's talk page, this editor has a long history of disruptive editing, which had already led me to warn that an ANI report might be necessary. Most of the problems relate to Kitia's habit of reverting (usually without comment) anything (s)he dislikes, and refusing to discuss the problem. So far as I am aware, Kitia is very young (about 15, I think, from one comment somewhere), and could probably benefit from a mentor to guide him/her through wiki procedures.
The content forking which took place here is one example of this. The guidance at WP:SUMMARY says that when an article gets too big and a section is split out, it should be replaced by a summary, but instead Kitia just created a content fork. A mentor could perhaps explain to Kitia how to do this sort of thing properly, but I don't see much evidence that Kitia would listen, although I hope I am wrong.
In the meantime, what to do about the block? It seems to me that although Kitia was acting in more good faith than was apparent until the last minute, it was justified for the edit-warring ... but I will not oppose its lifting if anyone thinks that's appropriate. However, I think that the real issue here is the need for mentorship of a young editor who doesn't understand wikipedia processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the block, which was made correctly, but for the wrong reason initially. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on several pages[edit]

See their contributions. They keep reverting eachother on several different, but related pages. They've both received a 3RR warning from myself, but they continue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any particular articles I should be looking at? east.718 at 05:35, December 15, 2007
Never mind, I just blocked them both. east.718 at 05:40, December 15, 2007

Threats to continue Disruption on OpenEdge Advanced Business Language[edit]

A previous situation with Ninjadude9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was reported, see → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#Disruptive_editing_on_OpenEdge_Advanced_Business_Language. This tendentious editor continued POV pushing on this article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from multiple editors. It appears Ninjadude9 now has gravitated to personal attacks and threats to continue Disruptive editing. ...'I'll play in and out with him until the end of time" [13]. I've tried attempts to communicate the problem in the edit summaries as have other editors (Emergeo and BLACKKITE), this user has also been warned on his talk. Perhaps another aproach to Ninjadude9 is needed? thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the attack and threats of disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User not getting the point about copyrights, still lying[edit]

User:Rtr10 has continually lied about the copyright status of images. He (ludicrously) claimed that Image:Huckabee with flag crop.png‎ was his own image (the picture has been part of Mike Huckabee's facebook application for a while now, and it's obvious he didn't take it anyway. This user has been warned countless times since I told him I would report him to be blocked for lying anymore: [14]. Someone please block this user. I'm sick and tired of us giving 18 warnings to people who outright lie about copyrights. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, but we can't prevent anything if we don't use them. Sorry if I'm being snappy, but I've too often watched people lie. Over. And. Over. And. Over. after many warnings, and then I'm told, again, to warn the person. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user indefinitely. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: User blocked, and all concerned MfDs closed. GlassCobra 08:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am quite concerned with User:Despres. S/He is personally attacking editors on his/her talk page, and threatens to delete the user pages of other users, see this diff. On his/her talk page, I noticed s/he was recently blocked on I believe December 14, 2007 for making death threats. H/she nominated GlassCobra's talk page for deletion (diff) and the user who blocked him/her, Jusjih, received the same treatment (diff). In addition, his/her user contributions suggests a history of attacking and threatening editors. I believe, myself, that this user should be blocked, as s/he apparently didn't learn from his/her first block. --FastLizard4 (TalkIndexSign) 08:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed same treatment to User:Master of Puppets, see diff. --FastLizard4 (TalkIndexSign) 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I just blocked him for a month for his personal attacks, and disruption. I was just on my way here to get feedback on it, when I saw the thread. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible malware[edit]

User:Nspect58 uploaded a Windows executable as the (now-deleted) file Special:Undelete/Image:VietNavyDO.gif. My antivirus isn't saying anything about it, but I don't have a spyware scanner, and I'm not about to try running it on a Windows machine to find out what it does. --Carnildo (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, suspect a virus or other malware. GDonato (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Problematic employee POV pushing on Employers article[edit]


LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a problem with a user Tamec making pov-pushing edits such as removing the controversy section on an article about a sparkling wine called Armand De Brignac which is a brand that is owned by Sovereign Brands LLC. This is the article in question:

Tamec is Scott D. Cohen, the marketing director for Sovereign Brands, the company who owns the Armand de Brignac brand. He stated on the talk page that he didn't not work for Sovereign Brands, I outed him with proof after this on the talk page and he edited my comments out of the talk page. I am wondering what to do? I have more evidence that Tamec is Scott D. Cohen below.

Tamec does seem to be the person you claim he is, principal author of the WP article about the product sold by the firm for which he is marketing director. He just does not seem to have been very good at covering his tracks, despite his denials. [15], old homepage [16],[17] (There are more like this, just in case any should mysteriously disappear.) Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So, what to do? Other than broadcasting that the editor is likely to have a conflict of interest and suggesting he is spectacularly inept at hiding his true identity it seems that he is not violating policy in attempting to keep his RL name out of Wikipedia. Is the editing of the concerned article(s) so disruptive as to require warning the editor, or even executing sanctions? Have they removed sourced material with no explanation? Have they edit warred? If the answer to the last questions is yes, then they should be warned appropriately and be dealt with by the usual processes. Has anyone mentioned this to the editor, or that this discussion is happening here? I shall check. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon review of the three recent edits by Tamec I doubt that they are that controversial. Yes, there has been some allegations regarding the companies products that have been removed, but the allegations were unreferenced. Unless the comments can be sourced they should stay removed. Unless there are other concerns regarding this editor I think this is pretty much cleared up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a clear-cut conflict of interest. Tamec is using WP as a billboard to advertise their product and remove any adverse criticism. This must have happened before. But he is also denying any involvement with the product; his bluster and obstructiveness on the talk page is therefore disrupting the project. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As commented, the criticism had no sources. If sources are provided then the allegations can be returned. Further, WP:COI does not disallow parties editing - it requires them to be especially scrupulous in their contributions. From my review it certainly doesn't appear that the article needs tagging as an advert, there are many edits from a variety of viewpoints - which also negates any question of notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand somebody (not me!) could put the article onto AFD, explaining that it reads like an advertisement, was created by a spammer and let the community decide. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think AfD is a viable option. While the article certainly needs a thorough scrubbing, it is nonetheless about a notable subject and AfD is not meant to be substitution for clean up. I posted a note about the issue at the Wine Project to see if there are any takers in helping with the clean up. AgneCheese/Wine 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that is the most appropriate avenue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I should have clarified more about what I considered POV pushing, I suspect that Tamec was editing under this IP address which resolves to New York city, where his business is located:

The only thing that really bothered me is when he removed the controversy section, then removed it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tall Midget (talkcontribs) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by User: MrWhich[edit]

This began as an exchange about one of my ArbCom votes, which escalated to a point where I asked MrWhich not to post to my talk page again. He's continued to do so. His conduct is highly improper and tantamout to harassment. When another user, User: Jeffpw intervened independently and asked MrWhich to stop posting to my page, the guy then started posting to Jeff's talk page. I don't know what this guy's problem is, and I don't much care. Would someone please intervene and get him to stop harassing other editors? Thanks. Rather than providing diffs, the simplest thing to do is to ask that an admin check the talk page edit histories of the parties involved: User talk: deeceevoice, User talk: Jeffpwand User talk: MrWhich. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The user had a similar pattern of disruption and refusal to disengage under his old account. I do not know why his older contributions did not get transferred to his current account. Jeffpw (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So now we're outing a vanished user as a result of a bit of fun? Wow. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Nothing "escalated." Deeceevoice forbid me to post at her talkpage, saying she would delete without reading the post. I found this pretentious and funny, and posted perhaps two or three messages in that spirit. Nothing angry, threatening, or in any way harassing. I attempted to engage User:Jeffpw on the matter, as he was accusing me of harassing her, but he simply deleted my questions and pointed me to WP:HARASS, which I had already read before. I read it again, and did not find that I violated any portion of it in my dealings with Deeceevoice. In fact, in my last post to her page (and also in the edit summary, since she claimed to not be reading my posts), I made it clear that was my last post to her page. Still she brought it here. I apologize to whichever admin looks this over for wasting their time. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It is generally accepted as harassment to poke people "for fun" when they have clearly indicated that they wish to be left alone. Heck, some people might even call that trolling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That's policy somewhere? And if you can honestly look at what I wrote, the tone I wrote it in, and the fact that my last note at her page made it clear that I was finished posting to her page, and you think I somehow deserve a block, I guess that's your call. As for Jeff outing a vanished user above, what of that? Mr Which??? 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Common sense and decency should not have to be made policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said, look at the actual messages. And then check out this diff, where--after I've made it clear that they've outed a vanished user--DCV leaves a note saying she considers the matter closed, with a winky after it. How is this acceptable? Especially given that BEFORE she opened this thread, I made it clear I was not going to post at her talk page again? Mr Which??? 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CIVILITY#Examples. Taunting someone who clearly indicated that they wished to be left alone. I have no opinion on what Jeff wrote nor did I say that you should be blocked. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Not taunting, but even if I concede that, how would the relatively minor "infraction" merit both an AN/I post, after I had pledged to not post to her page anymore (a pledge I have been keeping, though they continue to discuss me there) and outing me as the vanished user in Jeff's diff? Mr Which??? 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Which has already left a note on DCV's talk page that he would not be editing his/her talk page again. Why then, are we having this discussion? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, Nick. And now that I've been outed, I'm uncertain how to procede. Is there any way to simply delete this nonsense, and oversight it, or at least make it so that only admins could read it? I had some serious RL concerns that caused the need to vanish. I decided to use this account (a previously approved, but seldom-used, legit sock of my former account) to vanish into. I must have forgotten to have them oversight those diffs that Jeff dug up to out me. Can we take care of this problem? Mr Which??? 10:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If you had actually invoked right to vanish, you should not have put that tag on your userpage. Tagging your page seems to invalidate the concerns that right to vanish address. I do apologize for making you uncomfortable, but how was I to know you were a vanished user when the tag was on your page and you had tagged it yourself? Jeffpw (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As it appears that there were at least a couple of admins who took the DCV complaint seriously, I have compiled a list of all the diffs since DCV forbade me to post at her page. It's much easier to see how frivolous the complaint is when viewed in this way than when simply pointed at talkpage histories.

At Deeceevoice’s page

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3, in which I let her know I won't be posting on her page anymore.

At Jeffpw’s page

Diff 1, in which I explain that I was simply joking around.

Diff 2, in which I try to get to the bottom of what he feels I did wrong. Both were simply deleted. He never tried to engage me on what part of WP:HARASS he felt I was violating, but simply reverted my posts on sight. Mr Which??? 11:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Could an admin please deal with this underlying frivolity, so that we can oversight, delete, whatever, the link that outed me as a vanished user? Mr Which??? 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Between that tag on your new userpage, my salting of your old user talk page, a secret checkuser being run on you and this thread, it's already too much of an open secret. Get in touch with me if you need to vanish again. east.718 at 15:02, December 15, 2007
      • I just noticed that you said a "secret checkuser" had been run on me. When did this happen, and who requested it? Mr Which??? 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It was no secret who MrWhich was, as his behavior has not changed. The first thing I did when dealing with his questionable behavior related to the Mercury (talk · contribs) recall was check the history of his userpage, and sure enough, the sock tag was there. MrWhich, you weren't "outed". - auburnpilot talk 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. So this is just accepted? AP, an admin, can make this statement with impugnity? As for the secret checkuser by an arb during the Durova thing, there is a definite irony to that. For the record, AP, if a user wishes to vanish, even if you (or anyone else) thinks it's "no secret", what Jeff did (uninentional or not) constitutes "outing." Period. Mr Which??? 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Your own user page states who you are. That is a fact, not just what I think. If a user wishes to vanish, he/she shouldn't immediately start using an account that is so blatantly attributed to the previous account. As for the secret checkuser, per policy there is no requirement for the check to be revealed on-site. - auburnpilot talk 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop it. Now. I've made it clear that the tag is a remnant (in an old version of my page) from before I vanished that somehow as not oversighted. That you continue to post it is blatant bad faith, and must stop immediately.