Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive347

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Tkguy at Asian fetish[edit]

I discovered this apparently disruptive SPA user through an RfC. User continually accuses other parties of bad faith, misrepresenting sources,[1] and racism.[2] (See also asking LaraLove to intervene in against the "racist" re-definition of Asian fetish) User appears to be promoting an original theory about the causal link between the Asian fetish and suicide, and insists upon including questionable sources—edit warring to user's preferred version. (See prior 3RR block) I think Tkguy should step away from this topic. Cool Hand Luke 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This user has engaged in a variety of problematic behavior. I don't think he is interested in building a NPOV encyclopedia; rather, he wants to use Wikipedia as his personal soapbox. He has engaged in few or no edits outside of the topic of Asian sexuality.
  • I grow tired of summarizing. Suffice to say he is continuing the same nonsense. He's accused me of "vandalism" at AIV, which was immediately removed, and continues to assume bad faith of other users and attempting to WP:OWN the article. He also persists in adding blog posts and other nonsense after being advised that they are not reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

At my talk page (User talk:Saranghae honey#Asian fetish) he accused me several times of having an agenda to mitigate the article when I was merely copy editing the article. When I removed external links because there was an excessive number, he said it will be my "last and final warning" for my "vandalism." This is not the first time he has engaged in a disruptive edit war as you can see from Crotalus's comment. He has also engaged in an edit war with User:Christopher Mann McKay and User:Kaitenbushi. Before I requested RfC for the article he frequently singled me out in his edit summaries and accused me of "gross manipulation." миражinred 03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From RfC at Asian fetish He has accused me of being a vandal and someone with an agenda to mitigate the article in question ([3][4] , his edit summaries used in the article, and the section below) against WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. миражinred 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was 3rr blocked but I was introduced to the 3rr rule by Chris Mann Mckay. I explain to the admin that Chris Mann Mckay and Kaitenbushi were working together to trick me into violating the 3rr rule. If you look on my talk page this is apparent. I actually had my 3rr block removed. Kaitenbushi was 3rr blocked. Chris Mann Mckay only reverted the page 2 times so was not blocked. But apparently the guy is a vandal on many other pages and was 3rr blocked not just for 24 hours but for 48 hours. If you look at his talk page you will notice that people were very much aware that he had barely avoided the 3rr block on the Asian fetish page. [17:19, 30 November 2007 Chris's talk page] so I am pretty confident his actions on the Asian fetish page caused him to get a longer block sentence. But still most of the references above were from when I started out and when I was dealing with these two. I encourage you to read my talk page on a summary of the kind of edits that Chris Mann Mckay did. My summarization convinced many to 3rr block him. Here's the link to the 3rr report board [Revision as of 02:19, 29 November 2007 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]. Much of the above is my interaction with Kaitenbushi and Chris Mann Mckay.

Tkguy side of the story[edit]

First off this page has a history of being vandalized. It has been requested for deletion twice and possibly more times, notably one time by Saranghae honey. Cool Hand came to this page because Saranghae honey wanted rfc on the definition to be used on the page. This rfc was requested by Saranghae honey at, I believe, the advice of LaraLove. I had a problem with the definition that Saranghae honey put in as it prominently used a quote from a the site that was determined to be an invalid source. Even today this definition is still up with the reference to the invalid source placed prominent as the first entry in the page. During this arbitration rather than commenting on the definition I provided Cool Hand Luke and LaraLove started writing about how the page should have a WP:LEAD rather than a definition. I've brought up the fact that similar pages such as Sexism and Racism started out with a definition and not a WP:LEAD. Anyway, Cool Hand, also without discussing, removed a section on the Asian fetish page. Soon after Crotalus horridus came on and started to delete much of the content from the page. So I am in an edit war with Crotalus horridus, Saranghae honey, and Cool Hand Luke. I believe these people are determined to make Asian fetish out to be something benign. This is apparent in the way they delete items from the page and misrepresent the source data. If you read the talk page I have numerous examples of situation where people have been manipulating the source of the data. One big area this is done is with regards to Phoebe Eng's work. For a long time many people have used a small counterpoint she made in her book "Warrior Lesson" and made the claim that Phoebe thinks asian fetish empowers asian females. I read the portion of the book and discovered that this notion was actually derived from a two sentence entry in a chapter that was overwhelming negative on the topic of Asian fetish.

Here's what people put on the page [18:07, 21 April 2007 ]

I realized that Phoebe Eng's work was being misrepresented and manipulated. I proceeded to add the actual quotes from the book that convey the notion that she was trying to convey and presented like so:

In order to provide a counterpoint to the overwhelming negative impact that Asian fetish has on the lives of Asian American females, Phoebe Eng wrote the following,

Much of the chapter that people are referencing have a very negative bent towards asian fetish. Here are some quotes that accurately convey the much of the content of the chapter:

Crotalus horridus proceeded to chop down my entry to the following:

Phoebe Eng wrote:

I believe this last quote should be removed from the Asian fetish page as it has long been used by many as a reputable source to claim that asian fetish helps asian females. I tried to remove it but the people I am edit warring with keep bringing it back.

As for Cool Hand, I been trying to get him to put an article by Raymond Fisman under the heading "Controversy" and not "Studies related to Asian fetish" as it gives the impression the article is an actual scientific study. This article was panned by many for claiming that a study proves that Asian fetish does not exist. He even acknowledged that this article is not a study with the comment to the changes he made with "The analysis is not a study, but one of the principle economists behind it has a pretty good handle on interpreting it." 20:37, 30 December 2007 yet he keeps putting it under the heading "Studies related to Asian fetish"!

here is my version of the entry 19:45, 30 December 2007 :

Raymond Fisman authored a controversial article on Salon that claimed that the existence of Asian fetish is a myth. Raymond used the results of a study, "Racial Preferences in Dating," that he helped to conduct to come to this conclusion. [1][2] A blogger at Hyphen found the study to be flawed.[3] Journalist Moe Tkacik also expressed skepticism to the findings of the study.[4]

here is the current version that once again has been chopped up and placed under the heading "Studies related to Asian fetish". This is obviously making an opinionated article out to be the study that was conducted. This is far from the truth and once again a gross manipulation of the source data:

Raymond Fisman authored an article published in Salon which claimed that the existence of Asian fetish is a myth. Raymond based his conclusions on the results of a study, "Racial Preferences in Dating," that he helped to conduct.[5] The study, based upon speed dating experiments among Columbia University graduate students, found no general statistically-significant racial preference among males.[6]

And this is the nature of the edit war we are having on the Asian fetish page. Nearly all the quotes and summarizations on the page I've found to be a gross misrepresentation and manipulation of the source data. Once again please look at the talk page for the many examples of such manipulations. I assure you that if you look at the edits I've done I have accurately let the sources "speak for themselves" and have been trying to bring back contributions on the page that have long been deleted by vandals. I assure you I am editing in "good faith". Because I've been trying to fix the gross manipulation of source data people are accusing me of being biased. I am not allowing people to manipulate other people's work to convey a meaning it never intended it to mean. Obviously such actions have been pissing people off.

Tkguy (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Tkguy, you have been told numerous times by me and other users that neither blogs nor your own personal opinions are reliable sources. You continue to place unsourced and poorly sourced material into the article. As long as you do this, it will continue to be removed. Salon is a reliable source; the two blogs you cited to impeach it are not. If the Salon article was indeed "heavily panned," as you claim, then please cite reliable sources justifying this statement. You simply do not seem to have (or be interested in obtaining) a clear understanding of how Wikipedia works. *** Crotalus *** 03:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
First off the problem is that this opinionated article is being presented as a fact by being placed under the heading, "Studies related to Asian fetish". Only objective analysis of studies that present the findings of the study should deserve to be placed there. This is no such thing. The Fisman guy is deriving that the study proves that Asian fetish is a myth and caused a huge amount of controversy by doing so. And that's why it probably more fitting to put it under "Controversy" as it's a liberal interpretation of a study that caused a lot of controversy. As for blogs not being a valid source. It might be so for the Jezebel thing. But the hyphen one is probably valid as it's made by the managing editor Neelanjana Banerjee on blog that is part of Hyphen magazine. But still these blog references are not being used as the main source but to illustrate that the article was panned by the public. But that's beside the main point, that a biased opinion of one man is being presented as a scientific study. Once again this is the nature of the edit wars on the Asian fetish. Tkguy (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fisman conducted a study. Like all researchers, he drew a conclusion from the study. You don't like the findings of the study. You want to relegate it to the "Controversy" section. That's all there is to it. миражinred 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The page has been protected. Please forward all future debate to the article's talk page. --slakrtalk / 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why one problem user should be able to get a page locked. Everyone except Tkguy had no trouble working together. *** Crotalus *** 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Crotalus. All other editors drained their time on reverting Tkguy's edits and struggling to improve the article. I (and I think other editors) was expecting some sort of solution that would prevent Tkguy from editing this article. On a more positive note, I guess we can spend the New Year's in peace. миражinred 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I considered simply taking this to RFPP, but the problem is only with one editor. The other editors use the talk page and even have constructive disagreements. The edit war is caused by this user who stubbornly insists on their version against all counterarguments. This same user caused the previous edit war (and previous page protection) with completely different parties. The problem with with Tkguy editing this article. Cool Hand Luke 08:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


  1. ^ Fisman, Raymond. "The Myth of the Asian Fetish: An Economist Goes to a BarSlate magazine (2007-11-07). Retrieved on 2007-11-09.
  2. ^ Fisman, Raymond; Iyengar, Sheena S.; Kamenica, Emir; Simonson, Itamar. "Racial Preferences in Dating". 2007-05-11. Retrieved on 2007-11-09
  3. ^ neela. "Asian Fetish Myth: Not Debunked". 2007-11-08. Retrieved on 2007-12-26
  4. ^ Tkacik, Moe. "Are "Asian Fetishes" A Myth? We're Gonna Have To Go With "No" (2007-11-08). Retrieved on 2007-12-26
  5. ^ Fisman, Raymond. "The Myth of the Asian Fetish: An Economist Goes to a BarSlate magazine (2007-11-07). Retrieved on 2007-11-09.
  6. ^ Fisman, Raymond; Iyengar, Sheena S.; Kamenica, Emir; Simonson, Itamar. "Racial Preferences in Dating". 2007-05-11. Retrieved on 2007-11-09

Page blanking (noticeboards)[edit]



Could someone semi-prot this noticeboard and the fringe theory noticeboard, so people don't have to keep reverting IPs all night? Avruchtalk 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh - little edit to make the header show in peoples watchlists. Avruchtalk 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, its kind of funny to watch. The IPer has blanked it at least ten times, wonder when she/he/it will get bored. Avruchtalk 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it, the vandal has to keep typing captchas, three admins who are watching the pages he's vandalizing just click a button. It's amusing to think of all of the different silly words the vandal has had to type over the course of an hour or so :P --slakrtalk / 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it was just one person. While certainly there was an IP hopper attacking the page, the last IP was on a different continent from the rest. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahaha, didn't even think of that. Avruchtalk 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the same person. They're likely drones. --slakrtalk / 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Only concern I guess is if someone is trying to report something, they're going to get brutally conflicted. Avruchtalk 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
My concern would be that if a valid IP has a concern and wants edit this page to add it, semi-protecting would block them out. When its semi-protected there should be a header on top pointing them somewhere that is being watched. MBisanz 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage masquerading as an article[edit]

This is not a HUGE issue, but I am seeking the advice of an experienced admin on this one. Isn't this kind of thing: see User:FFaF, generally frowned upon? I am not an administrator myself, but I tripped over this, and thought I should bring it here for further attention. This is the text of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klan Andlux. I know under certain conditions, deleted pages are allowed to be "userified" as a subpage of the main page, but I am not sure this usage qualifies. I am concerned that this may be confused with a "real" article. Any ideas on what should be done? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's spam: Wikipedia:CSD#G11 applies (as it does to ALL pages, regardless of prefix), and it's been so tagged. Time to go looking for more. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It was more specifically a recreation of an AfDed article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klan Andlux). --slakrtalk / 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Calton and Slakr for resolving that. It looks like the situation has been dealt with!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef Blocked user might be back[edit]

bear with me, this is the first real report of this kind I've done

User:Booze broads and bullets was indefinitely blocked in Feb 2007 for persistent vandalism and uploading copyrighted materials. Shortly thereafter a new username popped up, User:Broads, which was determined to be a sock and subsequently indefinitely blocked.

I am making the assertion that User:THX2046 might be another sock of Booze broads and bullets.

The original incident reports on Booze and Broads were written in Feb 2007 and are found at:

At a couple of points this user has been referred to as 'banned', but it doesn't look like they have been formally banned, only indef blocked (i.e. they don't appear at Wikipedia:List of banned users.

    • I am taking "THE LATE: B3" to mean "Booze broads and bullets". No idea what "A PEXER" means.
  2. User talk:THX2046 is littered with non-free image warnings
    • BBB was known for uploading non-free images, one of their hallmarks.
  3. The very first edit for User:THX2046 was to re-create Bakekang.
    • This was also among the first actions of User:Broads (see deleted contributions), who only had 5 recorded edits in all.
    • Bakekang was also a target for BBB in the last days leading up to their indef block.
    • The timing is right as well ... BBB was indef blocked on 10 Feb ... Broads was created and indef blocked on 12 Feb ... THX2046 was created 19 Feb and began editing where the other two left off. Not to mention that, in April 2007, THX2046 replaced User talk:THX2046 with "I AM THE GUARDIAN ANGEL OF BAKEKANG" (version)
  4. User:THX2046 has particular ... almost exclusive I think ... interest in Philippine television and film, including an emphasis on ABS-CBN programs.
    • This focus was also a hallmark of BBB's activities

That is as far as I've gotten. Note that THX2046 has been active since Feb 2007 and contributed >1500 edits according to the Contributions page. I suppose the question is whether to do nothing or do something. I am not sure where consensus with dealing with socks is at presently as I've not paid much attention to that aspect of Admin activities (User activity monitoring).

Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A "Pexer" is a poster at the PinoyExchange forums. I haven't hanged around the TV/Film fora since it's very messy and the moderation is awful. --Howard the Duck 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the assertion that THX2046 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a block-evading sockpuppet of Booze broads and bullets (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Broads (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), based on editing patterns. Another similarity is that neither has made a contribution outside mainspace. I have blocked THX2046 indefinitely. I will also add Booze broads and bullets to the list of banned users (since no-one seems willing to unblock him) if there is no opposition to this here. Sandstein (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User not getting the point about sockpuppetry[edit]

User:Wikinger is evading his block (again). It is incredibly obvious that is a sockpuppet; he is once again engaging in personal attacks and editing other people's comments. See User_talk:Wikinger#Blocked to understand. Please block, and in fact extend the block on the main account. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is probably just the users' IP address, wouldn't SSP be a better route here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation on VanBrigglePottery and[edit]

Resolved: Referred to 3RR and RPP

WP:AN/3RR I believe VanBrigglePottery and to be the same person. As they keep vandalizing the article Lakota people. As they keep reverting to the same POV wording on that page. As well the editing history of both users. Already one 3RR violation for VanBrigglePottery.

I would also like to request of Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts less than four days old to that article.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you report this to WP:AN3 and WP:RFPP instead? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't know. thanks, --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs handling[edit]

Resolved: User blocked

Someone please take a look at these edits: [5] and [6] and [7], the latter 2 being where this IP used my picture off of my page and placed it on his talk page, and all 3 edits being personal attacks against me. -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I've blocked him so he can cool off but really why did you post a warning note in his talk page in the first place? All he did was to call a spammer scumbag off. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in violation of WP:NPA, all over the place. Check all of his contribs. That's why I posted a warning in the first place. -- ALLSTARecho 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Bo;;ocks . I've reverted you. We don't welcome spammers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierceshow (talk · contribs), TheBrianP (talk · contribs)[edit]

This seems to be a sock-puppet account. Both usernames have created an article titled Brian Pierce today, claiming the subject of the article to be the current mayor of New Berlin, Wisconsin. The article has been deleted 3 times so far today under WP:CSD#G3. TheBrianP (talk · contribs) is also engaged in an edit war on the New Berlin article with 5 reverts so far today. SWik78 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, they might be related to Brian002100 (talk · contribs) who was a suspected sock-puppet and was blocked indefinitely on July 23 as a vandalism only account. SWik78 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Pierceshow created the article months ago. Suspect two different people with the same name. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued problems by User:Magnonimous/[edit]

Resolved: Magnonimous and his sock drawer blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(Magnonimous has changed signatures for to his own [8], so I'm assuming these are the same person.)
Magnonimous behavior problems continue and are getting worse. See previous ANI at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive343#User:Magnonimous.2F24.36.201.161
Since this last ANI, he has removed a number of tags including an afd notice from Okinawa Coral, the latest pov-fork of Coral calcium, and has spammed defamatory accusations to multiple talk pages: User talk:Ronz Talk:Stephen Barrett User talk:Magnonimous User talk:B User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf and User talk:Levine2112 --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Afd notice was added without justification, without notice or relevant talk, and went against the general consensus we had on the talk page. I believe MoonLightGlory's contribution removed significant amounts of POV content from the original quote-unquote Coral Calcium article, and seemed to relieve the edit warring, at least temporarily. In retrospect it seems ridiculous to add more POV content to an article to try to balance it. I wish I had done what he/she did in the first place, and removed that crackpot's ramblings from the original article altogether. Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now. Magnonimous (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I had NO IDEA :-] about the ban on canvassing. Where did my mind go hm hm hm. Secondly, it's hardly defamation if presented as an opinion on an opinion based page. Magnonimous (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify what Magnonimous meant by, "Matter of fact, I think i'll go do that right now." He replaced the content of Coral calcium completely by that of Okinawa Coral, which is up for deletion as a pov fork of Coral calcium. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Above action was not without relevant support: "I wouldn't be opposed to a complete stubbification of the article, removing all poorly referenced material. However, I see no reason to change the name. Okinawa coral is a subset of coral calcium, so redirecting would seem entirely inappropriate." Someguy1221, some might say this verges on consensus. Magnonimous (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Administrators, I apologize for my colleague's continued dredging up of past issues that you shouldn't have been bothered with in the first place --Magnonimous (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked Magnonimous (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for ongoing disruptive conduct, including removal of AfD tags, recreation of deleted content forks, canvassing, abuse of article talk pages, WP:BLP violations, and a generally unconstructive approach. MastCell Talk 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Good move. Alot of good material was being trashed by a couple editors who don't understand NPOV and the fact that all significant POV are included in Wikipedia articles as long as they are well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. We don't publish the "truth" here, we publish verifiable POV. That is regardless of whether they are considered facts, opinions, POV, "the truth", or whatever else one chooses to call them. What we don't publish is OR and articles that don't meet notability requirements. -- Fyslee / talk 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, as soon as he was blocked, Jerome709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was autoblocked as a result. I'm assuming that means they are socks and based on the disruption I've seen from the two of them, I'd support a community ban. --B (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd support the ban; this has been going on for too long. As I said in the first ANI report, Magnonimous is a clear spa, who every couple weeks gets an idea that no one agrees with, leading to edit wars, an ANI report, and warnings all around. The fact that he's also a sockpuppet suggests to me this account was created with the express purpose of editing tendentiously, while avoiding any consequences following him to his main account. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, this just got more interesting [9]. If this claim is truthful, then is a shared private proxy. The IP that left the message for me is an open proxy and I have now blocked it. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous if anyone is interested. I have removed the direct block on Jerome709 pending anything interesting from a checkuser. --B (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI to anyone following this, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous has proven Magnonimous and Jerome709 are working from the same computer. --B (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)



Sock of banned user blocked. miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to state first and foremost and apology for ad hominen attacks on this website. However, what is more important to say is that I am not the vandal attacking Wookeepedia, nor am I EndoExo, GorgeHe, the Communism Vandal or any other troll on this site. I was only the CIyde Vandal and the Clap Vandal. I am trying to move on with life, and establish something more meaningful for myself. Therefore, I have no interest in childishly vandalizing and trolling this website as I had in the past. I am not sure how a CheckUser actually "confirmed" my vandalism as claimed by certain admins, but it isn't me. I actually edit productively on an anonymous account. Lastly, I understand why you would immediately delete this account and block my access to Wikipedia, but please listen and acknowledge the fact that I have discontinued vandalizing.

- Encyclopedist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merdanda (talkcontribs) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he is reformed, look at his edits to User talk:Merdanda. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was really hurt that he called me a faggot. I'm not a faggot, I'm a dyke- users who make inaccurate edits really shouldn't be editing at Wikipedia. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Love it, FisherQueen. ...don't you wish your username was hot like me....don't ya? :-P miranda 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Errm, that's Jonny the Vandal / Mike Garcia, not Encyclopedist. WP:RBI is the cure for that guy - Alison 19:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

obvious AFD socks[edit]

Lastchild is apparently using sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComicRack. S/he created the article. The socks are:

Solano2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Rzgofv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Clayton.Aguiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The users both have very few edits and used similar arguments in the AFD. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of course is not true. I created this account to add an entry to my favorite ComicReader program (I guess almost everyone starts that way). I added an entry which was speed deleted in about 1 day. After a week i found out that a different person has made a ComicRack article. As it was marked again for deletion, I just added some comments to the deletion discussion board. I'm new to this wikipedia thing, but the experiences i had in the last 2 weeks have almost destroyed any liking i had for wikipedia. As i do not how to prove that i am not Lastchild, who this JetLover is, and in general in what beehive i've stuck my head, those who are in power here should do whatever they like. --Solano2k (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To a normal user like me, seeing your first and only (non-deleted) edit looks a bit suspect. The use of "Do not delete" has also shown to indicate a relative new-ness to Wikipediam whereas veteran users use "Keep". Will (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if they're socks or not, but while rzgofv's argument looks like lastchild's, solano's did not to me, and in fact, i supported a "keep" based on his argument for parity between the file format and the software supporting it. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD are discussions, not votes. So socks should not matter if they don't have valid arguments. I am not supporting socks but merely saying that the creators are wasting their energy.Congolese fufu (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't appear to be socks through Checkuser; it might be the case that a call to action was posted to some website or mailing list, but these appear to be different people. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed Solano2k. Sorry. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally commented on that AFD that it smelled like socks; specifically, User:Rzgofv made his first contribution there. I find it hard to believe that someone would create an account then make a beeline for AFD 21 minutes later. I brought this concern up with User:Snowolf but was told to WP:AGF. I did leave a note on User:Lastchild's talk page, but the user seems to have been offended, and accused me of personal attacks, so I just requested that they follow Wikipedia's policies and stepped back.

Also, I don't believe Solano2k is the same user; the style of writing and way that they formatted their comment on AfD was slightly different than Lastchild's, in a way that is pretty hard to fake. Master of Puppets Care to share? 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of Burntsauce[edit]

Je suis un Hippo (talk · contribs) is claiming to be a sock of Burntsauce (talk · contribs). Corvus cornixtalk 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blockinated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a sock puppet, more likely just some random troll stirring up trouble. Note he also claimed to be the banned Brian G Crawford. (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that the single post IP evaluates what is or isn't a sockpuppet.[10] DurovaCharge! 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather strange[edit]

When this sockpuppet identified himself on Burntsauce's talk page, he announced his name as Brian G. Crawford. After a quick search, it turns out there was a User:Brian G. Crawford (who is banned) and after a search into his contributions of both editors, it seems the sockpuppet had a problem with Kelly Martin, SlimVirgin and JzG [11] and it was no surprise when I looked at Brian G. Crawford's contributions had a dispute with these editors.

This is all very confusing considering Burntsauce was confirmed to have been meatpuppeting for User:JB196, a totally unrelated banned editor. Considering Brian G. Crawford = Burntsauce per that "confession" of sorts, I will tag Burntsauce as a sockpuppet of Brian G. Crawford, but it seems really, really strange that one banned editor, Brian G. Crawford, would create an account to become a meatpuppet for another banned editor, JB196. — Save_Us_229 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that tag, a claim made by an IP editor for whom we have no evidence of any connection to either is not a valid basis on which to make such a claim. —Random832 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Do we have any evidence linking this to Burntsauce? I've been in contact with him via e-mail, and Brian G. Crawford is not Burntsauce's real-life name. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems like you have been in contact with him enough to know that. In any case, User:Je suis un Hippo is tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet, so besides the 'confession' (which I guess is deemed invalid), why is User:Je suis un Hippo still tagged as a Burntsauce sockpuppet? Shouldn't it be moved to a Brian G. Crawford sockpuppet? — Save_Us_229 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: User talk: - Disruption via {{NoAutosign}}?[edit]

Resolved: NF24(welcome, 2008!) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a new one for all you admins. User talk: added {{NoAutosign}} to their talkpage. This would be perfectly fine if they weren't (deliberately?) leaving their comments unsigned. Diffs:[12] and [13] (which contains an attack against SineBot as well). Could this be considered disruption? NF24(welcome, 2008!) 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not constructive. The editor's contributions suggest that constructive editing may not be the point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, not disruption. Now if someone could tell them that WP:NOT and others doesn't apply to Lamest edit wars, then maybe they would quit vandalising too. I'd do it but I usually unintentionally make things worse.NF24(welcome, 2008!) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it would help much, all things considered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dissruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, reporter admonished viz 3RR

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on wing chun and WingTsun. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He also keeps insisting on wikifying a group of words on the WingTsun page, even though he's been told by other editors and my self that no such page exists, please stop per the established guidelines. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. I'm requesting administrator intervention. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Koonleg50 for 24 hours for edit-warring and disregard of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. In the future, it's preferable to get an admin involved before reaching 8RR on both sides, as you've both technically violated WP:3RR. However, since it appears from my review that Koonleg50 is clearly editing against policy while you are reverting to a stable and well-sourced version, I've blocked him alone rather than both of you. Call it WP:IAR if you like; it's open for review as always. MastCell Talk 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate it and apologize for my part. I guess I thought by continuing to try and reason with him on the talk page it would finally get through. If he does it again after the 24 hour block or from an anonymous IP, I'll just come here right away. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777's deletion game[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.

Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for the past few months, has turned wikipedia into a deletion game, he is nominating hundreds of articles based on fictional topics for deletion using the AFD and PROD process, claiming they are not notable, when they are, Star Trek, Futurama, and the elder scrolls related articles have all been targeted and the topics are notable and they have big fan bases however he claims they are not notable and gets people who are not fans of the topic, and so will not be intrested in the topic to know what it is to claim for delete. This is all he ever does and it is causing a lot of disruption and it is reflecting that editors like him are destroying wikipedia, he is becoming very unpopular because of this deletion crusade and if anyone tries to talk him out of it he threatens them. Blueanode (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's customary to provide actual diffs of disruption if you're going to accuse someone of it. From perusing his contribs, a lot of his AFDs have ended in delete, redirect and/or merge, so he's clearly not starting them without merit. Further, you may be interested in this essay; being important to a lot of fans does not translate into actual notability. And since, at heart, all I see is a broad content dispute, you may consider requesting comment on this user. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD is a process available to all users. He is perfectly entitled to nominate any article that he believes should be deleted with a reason based in policy. You also have the right to vote keep stating a reason based in policy. Seraphim Whipp 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is massive amounts of articles on fictional works that totally ignore policy, that's what is causing the deletions not rouge editors. Ridernyc (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconding Someguy1221 here. Extensive fancruft belongs to dedicated wikis; I suggest Wikia's services. Wikipedia on the other hand, is an encyclopedia written from a real-live point of view and doesn't need an article for each Wazza-Bazza-Pistol someone, somewhere thought up. This is not a game - this is called building an encyclopedia. Миша13 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the policy is unfair. Blueanode (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're also free to propose changes on any policy's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This all raises an interesting future discussion (if there is not already one) to be held elsewhere. I was thinking only recently that a number of Star Trek related entries could be better off on the Star Trek wiki, and Family Guy on the Family Guy wiki. I'd also suggest episode guides should be scrapped, but that would be against policy. May go around Wiki now and suggesting a lot of articles for AFD. Thanks to the editor who started this thread for giving me the idea Whitstable (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This recent arbritration case may be of use to editors here. I agree that rouge editors are not the problem; poorly created content is. Seraphim Whipp 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion regarding editors and the use of TW to mass nominate articles for deletion may also be helpful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict encountered)

one explanation for the expression of angst: I have seen a lot of traffic on AFD generated by Judge. My understanding is that WP:FICTION is a disputed guideline, which is the source of much of the friction. There is a general misunderstanding on the part of many of the people who have authored the articles coming up for deletion that WP:V is non-negotiable and that the potential for verification through reliable sources (rather than primary sources) is needed ... it would actually be better for Judge to be focusing on nominating items for their inability to meet the verifiability criterion, which is a much stabler plank to sail on than notability criteria. Why is the notability criterion creaky? Because it is potentially negotiable; consider the people notability guideline for entertainers that states "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I've seen this invoked a couple of times (I don't have diffs at hand right now - it is infrequent) successfully. There are some aspects of "fancruft" that could pass this notability criterion if it were included in WP:FICTION - some, not most; something like "An in-universe fictional element is notable if it has a specific, significant and demonstrable "cult" following or real-life influence". In the end the "game" that Blueanode refers to might well be an attempt to get as many articles gone before a new version of the WP:FICTION guideline is in place that would allow them to stay. As pointed out, Judge is well within his rights to do this and might well argue (I would argue this as well at this time of year for some of my actions) "I have time now - I didn't have time before". It is unfortunate, though, that Judge is doing mass deletion nomination while the guideline is being re-drafted ... but there is no reason to ask him to stop, nor any justification to do so. I believe that other Admins would agree with this, as reflected by the comments above. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I would suggest personal attacks are not the best way forward. Whitstable (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be mudslinging from both sides here and to a lesser extent here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Even without WP:FICT the articles still fail basically every policy, WP:RS, {{WP:PLOT]], WP:OR, WP:V, while notabilty is offten the reason cited it's not the main reason,99% it's actually WP:PLOT and WP:RS. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The large numbers of keeps that appear in many of those discussions suggest that a good deal of editors believe that the articles pass these guidelines. A big problem is that the guidelines and policy pages are themselves edited constantly and so what someone sees in one instance and cites as policy may be changed even minutes later when someone else decides to cite that page. I had a nice discussion about this matter recently. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If it can be shown I have done something wrong, other than occasionally beginning to lose my cool, I am more than willing to be given guidance as to how to proceed in the future. But it seems to me than many who would keep fiction articles outside of current notability parameters are taking their anger out on me and others who are following existing policy on fiction and notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Commenting as a 7000+editor and a Trekkie: I have already discussed this briefly with Judgesurreal777, as I was concerned that he was raising too many PRODs at a time for defenders to be realistically able to improve/merge/otherwise rescue them. However, apart from that, I have not come across any cases where I dispute his judgment, and I do not support the complaint against him. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

JudgeSurreal777 has an attitude problem. If a AfD is not going his way, or if this one dissenter, he is very, very quick to anger. A few diffs from a recent AfD debate is a small percentage of these outbursts.

He acts as though he is at war with those who support the articles, per comments like this. In AfD comments he has often slipped in remarks like this that only attack how well the article is written, rather than the importance of the subject.

Some of these articles do need to be nominated for deletion, but his explosive temper and probable priority conflicts raises the concern that he does not have the correct mindset about handling this in a respectable and responsible manner, and that he should either slow down with his AfD noms significantly, or let someone else handle this responsibility. (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (moved here by Whitstable (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

  • How about if the two sides came up with some kind of triage system in the relevant Wikiproject, to sort them into unambiguous deletable cruft, subjects worth working on to see if they can be sourced or merged, and unambiguous keeps? Articles on fictional subjects sourced entirely from primary observations are a plague - virtually everything linked to Bionicle fundamentally fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:NOR and probably WP:NPOV, and I don't think that's the only place where unchecked fandom and lack of an appropriate subject-specific Wikia or fanpedia has led to Wikipedia becoming the place to document your favourite Lego brick from your own microscopic examination thereof.
    So, it would be better if the fiction lovers and the cruft-deleters worked together to actively purge the project of the worst of the crap; working together would help both sides to appreciate the good in the other. Remember, folks, that the existence of a large number of articles on minor facets of fictional genres is not necessarily an indication that such articles are a good thing. we have already run through the Pokemon universe once, with good results for the project and a much more solid base for the remaining articles. It may well be time to review some of the other genres in this way. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How about blanking every fiction article and starting from scratch? Or at least looking at every article again and judging by policy? Whitstable (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fails to recognise that many fiction articles are the result of good, thorough research. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not insult other peoples' work regardless of your conception of its worth. You know that it engenders hostility if that's a word, and helps with nothing. --Kizor 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Fair enough, I should have made it clearer outside of the edit summary that I was only being half-serious. But there does seem to be a problem here - WP:FICTION being disputed does, in some circumstances, appear to outweigh other policies that are not disputed. As Guy says, "the existence of a large number of articles on minor facets of fictional genres is not necessarily an indication that such articles are a good thing," and I cannot agree any more than I do with that. There also appear to be problems in the AFD system in that those who are more likely to take part in Star Trek-related (for example) AFDs are quite likely to be Star Trek fans who will vote to keep, whatever policy is involved. But yes, will agree with Guy that a lot of further discussion is needed elsewhere on this one. Whitstable (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
My comment was addressed to Guy, not you - the suggestion of destroying years of work made me visibly cringe, but was not an insult as such. (Sorry if the * made it unclear.) --Kizor 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries, must be the time of year! Hope worthwhile discussion does come of this to the benefit of the project Whitstable (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment why is this still even being discussed. there has not been a single bad faith nomination shown, The editor who complained basically admitted his issue is really with policy. It's been shown that the editor who started this complaint has been uncivil in the past. Conversations about policies on fiction are pretty much a waste of time here, nearly every guideline on fiction is being rewritten right now. Ridernyc (talk) 20:06, 31 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.


Resolved: for now, page protected as redlink

Gerda9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a single-purpose account concerned only with repeatedly creating Future food. User completely refuses to engage in any discussion either on his/her own talk page or the article talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

False accusation. The user was not greeted in polite way. The repeated deletion of their contributions may naturally be considered as an annoying harassment of a newcomer. I suggest you to review Don't bite newcomers and WP:VANDAL before labelling someone "vandal". Also, please assume good faith to understand that the person simply does not know wikipedia ways and places to talk. `'Míkka>t 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, no one has left a note requesting that this user engage in discussion - I see only templated deletion messages on the talk page. I left a note asking the user to stop re-creating the page and instead discuss the reasons why it's being deleted. If they keep going with article re-creations after that, then a block would be in order. MastCell Talk 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Could the page be salted, may be easier? Whitstable (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[ec] Awesome! "protect" on redlinks. I love that. I've given it six months, it's clear the time is not yet ripe but it might be one day. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is already resolved, but:
I only used the vandal tag as a way to easily expand the user's contribs, talk page, logs, etc. I wasn't implying the user was a vandal.
The templated deletion messages on the user's talk page do invite discussion, which invitation the user has not accepted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand; I use those templates myself, and I'm not accusing you of anything. I've just become a bit more sensitive to how forbidding and unintuitive Wikipedia's system has become, so I try (not always successfully) to err on the side of a more personalized and informative message when time permits. Anyhow, it looks like things are resolved, and I didn't mean to imply you'd done anything wrong. MastCell Talk 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken, MastCell. I just wanted to clarify since I was challenged. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs)[edit]

Phantomhacker (talk · contribs) - is this person's User page grounds for indef. blocking? Corvus cornixtalk 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. Hut 8.5 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just some fool kid. I'd like to go to his talk page and taunt him "Go on then" but I wont. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Elkman blocking himself?[edit]

This is bizarre. I guess it's related to the User:Jinxmchue discussion above. Videmus Omnia Talk 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bizarre self-enforced wikibreak? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've left a stunned message on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And I've unblocked him. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I spy satire. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • don't worry, admins do this all the time. I can list at least four other admins who've done this ;-0--Phoenix-wiki 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Raymond Arritt (talk) raises hand sheepishly... it was an accident, honest —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't supposed to do that, per the blocking policy, right? J-ſtanContribsUser page 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thar's right.Although it's less damanging than it was in the days before logged in users could edit from blocked IP ranges. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible ban[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Silly people, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of House1090 for relevant information. Redspork Friend001 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), another House sock as per the checkuser, did this in an attempt to get Redspork02 (talk · contribs) into trouble. House has used a variety of socks and has generally been a right pain, see things like this, this and this, and so as far as I am concerned he is Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. I post here for review and to see if anyone disagrees. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support While he was not a good editor, some of his editing interests coincided with mine. So while I support the notion of a community-ban, I'd appreciate not mass-deleting all his articles, some of which I've provided references for, others of which I may find time to work on eventually. Ameriquedialectics 00:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Links: AntsOnNuts (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Not too sure what to do. User:AntsOnNuts Has only made one edit but it could be interpreted as a threat - given the username - to vandalise in the future. WP:NOT a crystal ball, but...? Whitstable (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a threat, but I do see it as an account that will only be used for trolling. That diff is just an attempt at getting around BLP. EVula // talk // // 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As EVula says, not an immediate threat, but keep an eye out for things worsening, and block if necessary. Anthøny (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just {{usernameblocked}} the account. It's clear from the comment that the username is intended to be construed in a vulgar manner. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Jinxmchue IP rangeblock[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a month for abusing sockpuppet accounts (being a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), despite his strenuous denial that he's been editing legitimately and not being a sockpuppet. I think Special:Contributions/ will be instructive in determining why he's been disruptive.

I recently asked him a legitimate question about whether he plans to constructively edit any pages once the block expires. In response, he undid my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 180656254 by Elkman (talk) - rv disruptive trolling (which won't result in the offender being blocked, of course)". That pretty much tells me that he doesn't plan to do any constructive editing.

I have blocked his entire range of IP addresses ( for three months and protected the two user talk pages that he's been using. I'm reasonably convinced that he has no plans to edit Wikipedia except to make complaints about Wikipedia administration. Frankly, I'm tired of his continued abuse of his user talk page(s) to go on about his grievances. Since I've placed a rangeblock that may affect users of a small ISP based in Saint Cloud, Minnesota, I'm posting here to get feedback. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. That seems to be casting a rather wide net, for three months. Is he that disruptive? — Coren (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ugh - definitely using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Blocking an entire ISP seems too extreme. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A /23 block is only 512 IPs. These are all the anonymous edits from that range up to August 4th, 2007. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate reading about these situations. being as careful and narrow as possible almost always lets them back in, then they get ip after ip blocked piece-meal, leading to frustration and irritation; blocking massive ranges which assure the editor can't get back in easily run the risk of blocking other contributors. I'd like to go with 'let them register', but that often falls on deaf ears, and the 'anyone can edit' clause. well, we're not precluding registered users, just IP vandals. I suppose the 'right' thing, by current WP standards is to unblock the range, but I keep thinking about all these declarations here on AN/I to crack down on vandals, and how wimpy they wind up being. Given that almost all were by the vandal in question, I say let them stand. The other IP in that range can register. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, the main account itself isn't blocked. So an anon only block on his IP range is going to let him edit from his account. Of course, this may be a good thing - it will force him to use an account rather than obfuscate behind multiple IP addresses. --B (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Forcing" someone to use a registered account is the wrong answer - it's a violation of the privacy policy, which states that editors may edit logged in or not. Can someone explain the point of blocking an ISP to prevent anon editing by a person whose main account isn't blocked? Videmus Omnia Talk 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom has imposed a sanction that editors are limited to one account before, so I don't see why that would be totally out of the realm of possibilities. I was more or less tongue in cheek about that part, though, obviously using an ISP block for an editor who isn't even blocked isn't quite right. --B (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering the rangeblock based on the opinions above, but I'm going to wait until the morning (CST) to make the decision. I still don't think he has anything positive to contribute here, and I don't like the idea of users using talk pages to bash Wikipedia and its editors, but maybe the rangeblock is overkill. Other opinions are welcome. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The main account isn't even blocked. So right now, it's in a logically inconsistent state. It doesn't make sense to block the range if the editor can just edit using his account. So something needs to change - block the main account or unblock the range (or both).--B (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - also, it's not up to Elkman or any other single admin to tell an editor where they may or may not edit. The more I look into this, the uglier it looks. Guy should never have blocked an IP for sockpuppetry to begin with (editing anonymously is specifically allowed by policy, and cannot be "sockpuppetry"), and this answer to an unblock request only seems liable to inflame the situation rather than improve it. I still don't understand why this person was blocked, anyway - it looks to me like it was possibly over a content dispute, which should have gone to RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Videmus Omnia Talk 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Has the IP/Jinxmchue edited outside of his usertalk space since the block? If all he's doing is being obnoxious on his IP usertalk page, and he's not actually disrupting articles or editing other spaces, then a range block definitely seems like overkill. Right now, he's just ranting on his IP usertalk page. I'd suggest semi/full-protecting the talk page with a clear explanation that he's abusing it. If he starts using his dynamic IP to evade the block and edit article-space, then a range-block might be appropriate. Just my 2 cents. Also, Jinxmchue edits to provoke a reaction and constantly seems to be in a state of barely contained rage. I still have a couple of... er... colorful emails he sent me after I blocked him for 3RR long ago. He's best ignored or flyswatted rather than nuked. MastCell Talk 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Videmus, I think (though am not entirely certain) that JzG blocked the IP because Jinxmchue was using it to evade a block on his main account. That was a correct block. As for range blocking to stop an unblocked editor from editing? That's a different story. --B (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there was no block evasion - the IP was blocked for 31 hours on 30 Nov by Adam Cuerden. On 2 Dec, Guettarda blocked the main account for "block evasion" on the IP even though that block had already expired. On 3 Dec Guy blocked the IP for sockpuppetry. Unless I'm missing something, the only good block is Adam's. And the more I look at that IP's talkpage the more it looks like a volatile person was cyber-bullied and provoked into getting mad on their talkpage, which was then used as an excuse for talkpage protection and "harrassment" and "trolling" accusations. That is a thoroughly despicable tactic. Videmus Omnia Talk 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The IP was being used to evade the block put in place by Adam, so blocking the IP was the right decision. Blocking the IP for a month instead of merely blocking it for the time of the original block was a bad decision. --B (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Adam blocked the IP, not the account. Videmus Omnia Talk 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, 15:17, 30 November 2007 Adam blocks the IP for 31 hours. Jinxmchue edits with his account starting at 20:24, 30 November 2007 and continuing until blocked by Guettarda at 00:23, 2 December 2007 for block evasion. The IP does not edit until after that block expires, so yes, you are correct and I was wrong. --B (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam blocked Jinx for a 3RRvio. After he was blocked, he switched to his logged-in account, and was editing outside of his userspace before the block expired, and was repeating the same edits for which he was blocked. So I re-set Adam's block, and posted notice of the block here. (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Who are you? --B (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Guettarda here. (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, yes, I agree your block was 100% correct. JzG's block is the one about which I said I was mistaken. --B (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda, why are there edits from your IP to Natalie Erin's talkpage that say "natalie erin is a big dyke"[14] or "natalie erin is bitch ass dyke"[15]? Videmus Omnia Talk 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I did an IP lookup - it's the IP for Michigan State University, so there's going to be quite a lot of users on that IP. Adam Cuerden talk 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam's right ... it appears to be the computer lab at MSU. Many people could be using that/those computers. Antandrus (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rangeblock and the two protections I just placed. As for the existing block of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), that's a block that JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) placed, and I'm not going to undo that -- that's wheel warring.

Apparently, I'm the one who screwed up here. Apparently, I can't do things correctly around here. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing a one-month block 29 days into it would not be wheel warring. --B (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I placed an unblock request on the IP talk page, and request a neutral review. This looks to me a bad block by Guy. Videmus Omnia Talk 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It was placed because of disruptive edits using that IP (which had no evidence of other uses, so no obvious danger of collateral damage) combined with querulous complaints on the admin noticeboard, the while absolutely refusing to admit to any fault, notably with these: [16] [17]. It seemed pretty unambiguous to me, he admitted it was Jinxmchue. Jinxmchue and his IPs do little other than edit war and push their POV. We should waste less time with such foolishness and concern ourselves instead with helping those editors who are capable of presenting minority POVs without the attendant problems that editors like this bring. It's pretty clear that this editor has used and will continue to use IPs and his account in combination to evade scrutiny and blocking, and there seems to me to be adequate support for editors with a problematic history being required to keep to one account. No provacy violation exists, Jinxmchue freely admits these are his IPs on his user page. Jinxmchue needs, in my opinion and I'm guessing that of Felonious and others, to "shape up or ship out". Guy (Help!) 10:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
But the point is, it's logically inconsistent to block his IP when his account is not blocked. --B (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's more of an argument to block the main account too than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for or against anything other than logical consistency. --B (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy - if the reason was blocking was edit-warring or POV-pushing, why does the block log say that it is for sockpuppetry? And why a month? Videmus Omnia Talk 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As to whether 1 month is an appropriate block length for edit-warring/POV-pushing, it may be, given that this user (as both User:Jinxmchue and various IP's) has run up a number of prior 3RR blocks in a short time and has continued to edit-war. As to why the block log gives sockpuppetry as a reason, I don't know, though my suspicion is that there were multiple issues which Guy deemed block-worthy (recidivist edit-warring, POV-pushing, block evasion) and he grabbed one from the drop-down menu. As to whether the IP should be unblocked, or Jinxmchue blocked, or some other combination of actions, I have no opinion beyond the one expressed above - that this is an irascible editor spoiling for a fight, and others have obliged him. MastCell Talk 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I can speak to the quality of Jinxmchue's edits, but the actions on the other side seem to be an unworthy attempt to short-circuit the dispute resolution process by unwarranted use of admin buttons. I'm particularly concerned by FeloniousMonk's actions - he apparently was involved in the dispute, then placed an {{IPsock}} template on the IP userpage against the user's will, then protected the page while involved in the dispute. I don't have any involvement in the Intelligent design/Dominionism area (except for a long-ago dispute regarding non-free images); it seems that users involved in this area are willing to engage in tag-teaming and provocation to enforce their point of view on the articles involved. I'm not saying the blocked user was correct, I'm saying that there seems to be some questionable use of admin buttons by users involved in the dispute. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And I think that;s an assumption of bad faith, and extending greater good faith to an edit warrior than to several long-standing contributors. I picked one moth because that's what I usually use in cases of block evasion using what appear to be stable IPs - I use a week or less if the IPs seem to be reallocated frequently. Feel free to help the user fix his behaviour problems, though. I don't think that would be at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, this doesn't explain why you blocked for sockpuppetry when there was no sockpuppetry. I can't even see that there was any block evasion. Can you please explain (citing policy as necessary) the reasons for your block? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Violating his block by editing logged out
  1. 1st block of Jinxmchue for 31 hours, 1 December 2007
  2. Editing from the IP during the block on 3 December 2007
  3. 2nd block for evading the first, 3 December 2007
Admiting that he violated the block: "Nope. Block period has passed. (I even logged out to see if I got the block message, which I didn't and knew I wouldn't.) Please go harass someone else or find yourself in danger of losing adminship."
Admiting the IPs are his:[18][19][20][21][22]
Your frantic arm waving and claims about Jinxmchue being the aggreived party here are as baseless as they are disruptive, as is your grudge filing against me at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:IPsock and attempt to ban another who's opposed Jinx's disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jim62sch. Your time and effort would be better spent finding constuctive ways to contribute to the project rather than stirring up drama and settling old scores... it's becoming disruptive and appears to be spreading. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Your "evidence" shows that the user didn't edit outside of user talkspace during his block. Would you also care to explain your protection of the user's IP userpage while you were in an editing dispute with the user? Your time and effort would be better spent engaging in constructive ways to avoid conflict, rather than misusing your admin buttons. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, are you kidding? His userspace is User:Jinxmchue. During the block he edited his IP talk page, WP:AN/I, 6 times total and my talk page, twice. All while he was blocked.
When you are so wrong on the basic facts Videmus, how do you expect us to take your other claims at face value? In addition to getting simple but crucial facts flat wrong I don't think you understand how Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Enforcing_bans, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking and Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging apply here well enough to be making the accusations and slinging the mud you have been. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

<This is the sort of attack you can expect if you run afoul of the WP:Intelligent Design folks. Nothing above explains the bullying, intentional provocation, or out-of-process page protection FM has engaged in, but we get plenty of ad hominen. Thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. When you are shown to get the most basic and crucial facts wrong you blame me for providing the diffs pointing it out and claim I'm bullying? Right. That's called 'victim bullying', and it won't get you too far. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland101 and Tsourkpk[edit]

Resolved: Ireland101 has been placed on revert parole. Thatcher 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ireland101 is impersonating an administrator by threatening me with a block here [[23]] as well as here [[24]]. He has joined some sort of counter-vandalism unit and is pretending to have the ability to block me. This constitutes bullying and harassment and I would like file a complaint against his behavior. He is very aggressive, seldom consulting the discussion edit before making controversial edits, and accuses everyone who undoes his edits of vandalism and sockpuppetry, as his contribs log attests. He has repeatedly slandered me by baselessly accusing me of vandalism and sockpuppetry, and has even tried to "eliminate" editors who disagree with his views by trying to frame them for tag-teaming, as can be seen here [[25]]. His attempts to intimidate and silence thos who oppose his views are extremely dangerous to Wikipedia, and I would like to request that he be disciplined.--Tsourkpk (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any of the other particulars of this situation, those are standard messages and it's widely accepted that non-administrators are allowed to use them. —Random832 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not surprised this Tsourkpk is trying to make these allegations about me, as he has a history of simular attacks. They are all false. I have never claimed to be an administrator. I am a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit and WikiProject on user warnings all I did was use the appropriate templates on this users talk page after vandalism. I never claimed to be an administrator and take offense to this personal attack. As this is not Tsourkpk first time and has been warned I suggest action be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What I did is not vandalism. He accuses EVERYONE who disagrees with his views of vandalism. Take a look at his contribs log, just about every edit summary contains the word "vandal". He is using the templates to try and initimidate me. This is classic bullying and needs to stop. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides that fact that most of my contribs no not contain the word "vandalism", I do allocate time to correct vandalism in the encyclopedia. I am in no way trying to intimidate anyone, I am just going by the WikiProject on user warnings. You shouldn't fear anything if what you have done is right. Recent types of vandalism by this user have been removing sourced text from articles and adding incorrect unsourced un-encyclopedic text to articles. Ireland101 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
None of your "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS and are only intended to push a particular POV. This is why all your edits have been undone by myself and other users (whom you have also tried to silence). --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The source in question is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This is defiantly a reliable source. Please stop with the false accusations. Ireland101 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
So that I do not need to start a new thread this is were I am reporting this user.

Tsourkpk (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - Repeated vandalism in many articles. Has been warned numerous times however has chosen to delete many warnings on talk page. Has been warned to Level 4. Examples of vandalism:

  • removing sourced academic study calling it vandalism repeatedly[26], [27].
  • added incorrect text that is unsourced to article repeatedly [28], [29]
  • made changes against talk page decision [30]

There are many other examples. What is striking is that all of these changes were made in about one hour. Action needs to be taken. Ireland101 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. None of the "sources" even come close to meeting WP:RS. Regarding the Greeks article, the source is original resrach and is unsuitable for Wikipedia. As for Bryges, all I did was undo weasel wording. This is bullying and an attempt at intimidation. If any action needs to be taken, it is against Ireland101. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to try WP:Dispute resolution. I strongly suggest that you consider mediation as there isn't very much that ANI can do - in neither case is there blatant vandalism or bad faith edits. --B (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The source about the Greeks appears to be reliable. It is published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information which is part of the United States National Institutes of Health, a scientific agency. I don't know about the other two though. --Hdt83 Chat 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hdt83 thank you for posting your finding, Tsourkpk seems focused to making people believe it is not a reliable source. I do not know of the other sources Tsourkpk is talking about, as this is the only one I have added that I can remember. Ireland101 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, I think you really need to rethink your entire editing strategy hear. I see in your contributions history plenty of revert warring and use of somewhat hostile edit summaries. Especially in this most recent edit war, I see very little evidence you actually tried to discuss the issue. What you have to realize is that edit warring without discussing the content dispute at hand is plainly an unacceptable practice. Even after reverting vandalism, you're accountable for that revert, and expected to provide a reason if asked (reason here is more than just listing policy shortcuts, you should be able to explain how they're being violated). As for the issue at hand, except perhaps for blatant attack sites or personally published work, determining whether a source is unreliable is something that is going to require discussion. Not to satisfy yourself, of course (I'm sure you've already made up your mind), but to satisfy everyone else and arrive at consensus; for if you don't, then any admin is just going to see this as an edit war and block you if it continues. And when you can't reach an agreement (which I don't see evidence of your even trying) you ask other editors for their opinions through requests for comment or the less formal requests for third opinions. And last but not least, always keep in mind that neutral point of view is about confining included points of view to those that are noteworthy and reliably sourcable, and not about keeping out any point of view that might be considered offensive. So to put this all in a nutshell: Except when reverting very obvious vandalism, you should try more discussion and dispute resolution, not because you might be wrong, but because admins don't care if you're right; edit warriors get blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ireland101 has already been warned not to try to impose