Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive357

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

Noticeboard archives



  • Nynexman4464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a voting account / inappropriate alternate account,
  • 1. 01:52, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎ (top)
  • 2. 01:51, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozilla Corporation software rebranded in Debian‎ (→Merge)
  • 3. 18:28, 18 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote‎ (→Option 3)
  • 4. 22:23, 19 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:In-joke‎
  • 5. 06:47, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎
  • 6. 06:45, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym‎
  • 7. 06:39, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym

3 of 4 edits are used for voting since 2004, discussion on [1], now for WP:SSP hard evidence is needed which might be in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym (or not), so what to do ? Mion (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying Checkuser first, which may come up with hard evidence. If the request is rejected, bring it back here. Adam Cuerden talk 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been here for a while, I just never think to login, except for the occasional vote perhaps. The last thing is a topic I know a fair bit about (copyright, trademarks, the DFSG, that sort of thing), hence the vote. I contributed to that stupid Stackronym article way back, and I know I've done a few reverts of vandalized pages, and a few minor edits here and there. I use this username everywhere, and I'm at a school so my IP address is static (though it changes each year I think), so I'm sure you can figure out who I am through that. Nynexman4464 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, aren't the wikipedia and wikimedia commons accounts linked? You can see my contributions there Commons:Special:Contributions/Nynexman4464 Nynexman4464 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In response on User talk:Nynexman4464, seems plausible to me, case closed i think Mion (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV pushing on Numerous U.S. Political figures articles.[edit]

User:Anappealtoheaven Seems to be having a serious problem with writing in an NPOV style. Despite warnings [2], [3], independently given from two editors recently, and more in the past, one example, see User talk:Anappealtoheaven for more, his only responses are screeds [4] about how Wikipedia needs to be free of outside influences [link]. Some examples of his problematic editing are seen: At Mitt Romney, where he injects POV[5], gets reverted[6](this would be a third editor recently identifying POV). At Mike Huckabee, he edits again to show purported hypocrisy [7], and is again reverted for POV [8],[9]. He edits Ron Paul to a pro-Paul POV. One is seen here: [10]. Although the fact is cited, his edit and summary imply, at least, that something special about Paul other than the online presence can explain the fact, although he only cites 'time', an indication of POV editing. There are numerous examples more. One last egregious example - [11], he smears McCain and Graham as 'lockstepping' with "liberal democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's heated legislation ". The only intent to his wording is that he seeks to disparage their 'conservative street cred' by tying them to a 'liberal democrat'. It's partisan game playing of the worst sort.

Please note that between reverts and notes about his edits, there are at least five editors noting POV, as well as previous warnings on his talk and article talk pages. Should anyone doubt he has an agenda here, please read his User Page essay about his Ron Paul support. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Alicia Miguel" cabal[edit]

CathyJoyce (talk · contribs), Dababe (talk · contribs), MonicaCabaski (talk · contribs) and Danielmiguel (talk · contribs) all seem to be either the same person, or a group of meat puppets conspiring to create hoax articles at Alicia Miguel and Alicia Miguel Schull. Corvus cornixtalk 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This started way back in 2006 with Daniel Miguel creating Alicia Miguel as an apparent joke. At that time she was a high-living billionaire, having made her substantial worth from small businesses. Fast forward to December 2007, when Alicia became an internationally renowned supermodel. Multiple accounts began uploading copyvio'd pics of random models and inserting them in articles like supermodel and sex symbol. Although these photographs all featured different women, they were purportedly free-license depictions of Miguel. The article itself was a direct copy of the Alessandra Ambrosio entry. An AfD helped form a consensus to delete salt Alicia Miguel, so enter Alicia Miguel Schüll. That one was created by MonicaCabaski, who another sockpuppet attempted to nominate for both adminship and bureaucrat bits. After the Schull version of the hoax made it to DRV, I decided to pull the plug and block all Miguel-related accounts. FWIW, these appear to be the efforts of a middleschool student from North Carolina. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
They apparently continued the hoax over on the French Wikipedia, but it got deleted over there, too. Corvus cornixtalk 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oui, aucun s'inquiète. I doubt this is anything to trouble other wikis about. Thanks, btw, for reviewing the sock activity. I was wondering whether to post a warning about the hoax somewhere, AN/I will do. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please page-move Autosodomy practise to just plain old Autosodomy for us[edit]

For some reason I wasn't able to do this myself .. something about undoing a WP:SALT. Someone with the right tools can do so. It's evident and uncontroversial. Thanking you in advance, SelfAloneRequired (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted since it is a recreation of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autosodomy). The article as created also lacked proper sources. Best, Gwernol 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be related to the long standing DavidYork71 case - he created the article shortly before he was initially banned. The username above would undoubtedly be one of his 100+ sockpuppets. Orderinchaos 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd venture so. Among his other recent sockies on the very same IP are:
  1. ExposingTheGayAgenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  2. FagTaggr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  3. Nexttimepraymore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  4. MoveonNgiveitup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  5. Highborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  6. BcozIownU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  7. Suchastar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  8. ExcellingWithEase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  9. JustMasterful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Not all of these are blocked; some are sleepers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ZThen... shouldn't they be be blocked now? ThuranX (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrabulous/User talk:[edit]

Resolved: Anthøny 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! This is a bit of a strange situation. On Scrabulous, that user had twice removed the mention of the Scrabble origins of the game which I undid. After the second time, and because I didn't want to get into an edit war, I posted a discussion on the Talk page and notified the IP that I'd done so to invite discussion. Now my comment to the talk page has been undone by another user and I'm totally confused at what's going on. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a bit but only recently have moved to issues beyond edit/creation. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • ETA: The reverter of the comment on the IP page now states he doesn't know what I'm talking about and that he's hunting vandalism, however in the mean time he's being warned right and left re: potential vandalism. I didn't think this was vandalism when I posted here at first, but now I'm not so sure. In the mean time, other changes being made to Scrabulous seem to be unrelated and clean changes. Thanks Travellingcari (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd assume good faith and move on. He does seem to be new to monobook.js; I'd give him some leeway. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think he posted an explanation, although it's not one I understand. I just wasn't sure how they ended up reverting a comment to an unrelated IP, if that makes sense. Travellingcari (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any need for further active action at this time: letting this one slide, but keeping one eye on his contributions in the near future, would probably be most effective. He certainly appears to be apologetic for his disruption, it would appear, and so that should be enough to prevent further disruption. I've marked this as resolved; keep an eye out, though. Anthøny 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Signshare personal "battle list"[edit]

Resolved: Offending material deleted, and user seems to have decided against re-inserting it.

This section on User:Signshare's page does not look to be in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Referring to these other editors using gratuitous epithets seems tasteless and in violation of WP:ATTACK. Thoughts on what should be done? (For one, removing the offending content, of course...) --Kinu t/c 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2¢
  1. We should ask him nicely to delete the WP:ATTACK violations
    If he doesn't comply
  2. We MfD it
  3. If he recreates or becomes distruptive → Block
    --nat.utoronto 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the offending material (I did so before seeing Nat's comments, but I still think that doing so was the right move). I'm about to leave a friendly notice on his talk page explaining my actions. Here's a link to my deletion: [12]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like he's been very disruptive in the past and has already been blocked (by you, actually), so I would suggest, if he is disruptive after the second block 9after it happens), an indef seems to me to be appropriate. I suspect possible sockpuppets in some of his "battled" people. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
He's re-inserted the material, which I've deleted again (although I certainly plan on remaining below WP:3RR on this. It appears that he was unaware of WP:USER, to which I've directed his attention, so hopefully that will convince him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have done the trick. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
One would hope, but he still seems a little irritated about it, per this. "Bitter feud"... lol? --Kinu t/c 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This editor tends towards hyperbole as shown by this sentence on his user page, "I am sort of like LL Cool J, when you beef with me, I end you thats all there is to it." I've looked over his edits and they seem pretty decent but could use some more sourcing. --NeilN talkcontribs 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Should his "feuds"' targets be listed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets? Maybe I'm not WP:AGF, but it seems rather convenient to have so many conflicts in a rather short time, all of them, which he allegedly won. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at them, but I strongly doubt sock-puppetry. They all look pretty legit - too much so to quit, really - and don't seem to have much in common with each other. At least one is an admin. And given this user's disposition and approach to conflict, I'd hardly characterize these battles as "coincidental". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for context, the way this editor was using "battle" looks like it was in the sense and style of the competitive verbal sparring of freestyle battle rap, rather than actual, hostile combat. Not that it excuses the personal attacks (we're editing here, not MC'ing), but it explains their extremely hyperbolic format and why the user feels he is being "misunderstood by many."

The user seems to go around the encyclopedia with a mighty big wikichip on his wikishoulder, and needs to stop dissing other editors and just cool it in general. Still, if you take out the personal attacks, a cursory look through his contribs shows him to be a decent editor with something to contribute to the project (though a cynic might compare that to Marion Barry's, "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."). Has anyone considered mentoring the user? --Dynaflow babble 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin category and User:Falcofire[edit]

Resolved: user removed from admin cat

The issue here is relatively trivial (and therefore hopefully easy to resolve), but I was not sure where else to bring it up. I happened by the user page of User:Falcofire recently and noticed that he had placed himself in the category "Wikipedia administrators." He'd dropped a note on my talk page months ago and I knew he was a relatively inexperienced user and was thus surprised he was an admin, which he was in fact not. I'm certainly not a dictator about user space, but I'm assuming we don't want editors to willfully misrepresent themselves as admins on their user pages in any fashion (even with the use of the admin category, which obviously contains inaccuracies). I dropped a friendly note on Falcofire's talk page about this which was removed without comment several days later. I tried again but this was likewise removed without explanation. Removing talk page comments on your own page is fine of course, but the lack of communication was troubling, and Falcofire then posted a note on his user page which reads "Now that I am fairly experienced in Wikipedia policy and such, I realize that this is a user page and therefore is not subject to authenticity as it is not a source of legitimate information. This is my space (not to be confused with my myspace) and therefore I will determine the look/feel of it and what is on it." The "Wikipedia administrator" category is still present on his user page.

I don't know why Falcofire wants to pretend that he is an admin (if that's what he's doing) but to my mind that's not really kosher. Aside from the fact that he is wrong to assert that user space is "my space" (it's still Wikipedia's space), I would think one of a few things we would not want editor's to do in their user space is claim admin status when they do not have it. I don't want to pester Falcofire about this anymore and certainly don't want any actions taken against him since I think this can probably be chalked up to misunderstanding. However since I was not getting through I was hoping an admin could drop him a note about this issue and/or remove the category from his user page--that is assuming that I'm correct and feigning adminship in user space is unacceptable. If that kind of misrepresentation is acceptable then obviously I'll drop the whole thing, but I guess that would surprise me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is inappropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I see the situation as such: Some users will consult Category:Administrators in times when they may need help and if he is not an Administrator it can annoy users. For this reason, I think that non-Administrators should not put themselves in this category. After all, the user space is not really "my home page and my home page only, emphasis my", it's a page "donated" by the Wikimedia Foundation so that users can give information about themselves in order to help collaboration, and misrepresentation does not help. At least how I see it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed him from the category, also he had the admin icon at the topic right of his userpage. Tiptoety talk 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You removed a logo, I'd already deleted the cat :) I've put the logo back. BLACKKITE 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Removed the template, left a note. BLACKKITE 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe...your right, oops. Tiptoety talk 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of policy deletion of talk subpage[edit]

Resolved: Page contents e-mailed to user.

I hate to bring this up, because it's in a contentious area. A user subpage of mine was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs): 19:56, 16 January 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Nagle/Jayjg disciplinary record (Per ArbCom rulings, laundry lists of grudges are not tolerated. RfC or STFU are the only options, I'm afraid.)". This was a list of links to ArbCom decisions involving a controversial editor, made for my own use during the most recent arbitration in that area. (There's no easy way to search ArbCom decisions by party.) The page wasn't linked from anywhere, not even my own talk page, so it wasn't particularly visible. No request was made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for this deletion, and I was not notified, so it was an out of policy deletion. I'd like it undeleted for a few days, so I can copy the information off line. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: According to the talk page of JzG (talk · contribs), that user has retired from Wikipedia due to a family illness. --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't retired; he's just busy in real life. As for the page, do you need the whole thing? I don't see any problem with the links to the arbcomm cases for accessibility purposes, but I tend to agree that their combination with the quote makes it look something like a grudge page (note that I haven't read the arbcomm rulings to which JzG refers). In any event, I'd be happy to e-mail you the full contents if you enable the e-mail option). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
E-mail is fine. I was just using that page as a scratch workspace; it was never intended to be seen by others. My account is already enabled for e-mail. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Resolved: user blocked, next time report to AIV, thanks. Tiptoety talk 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) continues to vandalize Centennial College (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GreenJoe (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:AIV. Nakon 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator posting personal information on WP:RFARB[edit]


I can't see any admin related action required here & this had degenerated into general complaining. Spartaz Humbug! 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

At 12:13 UTC today, administrator User:JzG posted personal information (a real name) on WP:RFARB. [13] This, in my opinion, is unacceptable behavior for an admin, and I was tempted to block. However, as JzG is having personal issues at the moment and is an admin in good standing, I have brought the issue here for consensus on action to take. I would support a "warning block", especially as a "normal" (non-admin) user who did such a thing would most likely be blocked. I will email oversight-L with the diff for oversighting, if the community feels it necessary. I feel that such divulging of personal information is unacceptable, and cannot be tolerated. Thank you. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he is referencing a guess rather than any actual knowledge although the distinction may not be relevant. What are the restrictions he is referring to? If he is correct that an editor would be affected by those restrictions then at least he would be justified in communicating his belief to ArbCom, albeit by e-mail. Avruchtalk 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Divulging a name, even speculatively, is unacceptable. Dreadstar 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This prior discussion is what Guy was certainly alluding to. I don't see how such an allusion would merit a block (I'm not an admin fwiw), though an inline link would have helped avoid bad appearances. Antelan talk 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no need for a block. This is not some confidential information dug out via massive amounts of sleuthing or non-standard channels like checkuser, but simply the reflection of an informed guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)He says other people bleieve it to be the case, as a comparative to how much the editors' CoI may be obvious to editors who regularly edit the disputed pages. If those editors have already brought up their suspicions, and had them ignored, dismissed, or other conflicts relevant to the CoI, it may be relevant enough to necessitate posting. There might be better ways to deal with this stuff, but blatant POV pushing by interested parties ought to be quashed with an iron hand here. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Outing someone is not good, even if speculative. RlevseTalk 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Rlevse. An "informed guess" about a user's identity (even if the user is disruptive, and I don't know the back story here) should never be acceptable. I believe posting what is supposedly a user's real name would generally result in a block for the user who did that, correct? At the very, very least JzG should be strongly warned but a block would seem reasonable to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the user Guy is revealing information about. Guy did the same thing on the WP:AE on January 19th at 22.24 (UTC).[14]This is not about POV pushing. It is about attempting to revealing personal information. Divulging personal information puts me and my family in jeopardy. You guys figure out what to do with Guy. The policy is A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to ... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). He is repeatedly harassing me with his attempts to reveal personal information. This user needs to blocked. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't like it when personal information is divulged without a user's consent. It could put him and his family in danger, and that isn't right. I'm prepared to block for at least a couple of days, if the community thinks it just. That is my personal opinion on the subject. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that we block an editor who has made no indication that he is going to repost anything for something that happened almost 8 hours ago? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the second time in 2 days he has done this. Anthon01 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Did he give any indication that he wouldn't do it again, with Anthon01 or anyone else for that matter? Are the edits going to be oversighted? I can't agree that posting anyone's personal identity without their permission is a good thing - under any circumstances. We have email. Dreadstar 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The way I see this is Guy told an editor that he felt in real life, he was someone who had a serious COI with the article. It’s his opinion that this is the case. If someone who has an outside connection with the article, and it’s important that we get some context be revealing the persons name, I don’t see what’s wrong with it in the slighted. It’s not as if Guy found out through some secret searching and back channel communication – he’s based this off editing patterns. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Partially agree with Ryan, although it probably would have been preferable to email the arbitrators with this evidence. Addhoc (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be covered by Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information, and unless it's so plainly obvious or revealed by the person directly, generally shouldn't be done. But I can't see how a "warning block" (whatever that maybe) would help. -- (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a superficially similar case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel in which a person who was meat-puppeting on behalf of Jonathan Sarfatti was associated with a private individual. I think this case is distinct.
JzG's speculation is related to suspected meatpuppetry on behalf of a user (Ilena Rosenthal) who is under arbitration committee-imposed restraint, but this time the person in question is a public individual. Zaffuto is a published author and the founder of the Humantics Foundation [15], whose current director is Ilena Rosenthal, so speculation that a person who edits the QuackWatch article in a manner similar to Rosenthal's might be Zaffuto is reasonable and germane. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that someone who has a conflict of interest because of who they are in real life cannot be identified and named as such on Wikipedia, in an arbitration case, is stretching the privacy guidelines in the harrassment policy to the breaking point. If you are involving yourself in Arbitration cases, or issues which come to the attention of Arbcom, your identity and conflicts of interest are of interest to Arbcom and the community. The harrassment policy is not a shield you can slide under conveniently to escape notice or sanction of conflicts of interest or other policy violations. It is routine behavior for administrators to identify sockpuppets, longstanding banned users, and disruptive editors by name as required to describe prior behavior, often under other accounts, in policy and user behavior actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. This is no frivolous outing for harassment purposes- it's clearly relevant to the content dispute at hand. Friday (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the comments here I'd suggest that any action taken be run through/performed by ArbCom, as a group or individually. They are best positioned to determine the importance of JzG's post in the ArbCom proceedings. Avruchtalk 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue was discussed on December 28th or thereabouts at WP:AN.[16] It was resolved. At least I thought it was. Now Guy has started again posting the same message twice in the last 2 days. I am being badgered because I have been on the opposite side of debates with SA and others editors who generally support SA's POV. Anthon01 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many valid points have been made here. I agree that it is best to let bcats and arbcom handle this. RlevseTalk 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconding that opinion. DurovaCharge! 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thirding. This is more complex than an everyday case. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd. On the one hand, Anthon01 swears that he isn't the individual in question; on the other, Anthon01 swears that divulging this information has put him and his family in jeopardy. Am I the only one who experiences cognitive dissonance in attempting to reconcile these statements? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My main point is that I'm confused about what's going on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading through his comments here and at the prior thread I don't see that he denied being the person named by Guy at all. I am somewhat more concerned by the fact that there appeared to be checkuser information being bandied about in the previous AN thread - that is somewhat more likely to endanger him or his family. (Also, his views are published under his real name. So... something to consider when judging the danger factor). Avruchtalk 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whose views? There should be a way to purge the checkuser info. Anthon01 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm... isn't this something that people have been banned for before? Isn't this sort of speculation on people's identities PRECISELY the reason Wikipedia Review is a "bad site"? —Random832 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, but there seems to be some difference of opinion on whether this is the same sort of thing (i.e. not an external site, in an ArbCom proceeding, real identity may be relevant for meatpuppetry assessment purposes etc.). Thats why I suggested any action be run through ArbCom. Avruchtalk 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, isn't speculating on the real-life identity of editors the sort of thing that the so-called "attack sites" engage in which makes them so unspeakably evil in the eyes of people like JzG? Then there's an extreme double standard when he goes around doing it himself. (Oops, I see somebody else said basically the same thing right above.) *Dan T.* (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG deleted an evidence page of mine and weeks later was found to have an evidence page of his own, motioned for deletion by an admin, it had been sitting there for over a year. JzG doesn't allow off-wiki attacks about himself and other users, meanwhile on his own personal website he had attacks against me and another user. The man is full of double-standards. He is also famous for breaking the civility rule - swearing, cussing, personal attacks. So don't be surprised when you learn that all users are equal on Wikipedia, but JzG is more equal than others. Rfwoolf (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A small point regarding the argument that the information may be germane in the RfArb; email the information to the ArbCom, and don't post it in violation of WP:HARASS. The option is available, an experienced editor should be aware of this and an admin needs to know the application of this policy - or else they shouldn't have the mop. I have no idea why Guy thought he should be able to do this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • obviously you haven't been past his talk page recently otherwise you would know why he might not necessarily be showing his usual good judgement. I suggest that we call off the dogs and step back a bit. No-one seems to be discussing this directly with Guy and that's usually the first stage of DR rather then trying to lynch the poor fellow for a poorish call. Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

THe first recent incident was on the 19th, two days before he posted his personal message. Anthon01 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be aware that a user making edits on behalf of a banned user is subject to the same ban, so it was not an entirely meritless speculation. I suppose that if there is consensus that Anthon01 is editing in that manner then he can be banned; otherwise chuck it up to RFAR. Thatcher 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Venue. It was discussed and tabled before. Speculation with a potentially heavy price. Anthon01 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once is an accident. Twice seems negligent. Almost willful. What's really going on? Bstone (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (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.

My earlier post[edit]

I call people's attention to an earlier ANI post which I had, and no one looked at it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#User: Please handle this, as it appears to be an abusive sockpuppetry address, and it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference, (talk · contribs). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser shows nothing out of the ordinary from that IP. Sorry. Thatcher 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page code glitches[edit]


Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else having their sigs and other formatting not work on talk pages? I just tried posting on Talk:Starwood Festival, and it wouldn't parse my signature or indents at all. Seems to have happened to the previous poster, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A nowiki tag wasn't closed. This would have been better at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Woody (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really egregious vandalism[edit]

I can't report this at ARV--there's no final warning--but seriously, are we going to let stuff like this [17] go by without serious action? I mean, c'mon--that image was posted on a kids' show page, fer cryin' out loud. Wikipedia may not be censored, but...I mean, seriously. I'm pretty damn tolerant, myself, and even I was like "aw HELL no." It was uploaded to several other pages, too--This is Emily Yeung and Barney & Friends--and yeah, it was reverted, but still--can't we just DEAL with people who do stuff like this, instead of fooling around with graded warnings? Gladys J Cortez 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For shit like this, drop a uw-bv or uw-vand4im and if he edits again, immediately report to AIV. The only requirement is that he has been warned that his actions are blockable, not that you use every level of warning. Go straight to level 4, and if it doesn't stop him immediately, then go to AIV. I have so warned him. If he does it again, I will block him. I just deleted the pic as well. 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like he has edited in a few hours, as I investigate closer. He has recieved a level 4 warning. If he vandalises again, immediately report to AIV, and note that he has been warned. It should result in a block. 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingston University BLP and IP conduct issues[edit]

Resolved: External link operator, IP blocked. Woody (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At Kingston University which is recently off full protection, an IP is inserting disparaging comments into the article about a University Vice-Chancellor. This is in relation to unproven accusations of witness intimidation. I have removed these as I believe they fall under the WP:BLP criteria. I warned the IP that adding this in again would result in a block. I have not blocked due to a COI and would request an uninvolved admin take a look and make the appropriate actions. Thanks. Woody (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it looks like the issue is being hammered out on the talk page. The problematic edits have not been readded, nor does the IP seem to be disrupting further. Woody should keep us updated if things go down hill, but on reviewing this, it looks to be working itself out. 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The IP is being very constructive and cooperative, but has requested some third party opinions. I would appreciate if someone could pop along. Thanks. Woody (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Try WP:3O and WP:RFC. As an admin, I try not to get involved in those ways, should my services be required for more drastic measures. 3O tends to repsond pretty quickly, in my experience... 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy, he was being cooperative. Now he has resorted to calling those that responded, employees of reputation management companies. He also claims to have his own personal checkuser tool. (The claims seem to be backed up, my ip address does start with 130.) Woody (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is the diff [18] Avruchtalk 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • WHOA... WTF? He has a checkuser and isn't afraid to use it? How does he checkuser Wikipedia usernames??? How is that possible??? This is, erm, disturbing... 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Stay calm :P Avruchtalk 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deep breaths... in... out... Better. Now, a) how is this technically possible b) does this represent a blockable sort of thing and c) seriously, what do we do about this? This needs wider attention from more experienced admins... 02:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One option: user has another account here under which he emails [User:Woody] in relation to another matter. Woody replies, and if he has a static IP, which is not uncommon for a broadband account, the IP shows up in his email header. No checkuser. Just an idea. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I have only ever replied to three emails on Wikipedia, two were highly respected Wikipedia admins/arbcom members, the third I would trust implicitly. That sortof negates that possibility. Woody (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe take it to technical VP for a possible technical explanation? As far as blocking, uh... I'd guess using invasive technological tricks to violate the privacy protections could be considered blockable. Avruchtalk 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So done: WP:VPT#IP user claims checkuser ability: 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It is possible to use low-tech methods to find IP addresses. In Woody's case, not too difficult to find. But the IP address I came up with was over a year old and didn't start 130. Strange. Woody, if you want me to e-mail you about that, leave me a talk page message (I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit now). Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My low-tech method fell flat on its face. Wrong Woody. I'm now going to try and withdraw gracefully before I knock over any more china. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Why has nobody blocked this IP? Corvus cornixtalk 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Cuz we can't figure out what to block him for? 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I would think threatening to violate other users' privacy would be a good reason. Corvus cornixtalk 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree... However, I am personally leary to do so myself. One bad block in a day is enough for me... see above. If someone else concurs, could another admin handle this. 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
IP Blocked for edit warring. Nakon 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good, user needs to be blocked until this situation is sorted out. Tiptoety talk 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
After discussion on Village Pump, the conclusion is that the IP seems to run the sirpeterscott website, which means he can log all ip addresses being referred to wikipedia. There is no media-wiki issue, just a user losing an argument, trying to fight his way out. Have marked as resolved. Woody (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to all administrators and the general community[edit]

Per this discussion previously, I've had one page of BJAODN restored, userfied, and protected to User:Nwwaew/BJAODN in order to work on citing it on a BJAODN archive offsite. Once I've finished citing this page, it will be deleted again. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing of note: Make sure that whoever completes the next switch-out moves the page that's in there now back where it was before deleting it and moving the next one into userspace. We're not trying to do a tremendous history merge here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Most likely, this page'll get deleted, and the next page up will be created and moved to User:Nwwaew/BJAODN2, or something like that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, are people still spazzing about linking to such a site? There really isn't any practical reason why we shouldn't. I know the whole DENY thing was one of the reasons people didn't like BJAODN, but you have to admit that an offsite link takes a great deal of the bite out of the glory to vandals. An offsite link isn't nearly as fun for a vandal. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that we don't even know how much of a real concern it was when BJAODN was here in full force. Just something to think about. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The off-site BJAODN is linked to from Silly Things (the successor to BJAODN), and nobody's challenged the link addition. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have trouble finding diffs for some because the articles been deleted, I would be willing to help (obviously the diff links themselves won't be useful, but the timestamp/username would be what you need for GFDL purposes). This may be less useful until you start to get into stuff that was added after about 2005-2006, since the stuff you're working on now is not recoverable. —Random832 13:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Could someone please check the contributions of this user, User:Theground2. They've added a number of images to various Playboy Playmate articles and after having glimpsed one of them, I'd rather not go through the process of checking the rest of them while here at work. The one I saw was a clear copyvio. Like I said, I'm at work, otherwise I'd tag the images myself. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Images reverted from articles, and SchuminWeb marked the images for deletion. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait, images to playmate articles? We.. might need to.. review.. this content.. for.. um... the... consensus?... erm... so.. ah... ... never mind... ;) -- Ned Scott 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Heheh....wait what where we talking about here? oh...deleting them...cause of...i guess im too distracted :)Tiptoety talk 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Too distracted? May I suggest a cold shower? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
lol. Tiptoety talk 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rikara[edit]

1st I would like to say if this is not the place to add users who need to be blocked please for give me and move it to the right place.

Rikara has broken a few rules like these.
Archives."[19] And another said, "Unnecessary, especially since past discussions/edits make it clear that if we list some, people will try to list them all, and we need to keep clutter down."[20]
WE have told this user so may times that its not needed and he keeps adding it please do something about this please and thank you.--DarkFierceDeityLink 06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any rules being overtly broken here. WP:ANI should not be the first place one goes if a dispute occurs. Please try other dispute resolution options. In this case, Third Opinion or Request for Comment may be most approrpriate. 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostile, uncivil user DarkFierceDeityLink[edit]

On the SuperSmash Brawl talk page [21], The user in question DArkLink has reverted my edits numerous times, 4 times to be exact. But that is not why I'm here. I'm trying to resolve this dispute on the talk page but when I added a GENERAL discussion for the unsourced material he removes it after his own comment, saying it is unnecessary despite the crux of the discussion being whether or not the article sources are credible. He has done this twice so far, even reverting an Administrator's message to both of us. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the User:DarkFierceDeityLink has been warned previously about violating WP:CIVIL, per this warning from Zzyzx11.UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There are two sections of the talk page that discuss potential characters for this video game, including references to a leaked and subsequently removed video from Nintendo revealing previously unconfirmed characters. The edit war appears to be over which section to remove. I would submit that, as both sections deal with finding reliable sources (or the fact that none exist) for the inclusion of information in the article, that both sections should remain. I also note that several editors appear to be close to violating WP:3RR. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is already the subject of a thread about three blocks up. Please take this to dispute resolution ASAP. Ask for a third opinion or open a request for comment and seek to find an uninvolved party to solve the dispute. Everyone is getting testy on this issue, and there are likely to be 3RR blocks for both sides, and NO ONE, even us admins, wants that. I suggest that even if it means leaving the "wrong version" up, all reversions cease and dispute resolution is used to solve this problem. If the "wrong version" stays up for 2-3 days while consensus is being built and outside opinions are being gathered, there is no real harm. If people get blocked for 3RR and the article is protected, it is a MUCH worse solution. We don't want to have to go there. 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse making veiled threats about me to other users[edit]

Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been a blocking admin against me in the past and has just posted a very cryptic comment on his user page about me. I asked him if this was a threat here. I don't like the implication that the wheels of justice are turning behind closed doors, and I especially am offended that this comment was made to a particularly problematic editor who has a history of POV-pushing and promoting fringe theories. This feels to me like an abuse of power. What do others think? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse and I were talking in IRC about the complaints and counter-complaints at WP:AE, and I asked an arbitrator for an opinion on a possible remedy. This should not be blown out of proportion. The fact that he previously blocked you for edit warring is not an issue; blocking once does not disqualify an admin from taking future action, if appropriate. Thatcher 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just scared, that's all. Rlevse scares me. He's quite authoritarian and rarely as engaging as other clerks I've known in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to clear up one possible misunderstanding: The Arbitration clerks have no special role in Arbitration enforcement. It is perhaps natural that admins with an interest in Arbitration gravitate to both areas, but enforcement is open to all uninvolved admins. More help at WP:AE is always appreciated. Thatcher 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry SA, I quit wiki. RlevseTalk —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Random POOF! I... don't get it. Avruchtalk 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Whaaaaaaaat? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Evidently, you/this thread really pissed him off and he left. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I hope that doesn't win me a whole new batch of enemies. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
+1 Wizardman 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for the above. I think wikipedia's getting to me today. I should probably log off :) Wizardman 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist take a chill pill. If I would get upset each time an admin swang their authority stick I would be in a hospital talking to a shrink! Igor Berger (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I'm not doing that right now? ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to press the panic button, but User:Rlevse actually went & quit. Two in one day. Sigh. --SSBohio 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I'm pretty sure Rlevse was Rudget's admin coach. How strange.   jj137 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
And neither particularly justified. Let's hope both cool off and come back. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a shame. Nothing about Rlevse's statement was remotely a threat. Given the number of arbcom requests in this topic area recently, I should hope arbcom is looking at it and Rlevse's statement was simply a statement of fact. --B (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe for a minute that Rlevse's statement was a threat. On the other hand, anyone who's been following this little drama is aware that Rlevse has no love for SA (to put it as tactfully as I can). Thus it wasn't unreasonable for SA to perceive the remark as a threat. Not having the wisdom of Solomon, I can't think of anything more imaginative than simply to recommend that the two of them stay away from each other. Perhaps someone more articulate and diplomatic than me can suggest something better. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
i thinkt aht rvelse's decision to leave was a smart one. ITS clear that theset wo users have so much hostility and hatred for each otehr that they cannot coexist on the same website at the same time. one of them had to leave and it was honorable for User:Relevse to volunter to sacrifice his adminship as well as this work here on wikiepdia to preserve the peace. Its' always a good idea to try to mediate these disputes befrore they get out of hadn but since these two users loathed each toehr so deeply that they could not kep from arguing Rlevse's departure is probalby for the best. the only thing that i can recomend is to block rvelse's account so that he or she wont be tempted to come abck later on and end up resuming the current conflict. Smith Jones (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You're joking, right? --B (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In light of my past experiences with this user, I must sadly report that I don't think he's joking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Raymond, Smith Jones does tend to take extreme positions, usually with poorly-written justifications. Corvus cornixtalk 06:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be assuming bad faith, but your comment carries the insinuation that SA is selfish. And no, we will not block his account just to keep him away from here so "he or she wont [sic] be tempted to come abck [sic] later on and end up resuming the current conflict." That is just absurd. —Kurykh 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
And what may I say are the Mediators,arbitrators and check-users doing about this issue?..2 in 1 day is a laugh and both being admin, just shows how wikipedia is not moving forward. As mentioned before Wikipedia's democracy is no longer working..someone should do something about this 2 issues, no matter how minor it seems cause its these minor issues which can bring wikipedia to its knees...--Cometstyles 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved Party Comment[edit]

Losing a good editor is always a bad thing for Wikipedia, and one who takes on the onerous task of clerking ArbComs especially so. I sincerely hope that Rlevse, after some consideration, decides to return to the encyclopedia - and even takes up again the role of clerk. Sometimes, often even, an authoritarian approach is required to cut through the various passions and off topic rhetoric that can occur at ArbCom - although my own experience was that Rlevse was not oppressive.

I also have some sympathy with ScienceApologist, whose unerring campaign to keep science related subjects clear from non-scientific sentiment and improper application of NPOV is both admirable and likely extremely frustrating. As said somewhere else (I paraphrase), "What other point of view other than a scientific one should be used in a science related article?"

It is unfortunate that two good, and committed in their own ways, contributors to Wikipedia are unable to co-operate with each other. However, there is no reason why they should not be able to co-exist - Wikipedia is very, very, very big (that's a scientific term, folks!) and there should be enough room for the both of them. Obviously it would be up to both parties to limit the areas where they may conflict, given the area of expertise of one editor and the interests of the other, and to avoid direct interaction in those spaces. In that way the encyclopedia is served by having both individuals involved, and disruption reduced.

I hope the matter can be, if not resolved, brought to as reasonable a conclusion as is possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly concur. The loss of either of these two editors would be a serious blow to all of Wikipedia's efforts. Both are skilled and extremely knowledgeable contributors. SA's Herculean efforts to maintain Scientific pages which don't cater to the tinfoil hat brigade are as valued here as RLevse's clearking and constant efforts throughout the project. That they need WP:DR or just a gentleman's agreement ot keep a distance is clear, but neither should go. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


He has returned, if you didn't know already. -MBK004 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'all get your fingers off the panic button :) You know that *none of us can ever quit*. Once you're hooked, that's it. Wikipedia needs a warning label. Userbox it.Wjhonson (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I must disagree. I've seen too many valuable contributors decide this is a waste of time due to (eh, pick a reason, we've seen them all) & bail. Burnout catches up with some people & they say good-bye. (I guess some people don't have a life -- which must be why I'm still here.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I have recently come to realise that the user Aomen has been tagging everything furiously with WPCHINA. And I mean furiously. Like everything. Usually this is a good thing, as he seems to catergorize correctly. But at times he also does it to articles that are barely related to china like the invasion of Hong Kong. Then I looked at his contibutions. It's!! I dunno how he does it, but it's quite crazy.....he seems to tag articles in a matter of seconds, then move on. Is he a bot or something? I sorta told him to stop on his talk page....but looking at previous comments on it, he hasn't replied to any of them. So.....can someone check him up? Personally I had enough of reverting his edits ^^". Sorry if this post sounds weird, I'm newbie afterall. Dengero (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Aomen (talk · contribs) has never made any edits to Wikipedia articles - his only contributions have been the mass adding of {{WPMacau}} (first hundred edits) and {{WPCHINA}} (the subsequent 5500 edits, at very high rates - see [22] or [23], for example). Only two edits that were not high speed category tagging - one move ([24]), and one edit to put "Aomen" on User:Aomen. No response has ever been made to the numerous talk page messages complaining about his repeated mistagging of article talk pages or asking him to stop. Looks like an unauthorised bot to me. Neıl 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe...iunno, it could be one of those unresponsive editors who often edit China-Taiwan articles (but they're often anons.)...but the bot conclusion might be more plausible. nat.utoronto 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If he's not a bot, I really doubt his physical ability in tagging articles alphabetically in such a short amount of times. Heck, just going ctrl+c and ctrl+v at that rate will cause a cramp. If he's a bot, then I must admire the person who created him ^^ cause generally, he's quite correct in his tagging I must admit......Dengero (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. If a user is editing exactly like a bot, making thousands of identical high speed edits, then for all intents and purposes, it can be considered a bot. The response should be the same. If it continues to mistag (even at the 20% or so error rate the account seems to currently be running at), it will be blocked, and I will warn Aomen as such now (we shall assume good faith and treat the account like it's a real person, on the chance that it is. Further mistagging will result in blocking, as either it's a bot or it's a user refusing to communicate despite numerous entreaties to do so. Neıl 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC) many more times do I need to revert his edits until it becomes a 20%+ mistag? I'm not going to do it intentionally of course, but I've been reverting quite a few One day, he tagged a heap of hk artists. The ones who sing, act, whatever. Took me like....ages to revert them all >.> Dengero (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. If he/she/it makes one more bad edit, let us know here and we'll block the account. Waggers (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As a curiosity, "Aomen" is as far as I know the Chinese name for "Macau". Orderinchaos 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Popperian (talk · contribs)[edit]

Will some kind administrator either block this user for continued legal threats or give him what wants? Personally, I'm inclined to the former. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The solution proposed was to delete the pages and permanently blacklist our domain from all of Wikipedia. Despite the accusations of CoI and Spamming, we do neither. A blacklist + deletion of all the wiki-edictator trash pages would resolve this issue as far as we are concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talkcontribs) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocked. Nakon 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some diffs of specific legal threats? I've looked through this user's contributions some, and while he seems to misunderstand what the spam page is for, I haven't found a specific legal threat yet (but I'll keep looking). Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Popperian/'s tenure here was tediuous and unpleasant both for Popperian/ and our regular editors:
--A. B. (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'm still not convinced that he was making legal threats from what I saw, but he was clearly continuing a pattern of disruption, which is ample reason for the block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I second the block. Snowolf How can I help? 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The legal threat is in this edit. BLACKKITE 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A block should be issued on the legal threat alone. Whats all the discussion for? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
<-- User was unblocked per an email request. They are planning on creating an RFARB and may not edit any other pages. Nakon 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The user sent me an email asking me to delete all pages and text that mention his company, since I deleted the original article. Obviously, I'm not going to do that, but I felt I should bring attention to this. --Coredesat 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit?[edit]

This edit was supposed to have been made by a bot, but the bot seems to not have the proper permission since the edit is marked m and not b and the name does not end in bot. Maybe one of you should take a look, Brusegadi (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

admin needs to block the bot and point them to WP:BRFA as it is a pywikipedia interwiki bot. βcommand 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The user in question is a valid bot on the "is" wikipedia (Icelandic???). The bot probably needs approval on "en" seperately. Does anyone know if this is so? If it is, we should leave a friendly reminder on their userpage to do so. For the record, beyond the fact that they are bot edits, I don't see a single problem with them. This is a fairly non-controversial interwikinator type of bot. But for official purposes, it should have a bot permission tag. It should be blocked for now. 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Im a member of the bot approval group and every bot on needs approval regardless of their status on another wiki. βcommand 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I already blocked it. You might want to make contact with the user on his talk page User talk:Jumbuck, or atleats watch it to see if he responds there during the block. 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's an erroneous assumption in the above. Bots do not have to have the MediaWiki 'bot right. Furthermore, blocking a 'bot that existed long before the "Bot Approvals Group" even existed, that has been doing uncontroversial interwiki linking work since 2004, whose user page directly points to a central user page that says "this is a robot", that has been on the list of known interwiki 'bots for over three years, and whose edits aren't even being criticized here, is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.

    I suggest that Betacommand2 and others remember that there have been people quietly doing the legwork of maintaining the encyclopaedia with 'bots for years before some of the "Bot Approvals Group" members even created their accounts.

    The person whose 'bot you've just blocked, without even reading the 'bot's central user page and seeing that it is clearly stated to be a 'bot, or even reading m:Interwiki bot/Operators where xe has been listed since 2004, is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. You've just blocked a 'bot run by one of the people who helped to write MediaWiki, without even having an actual reason for doing so. I suggest that annoying the developer who gave us the <ref> mechanism, by requiring that xe jump through some silly bureaucratic hoops several years after the fact for no real reason, is not a particularly wise course of action. Uncle G (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Sorry. I was not aware of these facts. The bot will be unblocked post-haste. As I said, I thought the bot was doing fine work, but Betacommand sounded like he knew what he was talking about. My bad. 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Bot has been unblocked. I apologize profusely for overstepping my bounds as an admin. The above complaint, that this was an unauthorized bot, seemed valid upon my initial investigation, and the first responses I got seemed to support that. I was wrong and my actions were inexcusable. 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Somewhat related: while rare, some approved bots don't have a bot flag. I'm not really familiar with the current bot request system, but I remember in the past where it was possible to get approval without a flag, so it could be likely that there are still bots out there like that. Though, such bots would still likely have a link to getting approval on their userpage, IIRC. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
          • None of my 'bots have a flag. I've no need of it, and the people who might have need of it have never asked for it. It is clearly stated on my 'bots' user pages that they are intentionally as subject to the scrutiny of their edits by Recent Changes patrol as any other account. And that's the only thing that the MediaWiki 'bot right actually is: a way of hiding all of an account's edits from RC patrol. It isn't actually necessary that an account be flagged in order for it to be a 'bot. And if RC patrollers aren't worried about all of its edits being visible to them, no-one else need be.

            In many ways, it shouldn't even be the 'bot operators that should ask for a flag. It should be the RC patrollers. It should be up to them to say which accounts they're happy to not see, by default, the edits of. It is them that the flag benefits. We 'bot operators gain no benefit. Our 'bots work the same with or without a flag. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

              • But all bots need some sort of approval don't they? The issue for me was not the use of the bold "b" flag on the edits, it was that there was a concern that the bot was an unapproved bot. That has been shown by the operator to be false; that is he verified his bot's approval for use on "en." Regardless of whether the flag exists or doesn't, isn't it generally considered bad form to perform fully automated edits by bot without prior aproval? Again, this whole issue was clearly a miscommunication, and this specific issue has been corrected (I lifted the block and the bot is happily interwikinating as we speak), but for my own future reference, what exactly IS the policy on bots, and when should an unauthorized bot be blocked? Uncle G? 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion relevant to this issue at WP:BAG#RFC. —Random832 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Link spamming -[edit]

This user [25] (and others) have been spamming wikipedia with broadwayworld links for months now, and doing nothing else. What can be done about this? There appears to be a campaign to get these links into wikipedia, with 242 here and another 83 here. Lobojo (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch/* Ill feed this to the anti-spam people. βcommand 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I gave them one more warning. If they put in one more spam link, I or someone else will block them again. 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I also rollbacked all of the spam links. Damn I love that rollback... If it happens again, we should block this IP on sight. 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you? I think you missed a few.... hundred. LOL. How does it work? Lobojo (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You can rollback from the page history and from the user contribs list, but only if its the last edit. Once its a buried edit, the links will have to be removed by hand. Urgh. This site needs to be blacklisted ASAP. Betacommand, you work with that process on Meta. Can you do that? 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Give me a few hours to get home, (Im at work) and Ill use a Pocket NukeTM on the spammer and get them SBLed and removed. its nothing that cant wait a few hours. βcommand 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good deal! 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying no links to this site at all? Or just on articles where it was spammed onto? Cirt (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the way the spamlist works, once it is there it should not be linked to at all. It will be impossible to save any edit that contains that link. 04:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That really sucks. It was a good verifiable source on a Featured Article I have worked really hard on. Can there please be an exception made? Cirt (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I would like an answer to that question too, because I added a photo essay link to DruidSynge on August 20, 2006 not as spam but as a specific informative addition for DruidSynge in New York in 2006. The images are not free and could not be used in the article, so the link complements the article greatly—it was definitely not intended as a spam link. What's the opinion because this link was removed today and I object. It was not a general spam link to and not added by the editor who recently added more such links. What solution do you have if the link is not acceptable 18 months after its inclusion? ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah. In that case, I would counsel we need to move slower on this one. If its a valid reference, blacklisting it would be a BAD idea. Betacommand, please wait to blacklist it before we fully investigate. This could be a bit of a problem... Maybe the user needs to be blocked without blacklisting it... Hmmmm.... 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I please now add the valid citations back into the Featured Article (also was a WP:TFA article in this state), A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant ? Cirt (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You can easily not include the http:// part which makes it a link. MER-C 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The bot is removing valid citations from that site. I just had to revert the removal of a citation from that site in the Jacob Young article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There is also the local whitelist for specific URL's for specific articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why it should not be blacklisted, as noted by Jayron32 (talk · contribs) that perhaps a block for whoever is spamming links after a warning would be a better idea. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Because it deals with multiple accounts and hard to control IP addresses. So a blacklist is the easiest thing to do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not if it affects legitimate sourcing in multiple quality articles. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Most definitely not if it affects legitimate sourcing. is a valid source of information and should not be blacklisted. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Several users have come here and stated that is a valid source, and should not be blacklisted. One Admin suggested blocking whoever the spammers are. Have we come to any sort of resolution on this? Cirt (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WHOA!! is an important, verifiable reference source for musical theatre articles. It is definitely not spam. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So is this site now blacklisted? Can we add back valid citations that have been removed? --BelovedFreak 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) is a legitimate source for many musical theatre and musical theatre related articles, and I honestly believe that it should not be blacklisted, as this would significantly lower the quality of several articles by removing legitimate citations (one article in particular that I've been working on is Hairspray (2007 film)). —Mears man (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe whoever was going to nominate it for the blacklist changed his mind. It has not been nominated here, nor is it at the moment in the Blacklist over here. Unless I misunderstand the process, which is possible -- can someone post an update? -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Betacommand's talk page

"...I have stopped removal for now." βcommand 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So, yes, it appears that we can put back the necessary links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More Arthur Ellis sockpuppets[edit]

Resolved: blocked and tagged

I'm leaving this message in response to a post by User:Thatcher. At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, Thatcher has determined that Victoriagirl1 (talk · contribs), Victoriagirl2 (talk · contribs), Victoriagirl3 (talk · contribs), Sunray10 (talk · contribs), Sunray20 (talk · contribs), Sunray30 (talk · contribs), Homeboy99 (talk · contribs), Sockpuppet99 (talk · contribs), Backtalk (talk · contribs), Hotgirl99 (talk · contribs), Firebrand99 (talk · contribs), Climateguy (talk · contribs) and Overeditor (talk · contribs) are one and the same. As Overeditor, Sockpuppet99, Hotgirl99, Homeboy99 and Climateguy have blocked indefinitely as Arthur Ellis socks, I wonder whether it would it be possible to block the other accounts. I recognize that not all appear active at the moment, but note that the confusingly named Victoriagirl1 has made two postings [26][27] since Thatcher presented the findings. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All blocked. Tagging in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Legal threat by new user User:Electra10. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly a threat, and they probably are unaware of the rule. Rather than biting them, let's try a bit of education first.[28]