Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive389

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

Noticeboard archives


Global warming[edit]

Some jerk moved this to Global warming hoax. Could you undo it and ban the idiot? (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Already been moved back, and I believe an admin will be handling the block in a moment's time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
We're keeping a eye on him. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
He got blocked for vandalism / edit warring on another article. I reviewed the unblock request, but he reverted my decline of the unblock.[1] Somebody else deal with this please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
With a history like that, one week was lenient - he should count himself lucky. Block reviewed, unblock firmly declined. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's see... 5 blocks for edit-warring in the past few months, plus several current episodes of vandalism... phony warnings ([2])... abusing the unblock templates... I hate to be the grumpy old guy in this esteemed gathering, but I'm going to extend this to 1 month - there's a lengthy pattern of problematic editing here, and the next block should almost certainly be indefinite. MastCell Talk 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Taiketsu (talk · contribs) has caused problem in Pokemon-related articles and, to a lesser extent, Yu-Gi-Oh (where he spent quite some time edit warring with me under the impression that English Wikipedia is American Wikipedia). I think we've tolerated his presence enough. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a last chance. If problems resume after the block expires, let me know or come back here and I'll extend the block to indefinite. MastCell Talk 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was this block not indefinite? Raul654 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because, as I've been told elsewhere, I'm getting soft in my old age. In all seriousness, an indefinite block would certainly be justifiable, and if you want to extend it I'd be fine with that. MastCell Talk 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User Spellmanloves67 is making personal attacks and being vulgar[edit]

There is an ongoing problem with Spellmanloves67 . These problems have already been reported WP:AN#Spellmanloves67, one article WebCT was locked, and Spellmanloves67 is also reversing other valid edits that I've made on other articles. One of these is for Capella University in which I updated statics.

Spellmanloves67 is now engaged in calling names talk:WebCT#Page protected and has created a vulgar page : Wikipedia:Don't be a dick.

Spellmanloves67 seems to be on some type of personal vendetta and has continually blanked his own talk pages because he has been warned many times in the past for being abusive to others: here are a few examples:

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 1]
[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 2]
[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 3]

I have made numerous attempts to communicate politely but he is consistently hostile. I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.Sxbrown (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, users are allowed to blank their own user pages anytime they would like, for any reason. Also, Spellmanloves67 did not create WP:DICK, it's been around for a while. Redrocket (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. In this case, I have tried to discuss the issue with Spellmanloves67 on his talk page but he keeps removing it. It also seems very inappropriate for Wikipedia to permit the vulgar page. Sxbrown (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. And sometimes, you just have to remind people not to be a dick. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Would really like some help on this one. Thanks. Sxbrown (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Igniateff is Joshuarooney[edit]


Joshuarooney (talk) was someone who tried to get TharkunColl and myself blocked from wikipedia not to long ago.

If you check TharkunColl's talk page you can see most of it play out. Essentially TharkunColl got in a little trouble for a picture, and Joshua blew it up into something quite bigger, even to to point where he was able to convince many Admins to take part with him in a witch hunt, even convincing them he himself ran a Check User, and getting TharkunColl and myself temporarily banned. However eventually the admins were made realize that no check user request was ever run by Joshua, that Joshua himself was sock-puppet, and that I was in fact not one. Right after these events I posted in the RCU page that righted Tharkun and myself "owned". I was pretty upsert at the time (still am a little) and I just felt i needed to say it.

After that had all passed Igniateff shows up, and posts in my talk page and gives birth to a whole new ruckus, just view my talk page for details. Here are the reasons why I believe Igniateff is Joshua.

1. Brought up an old comment: If you check the talk page, he was reprimanding me for something I did quite a few days earlier, warning me not to 'troll' somewhere, that I obviously was not trolling, or had ant intention to return to.

2. Threatened me: For those of you who looked at what Joshua had said to thark and myself, he did quite a bit of threating, as to our consequences. On my talk page you can see Igniateff immedtiely threaten me with a "Final Warning" followed by "reblocking with no chance for rebate". Such threats are within the character of Joshua.

3. New Account: His account was created right AFTER JoshuaRooney's account was blocked. In none of his mannerisms does he act like a new members, for instance digging up old RCU's and giving other members warnings about them. Then threatening the member with blocking, and posting an ANI on it. All of which do not add up to the actions of a new member. (Account Created AFTER JOSH'S was disabled, and gravitated TOWARDS THE OLD RCU)

4. Admin Attack : Previously Joshua's strategy had been to round up Admin's and convince them they needed to punish/block us. Just as before he did the same, finding admins to come get upset at me at my user page, one of which very nearly blocked me again, thus doing exactly as he planned. What can I say, he knows how to manipulate the admins? Also on my talk page you see him mention how he has "Two admins" on his side, again alluding to his conscious efforts to recruit and subvert admins against his targets. (Last time he tricked them into blocking me..)

5. English? : Not one of my stronger points, but like Joshua, he is also from England. There are only so many people in england..right?

Those are my main reasons why I suspect him as being Joshua, I feel the evidence, especially in consideration of when his account was created, is at least enough to give cause for further exploration. ShieldDane (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, you believe that (1)Ignaiteff is the new username of the blocked Joshuarooney, (2) that he has continued the behavoir that got him blocked to begin with and (3) he should blocked again. Am I understanding correctly before I investigate?--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's in the affirmative. ShieldDane (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this assessment. It's likely in my opinion. Rudget. 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to keep him from creating vast Admin armies to attack me? As much as i like being yelled at for 3 days before anyone listens to my side...I'm sorry, it's just this kids tactic is to get admins to come down on me, and so in general all i ever see are admins showing up to do just that. So what next? Do we check user, does this count as sock puppetry? ShieldDane (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Checkuser  Confirmed. Unfortunately his school is already vandal-blocked allowing registered users to edit but not create new accounts, but he can make new accounts at home where he has a large range that would be a problem to block effectively. Of course he's not an admin no matter what he says. Hopefully any admins who respond to his complaints will investigate more thoroughly next time. You can point out in your responses that you have been targeted and point to this thread and the previous checkuser findings. Thatcher 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
So is that a no to blocking? ShieldDane (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Igniateff is blocked. The only way to prevent him from creating more accounts would be to block at least 200,000 customers of a major ISP. Thatcher 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
199,999 more to go? =DShieldDane (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima mass-editing articles without consensus[edit]

User:Ottava Rima has decided to mass-edit articles to replace the word portmanteau with "blend", based on his interpretation of the word's definition. When it was brought to his attention that the Oxford English Dictionary allows for the usage common in Wikipedia (rather ridiculously common actually) he stated that "the OED makes mistakes and makes them often". After being asked to stop until he'd discussed the matter, he has continued making the same change to another 30 or so articles so far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word blend includes terms considered "portmanteau" words. But to be a portmanteau word, the words have to have syllabic overlap in order to contain the original syllabic sounding of the two former words. This is explained on the page for blend. If people would bother to look at the page, which it has been brought to their attention, they would see it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Further mistakes - some people use "portmanteau" for "compound words", which are clearly not the same. Others have used words that combine acronyms as portmanteau words, which goes against the definition of portmanteau words also. Some people have included puns, which are not portmanteau words. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
We understand what you think the distinction is. Unfortunately the OED and other reliable sources don't agree with you. (It's particularly ironic that you keep changing "brunch" because the first known use of the word in 1896 described it as a "portmanteau word"). Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Except that you haven't proved that the OED doesn't agree with me. You claim it does, without citing evidence. The word is used incorrectly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The point was that you were politely asked to stop and convince other editors that you were correct. Instead, you chose to dismiss several different editors entirely and continue to make said change without having deigned to respond to the argument that there are reliable sources which concede that the looser definition is acceptable, other than to dismiss them as being wrong.And your edits have been over a large number of articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
By "politely asked" you mean that I was asked by you to stop putting in the correct terms? You did not ask for such evidence. You started a revert campaign. There was nothing polite about your action. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd "proved" quite conclusively what the OED says with several quotations at Talk:Portmanteau#This Page is Wrong. I'm not sure what other evidence you're looking for. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
By "proved" you cited the OED citing an instance in which a college student used the term portmanteau, whereas, college professors and linguists commonly accept brunch as a blend, according to Blends ] and many other sources I can provide. A college student does not prove the proper use of the word, and does not contradict how linguists use the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was Punch (magazine) that called brunch a portmanteau in 1896, not a student. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the condescending tone produced forth by the above people who are unwilling to provide evidence and look up the definitions, here is some more support, from real linguists like myself, on the issue: [3] I suggest all curious about this please read. I have more sources on the issue if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, multiple editors have disagreed with you. This is the time to stop and work out your differences. Continuing to edit war over your changes and make mass changes based on your interpretation isn't the way to go and down that road lies a block for disruption. Please use some dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Three points on this issue - one, there is no place to deal with "consensus" on such errors, as they are definitional in the same way there are people who correct spelling. Two, editors who are taking offense are not a majority, and are mostly those who are personally involved and probably feel offended that their individual pages have been edited. Three, there have been other editors who have supported me, and admin who have approved of my action before this. The term is as I have cited above, and will not change. There is a linguistic difference that people mistake. Some are even confusing compound words out of their zeal to put forth a word they do not understand. Please read the link I provided above and go through the pdf. You will learn a lot about blends. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
First - yes, Wikipedia works by consensus, you do need to deal with other editors here and on this issue specifically. Second, doesn't matter if its a "majority", for the record, I personally disagree with your actions as well. Third, sounds like the start of a good discussion and like I said on your talk admins cannot "approve" you to make edits, they're just editors like everyone else.
Please stop assuming that I don't know what you're talking about, I do and in fact, know a lot of the history behind the literary versus colloquial use of the term. I'm not sure if you realize, but you come across a bit condescending when you keep asking others to read that paper. I think you're missing the fact that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for experts -- there is more than one use for the term, regardless of whether linguists turn purple at the suggestion or not. Shell babelfish 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to link colluqial terminology when dealing with definitional aspects to various pages. And I come off condescending when I ask others to read a source when it was claimed that I don't have one? I believe you entered into an absurdum. I suggest you read the progression of events and note the timing of each, before you make said accusations in the future. Being an expert or not does not mean that incorrect terminology is acceptable. When people use "portmanteau" for a compound word, that is blatantly wrong, and that is not about colloquialisms or not. There is a black and a white when it comes to such distinctions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well we disagree about a lot of things here, but regardless, the entire point of this thread and my comments was to point out that you need to stop and talk to other editors and stop edit warring. Thank you for joining in the discussion. Shell babelfish 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I must point out here that WP:BOLD verifies my right to act in the way I did, and the edit warring came from others who reverted me without making sure that my reverts were correct or not (which many were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct, especially when differentiating between compound words and those which aren't). Now, since you refused to accuse others of edit warring, I don't think you have the right to claim any impartiality, which would negate your whole purpose of being here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this to say who might be right, so I cannot comment on the issue itself. But: While there's nothing wrong with being bold, that does not give you the right to keep reverting. You've been bold, you've been reverted, now it's time to discuss the proposed changes. That's the circle of life BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Conti| 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He's still doing it!! To whom does one turn at this point? Pilch62 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN3. Corvus cornixtalk 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User making false racist allegations[edit]

Kevin j (talk · contribs) is accusing admin Theresa Knott of being a white supremacist and refuses to remove or retract the allegations in spite of being warned by an admin. Can some further action please be taken. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of false allegation, and Kevin knows it is a false allegation. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not explicitly calling her a racist. He's drawing a rather odd, inarticulate comparison between TK's treatment of him and the treatment of blacks by white supremacists. Racism is not the issue. The more pressing concern is that this user is being a generally disruptive pain in the ass and that very few of his recent edits have been remotely constructive.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
They've now been blocked. Hut 8.5 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base[edit]

I don't know if this is some kind of WP glitch or if it's my computer, but a user edited this article (a very good edit I might add) and now most of the page is missing, although the IP didn't remove the information. This is what the article looked like before the edit and this is what it looks like now. Is anyone else seeing this or do I just have too many blonde highlights and am missing something. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come upon this a couple of times before. The editor did not format their reference properly (ie left out the < > symbols in a couple of spots) which causes everything to go blank after this spot. I have fixed it so this can be marked as resolved except for the fact that I don't know anything about this subject so I think that someone who does should fact check the info added for accuracy. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that. Yeah, that was the problem. I didn't notice it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Silvia Lancome[edit]

I stumbled upon an edit war going on with the Silvia Lancome article with charges of sockpuppetry and vandalism between multiple users over several days. Not sure what they are bickering about since the disputed changes seem minor to me. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam who was banned indefinitely in November 2007 and who has been flouting their ban ever since through their use of numerous Sockpuppets (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beh-nam/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam) and IP's from Toronto, Canada is editing using the IP and has used this address to warn his acquaintance Anoshirawan not to edit war. [4] I've been reverting Beh-nam's edits per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits (including Silvia Lancome) is it possible to issue a block to the IP address. In future when he edits using an IP where is the most appropriate place to bring it to peoples attention to get them blocked here or somewhere else. - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ass" and "Fuck you" attacks[edit]

In the edit history for the Cannibal Corpse article, user (who is suspected to be the signed out IP of user Jumanji656) today called me an "ass" and said "fuck you" as I reverted his inappropriate nonsense. He keeps dropping trivia and quotes in various articles, including this one, without proper reputable source or formatting. Please investigate the personal attacks and ban if necessary. Thank you. Logical Defense (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user to remain civil. I think that's all that's required at this stage. If he continues, he can be blocked. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Missions dilemma[edit]

Resolved: Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a user named User:Mdhennessey who has made it his mission, so to speak, to insert a paragraph [5] into many articles about the San Francisco missions, concerning the Asian-American land bridge from 13,000 years ago, with a citation that is simply the title of a book that makes an assertion that there was major impact on the native peoples, without exploring that theme. That sounds at first like a simple content dispute, but it looks to me like he's trying to make a point of some kind, which is against the rules. The other rules violations I'm concerned about are (1) moving everyone's talk page comments from one talk page [6] to another Talk:Spanish missions in California without the editors' consent; (2) insisting that anyone who disagrees does so from ignorance or "soapboxing"; [7] and (3) lecturing others about the rules [8] [9] while seemingly ignoring them himself. I'd just like to know if the user is within his rights or has overstepped the bounds. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll save you the time and trouble of dealing with this issue; Wikipedia just lost me as an editor. Issue resolved. Good luck! Mdhennessey (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I take the above quick surrender to be an admission of guilt, and as license to revert his addition of that largely irrelevant paragraph from the various articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Take it as an admission of nothing, other than an indication that I will not devote any more of my time responding to one unfounded argument after another. And so far as editing the various articles goes, "You own them now." Mdhennessey (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And I take the above as well as this stereotypical drama-queen "I quit" statement [10] (which I safely characterize as drama-queen stuff since I did it myself once and was called on it) as further evidence of his unsuitability to be a wikipedia editor at this time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I will refrain from further reverting the user's seemingly pointless paragraph until a reasonable time for someone to comment here, besides the bickering between the two of us. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What you did or did not do previously has no bearing on anyone else, ESPECIALLY ME. Wikipedia would be far better off without you and your "drama queen" attitude. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough! Your dispute is apparently over, so stop antagonising each other or you'll both be blocked for incivility. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You may mark it as resolved, if you wish. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c), {and ditto to Tango's post) Both of you quit it. B.Bugs, go read WP:BITE and WP:AGF. You don't get to tell other editors that they don't belong here, period full stop. You've been here long enough to know better. Take this to your talkpages, or just leave each other alone. Content problems will get fixed. You've made your point. Stop antagonizing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now just hang on a moment. First, this was not a newcomer, he's been here nearly 2 years. Second, another editor first raised the complaint to him, and he stonewalled the other editor and me. Third, in the past when I've had issues, I've been told this is the place to take it when the issue is not getting resolved, rather than continued edit warring. Taking things to WP:ANI and letting other eyes judge the dispute is supposed to be the proper way to do things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say I was deleting your post or that your post was bad. I'm saying that you telling another editor that they shouldn't be here was bad. I clearly said that the content issue would get fixed (they always do eventually. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, that comment was below the belt. I was comparing his approach to where I was at awhile back, when it was questionable whether I was suited to be a wikipedia editor at that time. What I learned from that experience is that at some point, it's better to take it here rather to continue to go around in an endless loop... and to take it here sooner than I used to be willing to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in all seriousness I think blocking is warranted and would send the appropriate message. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocks aren't issued to "send appropriate messages", but rather to prevent damage to Wikipedia. They can be issued for disruption, persistent vandalism and harassment/stalking, but I think B.Bugs will be leaving this issue alone. No block necessary, or warranted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I would still like to know whether it's within the rules for an editor to move the comments from one article's talk page to another article's talk page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I want to answer one question the other editor had as to why I had any business getting involved in this article, since I clearly know nothing about the topic. Well, it's because I was doing some work on the Mission Reds baseball team, and I wanted to find out more about the Mission District, and ended up on the Mission San Francisco de Asís page. You just never know where the exploration threads will lead. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree Bugs, that's one of the best things about Wikipedia. I've learned more minutia clicking on Wikilinks than I ever thought. Sometimes I find myself fixing typos in articles I've never heard of (and won't remember). And you are well within your editing privileges (and so is Mdhennessey) to add/fix/remove/update/expand/nominate/source any article you want. And you are well within your editing privileges to remove/repair/delete anything too. That's the beauty of a wiki! Just know (both editors here) that you need to back up your "stuff" with sources and to try not to take offense if someone challenges your work. That is within privilege too. 100% of articles have talkpages for this reason. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(marked resolved)

User Arsenic99 appears to be violating his ban[edit]


Edits reverted, Arsenic99 blocked 24 hours.

Arsenic99 was recently given a six month ban from editing, quote, "any articles or talk pages that, reasonably speaking, relate to the Armenian Genocide". Since then he has been making edits to the List of designated terrorist organizations article: [[11]], adding material that relates to the Armenian terrorist organisation ASALA.

To quote from the Wikipedia entry on ASALA, it was founded "to compel the Turkish Government to acknowledge publicly its alleged responsibility for the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, pay reparations, and cede territory for an Armenian homeland". It would thus appear that Arsenic99 is adding and editing material that relates to the Armenian genocide and that the editor is violating his ban. Meowy 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that Arsenic99's edits in that particular page appear to be very POV and antagonistic (in contrast to the neutral descriptions of all the other organisations and groups listed in the entry). While the actual content can be dealt with in the entry itself, the intent of Arsenic99 when making those edits is relevant to the issue here. Meowy 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted all of the edits he'd recently made to the article (just to make sure I got everything), and blocked him for 24 hours. I also informed him that his six-month discretionary ban has been reset. Other admins, feel free to review ... Blueboy96 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I was about to block him myself - good call. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Next time, if you could log this and similar blocks at WP:ARBAA2. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely seething...[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

...about my block. We have an admin chucking out hard rangeblocks and failing to respond to talkpage messages about innocent vicims. Other admins seeming to think it's more important to check with the blocking admin than unblock even though they had already given permission to unblock via the block template message in the event of any problems. Not to mention the fact that the fact that the blocking admin is apparantly also an Arbiter acting as some kind of inhibiting factor when it came to undoing it. Process and bureaucracy trump any kind of common sense once again. Exxolon (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked, so I don't know what you're talking about. If you're complaining about an IP block, you need to specify the IP address. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was silly for anyone to wait to hear from the blocking admin in this case. However the problem has already been solved, so I don't see that there's anything left to be done here. Friday (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's unforunate that you were autoblocked because the IP you were using was part of a range hard blocked due to extensive vandalism, but I can assure you that FT2 would not have wanted to trp innocent users. I suspect he was acting because of checkuser evidence. All is sorted now, and you were only out of action for a short period of time - call it a well deserved break :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Just got passed this one. Apologies - my day has been dealing with specific issues and my usualy days work; I've not caught up on messages for the last while. Basically, you caught by a hardening of an anti-vandalism block of a persistent vandal. If you take a look [12] you'll see exactly how much activity and how persistent has gone on in that range and how many people have tried to address it. You are one of very few legitimate users using it - the block message was specifically tuned in case any legitimate user were accidentally caught, they would know how to get it quickly reversed. At some point during the day a user messaged me to pass on your problem, and I told them on the spot when I saw the message that I was fine if the range was actively being used by a decent user, to reverse the IP block back to soft. The rest is courtesy and forethought; blocks on IP ranges by checkuser aren't verifiable by most administrators, so especially with those, one would usually ask the blocking admin what was up. In this case one might reverse it as Friday says, or ask... both views are widespread.
For what its worth, my apologies for the inconvenience. If you look at the block log link, I think you'll agree that a great many administrators have tried to handle it over time...
My regrets again, and if you ever do change IPs so you dont use that range can you let someone know?
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the response. Sorry if I came off a bit OTT - if I have a failing it's I have a ferocious temper and sometimes let that get the better of me. You've been far more polite than I deserve :) Exxolon (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I need help against an anonymous IP[edit]

Resolved: blocked both parties for 3RR violation--Tango (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Please help against this IP, thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is marked as resolved, but it might not have been a good idea to point them both to WP:DR as well? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggested on their talk pages that they use the article talk page to discuss it - that's the first stage of dispute resolution. I don't see any real need to start talking about the other stages until they've at least attempted that one. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Seeing a couple of threads above, it may be worth noting that the OTRS posse has been taking advantage of a slow email day to work at the backlogs; at least 100 tickets ave been handled in the last 48 hours, many of them BLPS going back up to two months. So there may be a flurry of "WTF?" activity. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a threat?[edit]

I could use a bit of help here: User :Kmnicholas has been repeatedly creating a page about her company, ISM Boston. Now it looks like a threat has appeared on Talk: ISM Boston. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You must mean the bit about "Further deletion will result in press activity both digital and print with the deleting person's details being published. You MUST contact the original publisher and discuss the matter before taking action. This is a legal requirement." Looks like WP:HARASS, WP:LEGAL, and a couple of others all rolled into one. Raymond Arritt (talk)

I do. Perhaps someone else could take it from here? I've deleted the article a couple of times. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely--and the page has been deleted with a sprinkling of WP:SALT. Blueboy96 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Need an Admin deletion[edit]

Hi all, can I get an admin deletion of a revision to a talk page? I have made an oversight request, but have no idea how long that takes, and I think this needs to be done pronto. Please email me for details as to which talk page and revision, if necessary. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

or leave note on my talk page, and I can email. thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted them - please double-check to make sure I got the right ones. You may want to email requests for oversight - they're usually pretty quick on the trigger - and let them know that all 4 deleted diffs can be oversighted. MastCell Talk 00:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Acepot and company[edit]

I wasn't sure what to do with this situation as I have not run into any socks before and the user seems to have stopped for now.

Acepot123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was vandalizing Julius Caesar's talk page and received a final warning, and stopped, so no block. He then started up again with Acepot292 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I gave him an immediate final warning with a link to Acepot123. Acepot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was then created and the user placed a Julius Caesar related question on his talk page. I left him an only warning message with links to the other two accounts and there hasn't been any vandalism since.

I am not sure what to do with the situation from here, the vandalism seems to have stopped, so I figured I would post this note just as an FYI. KnightLago (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked all three accounts as vandal-only sockpuppets. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IP making abusive comments on ANI and elsewhere[edit] (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), and (talk · contribs) are all almost certainly the same person, and have been making obscene and abusive and insulting remarks to me in the above discussion on OM ([13], [14], [15], and [16]) and vandalizing my user page ([17], repeated at least twice in later diffs). These anons are likely either socks or meatpuppets of someone actually involved in the dispute; [18] is particularly suspicious. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked one but he claims to be using an open WiFi port. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's, one hell of a range. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The range isn't as big as you assume it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going by what the Rangeblock calculator was telling me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs), who has also just vandalized my user page, has recently posted on User:Fredrick Day's talk page, as you will see in his contribs. Sure, it's an IP, and it's POSSIBLE that it's just a coincidence, but when you combine it with the fact that in a diff I posted above the anon had commented on Fredrick Day's talk page just tonight, it's quite likely that this individual is either Fredrick Day himself or an associate of his. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs) Yeah, the anon is now going around stirring up further trouble with blocked/warned editors and making other random insinuations. Shell babelfish 02:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalbot threat.[edit]

I noticed that an anon [19] had threatened to use a different IP address along with a vandalbot, which is a very serious threat. I wasn't sure what to do, so I am bringing it up here. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell him to join the queue. (IP blocked). -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Robby Zeller[edit]

Resolved: blocked

User:Robby Zeller continues to create inappropriate wiki articles after continued speedy deletions and warnings.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours & advised to read WP:N. All pages deleted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I am disturbed by what this user is doing, so I'm listing it here for discussion or action by a more experienced vandal fighting admin. I came across this user while speedy deleting the article The Naked Brothers Band (band), which for non-admins contained the text <center><font size=19>MCR PORN?</font>. I reviewed the user's page to find the image Image:Oasis fag.JPG with the caption "this user loves shit", which I promptly speedy deleted as an attack image. Looking through the user's contributions, I see many screen shot images that are not being used mixed in with some positive contributions. The user has many warnings. Should this user be blocked for attacking and, if so, what length? It's time for me to get to bed, so I defer this to consensus/boldness. Royalbroil 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Added speedy rationales to several of the pictures they've uploaded over the last week, which include nonsense, copyvios and attack page pics. Also requested speedy on several unlikely typos.Nate (chatter) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)



I'm requesting the assistance of an uninvolved admin with an obvious tendentious editor in the article Jon Courtney: WP:SPA Justpassinby (talk · contribs), who evidently also edits as Joncourtney (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) (see former SSP report and ongoing SSP report.) This is not an ordinary content dispute, but ongoing, immediate and active disruption. This individual has an openly stated bias against the band Pure Reason Revolution and this article, which he nominated for deletion and which I closed as keep by consensus. (I had no familiarity with the user or the article at the time.) After he left a warning on my talk page that by closing with that reading I was causing an edit war, I went to the article to see if I could prevent that. I discovered there that he seemed to object to promotional, poorly sourced text, so I revised the article in an attempt to address those concerns. Rather than appeasing him, this evidently enraged him, as he spent the next little while vandalizing the page, including this edit under his primary account and this under one of his suspected socks, evidently pretending to be the subject of the article objecting to the page. Now he is blanking sourced content under misleading edit summaries (in spite of being advised that doing so leaves the block quote without a source) and blanking neutral reliably sourced material under alleged BLP concerns. He has rejected all reasonable efforts of communication at his talk page in regards to this issue and, I note, in others--including repeated requests made there by another editor that he stop signing contributions to article space. He responds with personal attacks and accusations of bias. He refuses to avail himself of the dispute resolution methods of addressing the article which I've pointed out to him (at first he did not explain why he did not choose to propose a merge, see deletion review or go to the WP:NPOVN. Now he says it is because I am omnipotent.) He has previously been blocked for disruptive editing at the band article Pure Reason Revolution. He has also previously been reported at ANI, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An obvious problem editor, but what is it you need help with? Do you feel you're too involved in content disputes with him to block him, or do you think that another admin might have more luck than you in convincing him to abide by policies and guidelines? Because it doesn't look to me like either is true. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also note this recent diff, his most recent. I'd be prepared to AGF there until he gives us evidence that doing so was unwise. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for weighing in. :) He has made it plain that he does not regard me as an uninvolved administrator in his response to my warning over edit-warring on Pure Reason Revolution, here. He has already accused me of "abuse of...admin privileges" in that thread for working on the Jon Courtney article at all. Since he seems to have had a history of viewing disagreement as personal, I would prefer an uninvolved admin to issue any necessary blocks just so as not to feed his belief that he is the target of admin abuse. Anyway, I hope that the latest diff at BLP does reflect an honest change of opinion on the matter, and I'll bring it back here if disruptive behavior persists. If others feel that it would be more appropriate for me to block in that case, I will. Meanwhile, I will restore the sourced information recently removed from the article. Thanks again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have the impression that anybody who blocks him will just be a puppet of yours or a cabalist or somesuch anyway - I'm not a big believer in letting blockees decide who's sufficiently unbiased to block them. Anyway, hopefully no block will be necessary, but keep us posted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
All right. I guess assuming good faith is a mistake, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hours. Other admins, feel free to adjust per your best judgment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I just had to note how well you called that one. From the unblock request: "opinion has been swayed against me by a 'mafia' of fans of Jon Courtney". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, I didn't predict that term. But I sure am a big fan of Mr. Courtney - especially Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black), Helpless, After the Gold Rush, and Like a Hurricane. No, wait, I'm thinking of Neil Young. Point being, though, that don't nobody mess with the family. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban?[edit]

←Thanks. Given this user's self-professed conflict of interest with regards to neutrality on this article and those related to Pure Reason Revolution, would it be appropriate to consider a topic ban? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is basically a single purpose account that is, in pursuing its single purpose, being tendentious and disruptive. So on the one hand, you could say "well, it's only being tendentious and disruptive in that one topic, so why not topic ban?". On the other hand, you could say "it's being tendentious and disruptive in every topic it edits; if it doesn't shape up, ban it entirely". I probably tend towards the second view - that he's on a short leash once the block expires and is getting progressively closer to an indef block - but if you think a topic ban might help, I'd probably go along with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true that this has been a single purpose account. I suppose my question about a topic ban is primarily to give him another chance to demonstrate good faith if he so desires, but only on unrelated articles. I think given this user's history and how quickly the user goes from this and this to this that it's reasonable to assume the user either cannot or will not contribute constructively to those articles. Enough is enough, I think, unless the editor can demonstrate through sustained contributions elsewhere that he has some legitimate interest in content building on Wikipedia and is not just here to voice his dislike for this band. In any event, I think a short leash is a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
After seeing the user's response to being blocked, I'm inclined to support a topic ban after all. I have virtually no confidence that he can be a useful contributor in that area; I suppose we might as well give him a chance to be useful elsewhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope that others will choose to weigh in here, particularly given the user's edits to his userpage while blocked in his unblock request and his subsequent note about the administrator who declined it. I see no reason to believe whatsoever that this user will contribute constructively to these articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor is continuing to disrupt the articles while blocked under an IP. He identifies himself here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've indeffed this editor for abuse of multiple accounts, including impersonation of the subject of a BLP. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be tagging this one resolved, then. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kurt Krenn[edit]

Resolved: New stub per WP:FORGET is vastly better referenced.

I've just had the conversation below with User:Doc glasgow but it seems we have not been able to reach consensus. I firmly believe that the fact that Wikipedia is—and will always be—work in progress should be taken into consideration whenever someone comes across an article that is not yet perfect. In this case, references seem to be missing. However, speedy deleting the article does not help improve Wikipedia as the text is now only available to a small minority of admins. <KF> 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I have just found out thanks to your message, you have deleted the Kurt Krenn page. What is going on here? I couldn't find any AfD discussion. <KF> 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I speedy deleted the article as is contravened our policy on biographies of living people. The policy requires that all negative statements are referenced from reliable sources, this biography was full of them and wholly unreferenced. You are welcome to recreate a new article which complies with the policy.--Docg 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly no case for speedy deletion. There are people all over the world whose biography is full of "negative statements" because they have done a lot of negative things in their lives. You might have put an "unreferenced" tag on top of the article or put it on AfD, nothing more. Please recreate it and do one or the other. Best wishes, <KF> 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy allows, indeed mandates deletion. The problem is not negative statements, it is negative statements without referencing. Such things must always be removed from wikipedia.--Docg 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems you got a bit carried away. Where does it say that "policy mandates deletion"? Let me repeat my request: Please restore the deleted page and all of its edit history. Only afterwards can you do any of the following four things: (a) add an "unreferenced" tag; (b) provide the missing reference(s) yourself; (c) add an AfD tag and create the corresponding AfD page; or (d) remove those passages from the article which might harm Krenn. All the best, <KF> 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to decline your request.--Docg 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
KF, everything was according the policy. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KF, without prejudice. The proper place to contest my deletion is deletion review.--Docg 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote the specific passage from WP:BLP:

"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)."

There are legal reasons for this policy. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started a stub, which, KF, is surely a better approach than going to DRV (which is the right forum, indeed). Nobody is saying we shouldn't have an article but it needs to be a fair article that doesn't violate BLP, is verifiabl;e, etc, and from what I can gather none of that was in place before so likely a good decision. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good call. WP:FORGET should result in a better article overall, I hope. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, thanks for starting a stub on Kurt Krenn. I don't know if you have read the deleted article, but now that I've reread it I cannot for the life of me understand why it allegedly is a page "that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages"." Krenn is not attacked in the deleted article. The page serves the usual purpose of a biographical article and does not "disparage its subject", let alone only disparage it. The only shortcoming of the text is the absence of one or two, maybe three, references.

The Sisyphean task that has just started is to start from scratch without the help of the deleted text. My guess is that sooner or later a Wikipedian or two, supported by some casual browsers-turned-editors, will come up with very much the same article again—just because there is nothing else to report about Kurt Krenn. Personally, I hate people working against each other, but if you are all happy with it, so shall it be. Happy Easter! <KF> 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't read the deleted article, so sorry if I implied something that's not true. In any case I am not too surprised that an admin who doesn't follow Austrian and German news deleted it if it wasn't very well-referenced. It's extremely rare for a religious figure to be that controversial, after all. Was the article a translation of de:Kurt Krenn? That article definitely doesn't satisfy our requirements here, even if we would allow sources in German. Happy Easter! --Hans Adler (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I can read the deleted article. It was a mess of innuendo and lacked sources. The new article is already substantially better and (obviously) better referenced. I am marking this resolved, as the outcome for the encyclopaedia is self-evidently correct. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

a kiwi sock returns[edit]

Resolved: Sock drawer, please meet my pet Magmar. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could folks please review Thatcher's comments at User talk:Thatcher#the checkuser template re;

who likely need to be blocked as socks of (most recently)

See also Thatcher's comments at the end of;

I encountered Samneric at Martin Banwell which is an academic's bio that an earlier sock messed with, i.e.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked both and tagged them as socks of R:, as per the CU. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Jéské. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)



Would someone mind following up on the IP I reported at AIV, 1 hour ago. Other vandals have been reported and blocked since then, yet the one I reported remains. Before anyone says the IP is "stale" that's because of how long ago it was that I reported. I'm not sure why this one has been overlooked. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Luna took care of this one [20]. Dreadstar 09:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:ViperNerd using sock accounts to vandalize articles and circumvent 48 hour 3RR block.[edit]

User:ViperNerd is using another one of his socks [21] to continue to vandalize and harass editors. The sock policy suggests that the block clock should be restarted or extended, would that be appropriate here? He was blocked yesterday, but the block essentially doesn't exist because of his use of these other IPs. Edgarde has already initiated a Sock investigation, and I added the new IP to the list of suspected socks. Any help here would be appreciated. --CobraGeek (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

GFDL expertise needed...[edit]

User:Bole2 has copied the contents of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror V and pasted it (after various botched attempts) into Wikipedia:Peer review/Treehouse of Horror V/archive3. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this is just fine or is it in any way an infringement of GFDL? I seem to recall that people's edits should be attributable to them and in this case, those edits are no longer traceable to the editors in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a GFDL breach yes. But so are rather a lot of the merges that take place on wikipedia.Geni 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely against GFDL as the attribution is now entirely wrong and in breach. -- (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful Formosa[edit]

While this new user, Beautiful Formosa (talk · contribs), is suspected to be a sockpuppet of puppeteer Nationalist, he/she has been warned by another user and myself plenty of times for adding content without citing reliable sources.

He/she has been adding unsourced content to the article of Chuang Kuo-rong, which he/she created, violating WP:BLP and WP:OR. After I did some cleanup to the article, BF reverted my removal of unreferenced statements with an edit summary of Stop green washing Wikipedia. After some putting some notices/warnings on BF's talkpage, he/she reverted my edit did not put any edit summaries after the final warning was given. I think for a new user, this editor is a little too aggressive.--Jerrch 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User offering to pay for an article[edit]


User:RobRoth just offered to pay User:Tae04gu to post an advertising article for him. (diff) Rob recently got off a block for repeated re-creation of a speedy-ed spam article. Could someone with a mop have a chat with Rob? Justin Eiler (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. GBT/C 18:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves message on my User Talk page[edit]


Also, commenting at an archive is pointless. I'm not sure I understand how you ever became an admin. John Reaves 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caltrop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He linked to the AN/I archives: He does have a point in that commenting on archive pages is pointless, as nobody's going to read the comment. Perhaps you should revert your edit there and post it somewhere with an active discussion instead? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
While we are here...take a look at that archived discussion. Caltrop is doing it again. Moving his talk page where no one can find and mucking with the history. This is bewildering behavior for an administrator. John Reaves 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with John Reaves here. Moving the edits to an other page, then deleting the history, effectively making the search for a specific diff tedious is not an acceptable use of admins tools, in my opinion. (I might be missing something, I have no admin rights on this account). This is not a question of good faith or not, you are effectively doing something that you were told was not ok. The policy states that removing comments is ok, not that deleting the page to avoid scrutiny is. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
John says he's moving the pages... does that require admin tools? Avruch T 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you post this here Caltrop? Am I out of the loop on some history here? Is John Reaves not supposed to be on your talk page? Was his question hurtful? I ask out of ignorance; I don't get it. :\ --PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The link you refer to on your talk page states that "warnings may still be viewed in page history." That link is simply referring to removal of comments, not deleting pages entirely so the archives are not visible. Enigma msg! 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite. Would it be appropriate to move his pages around (over redirects or deletions, and then restore the "current" talk page without deleting the redirects) in order to create a proper move history from his talk page? Or perhaps make a null edit naming the current location of his talk page? Anyway, if he doesn't understand that what he did destroys history even if it doesn't destroy any actual information, desysoping seems an appropriate remedy for misuse of delete, even in his own talk-space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Prodego has already fixed this guys screwups once, he knew that what he was doing wrong and against policy. John Reaves 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved the history back. Hopefully he'll take a hint this time. John Reaves 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If he doesn't, I think there would be grounds to consider removing his bit. This suggests he hasn't used his admin tools for anything but disruption at his own talk pages and archives since 27 August 4 October - several of the deletions appear to regard matters which *should* be open for scrutiny. Orderinchaos 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
4 October, actually. -- Naerii 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, you're indeed correct. Orderinchaos 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This guy has been editing since 2002 and in the absence of of any abuse of admin tools - you know, like blocking innocent people or whatever - I'd be inclined to ignore it and move on. -- Naerii 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Undo by user MezzoMezzo in Islamic Music article[edit]

The User:MezzoMezzo has undone my referenced addition to the article Islamic music calling them not true factually and historically (see this) and according to article's talk page, this user has done this act upon new additions before. Please do the necessary acts. Regards, Dany (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though the user is violating WP:3RR on top of removing references. This kinda smacks of WP:OWN, although I don't like making such accusations directly to users. I would drop a note on their talk page and the discussion page about the reverts. If it continues, warn about 3RR. Also, it couldn't hurt to go to WP:RFC/U. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what exactly is being spoken of, I haven't even come close to violating the three revert rule on that article. Furthermore, Danrah's insertion was blatantly POV and the references were from a fringe site presenting "facts" which were not historically true. The site also uses the term "Wahhabi", which is a religious slur, to support a straw man argument. I am actually quite appalled that this user brought this here without even attempting to discuss the issue with me, and I am just downright confused as to where this accusation of a WP:3RR violation is coming from. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is MezzoMezzo's view that is not factual. Islam permits singing under the condition that it not be in any way obscene or harmful to Islamic morals. Having said that, this is not the place to resolve the content disputes.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
User:MezzoMezzo has undone my additions again. (see this )Dany (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ip disruption[edit]

There are Ips going around replacing core wikipedia namespace pages (village pump, ANI, AN, etc) with "hello" and then a random number of some sort. They seem to be coming back every time they are blocked too, an example is provided here [23], and here is another [24], [25] newest version so far. Thoughts on this? AndreNatas (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious solution: hit the fucker with a range-block, surely? Don't have the technical ability for that myself, but someone online must do. Moreschi (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This looks like the Canadian 172 vandal, with a new MO. How I've always wanted a range block for AOL. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Back again, they also seem to be using a vandal bot by that speed [26]. AndreNatas (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, just multiple tabs works as well. Can't rangeblock? Then all I can suggest is RBI. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. (I'm not an admin) Wouldn't a rangeblock to all of block every single person on How can an IP use bots??? Should they just be blocked on sight? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've checked the contributions for the range (AOL), and there's a large number of positive contributions by non-vandals just today. A rangeblock would be quite inappropriate, given the sheer numbers of non-vandalism edits. Also, for AstroHurricane001, they mean bots as in "automated programs" not user accounts with the +bot flag set. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:S7740 is going through other users's Talk and Talk archive pages and deleting his/her comments[edit]

S7740 (talk · contribs) is claiming copyright to all Talk page comments they've added and is deleting all of them from everybody's Talk pages and Talk page archives. Corvus cornixtalk 03:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see that I don't have copyright to my comments, but didn't realise it was such a bad thing to remove them. I don't really see the problem, as it is not forbidden.--S7740 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't state that it is not appropriate or prohibited to change or remove your own comments, but merely suggests some guidelines for doing so.--S7740 (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is considered extremely rude to do so, as 1) it disrupts the continuity of the conversation in question, obliterating needed context, and 2) other people may use those comments as reference in future situations. Unless your decision is to forgo common courtesy in favor of pointless control over your comments, then it is best to leave them intact. —Kurykh 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you might consider it rude, but I'd rather you didn't state your personal views about what constitutes 'common courtesy' as fact, and recognise that in a global community such as this, other viewpoints than your own exist. Please do not also make assumptions about what is pointless or not, as this kind of assertion presumes that you alone have the right to decide if other people's actions are justified. Which would seem to be an arrogant position to take.--S7740 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to suddenly remove my comment above for no apparent reason, rendering your response as a statement coming out of the blue, would I be doing you a disservice and making you sound foolish? This type of courtesy is not as subjective as you cast. I may be primarily speaking for myself, but from the comments by others above, I can sense that there are others who agree with my statements. You need not condescend to me about the existence of differing viewpoints, as I know full well they exist, or else we won't be here discussing this matter. —Kurykh 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments of my own that I deleted had no replies in existence, therefore your point about context is irrelevant and presumptious, and you are merely interjecting in a matter which you have insufficient background information. It was not my intention to appear condescending toward you, but merely to make you aware that you were stating personal views in a way that implied them to be inviolable truth. --S7740 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you have a reason for removing your comments from pages? Mr.Z-man 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you realize that, for being released under the GFDL, anyone can restore them all, and therefore what you are doing is futile? Without a valid reason, it may be seen as disruptive. By the way, you own the copyright to the comments you had done, but you have licensed them under the GFDL. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several. The matter was closed and I wanted to move on from it, plus there was no context anyway, amongst other things. But I don't feel I should have to justify my reasons anyway, because I wasn't breaking any kind of rules, except I suppose the unspoken rule of wikipedia amongst some who lay in wait here to stomp on every new edit, which is to make up the rules as they go along, according to their own prejudices and convoluted pedantry.--S7740 (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Rey, I know it's futile, and I'm not doing it now. I only did it once on one page, and a couple of times on another, because I didn't realise that I was being instantly reverted and therefore tried a few times because I thought something wasn't working. The title of this thread is misleading because it gives the impression that I'm making changes in a big way here and am constantly doing it, which is just not true. In fact the thread title actually sounds like something a child would scream out to a teacher in class to get someone else in trouble. Regarding futility, I've now come to realise that attempting to make any changes at all here in this pedant's paradise is a really rather futile exercise in frustration. --S7740 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just a system of traditions that we aren't very good at writing down. Now that you've discovered a problem, feel free to help us solve it. — Dan | talk 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments in question are (for the most part) located here for the sake of posterity. S7740 feels his comments are not part of the larger discussion. I disagree: part of this sort of community is the dialogue that takes place in building this encyclopedia. Yes, that's hopelessly Utopian of me. In the end S7740 had initially attempted to insert some information into the written history of an article. When two editors challenged this, he became belligerent (and, dare I say, often pedantic) in his frustrations: Wikipedia simply wasn't doing what he wanted it to do. We were all at fault. We moved too slow. We were pedantic. When he didn't get what he wanted, he simply tried to erase his presence here. I guess some people are just like that. What can you do? freshacconcispeaktome 13:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Kurykh's view of courtesy here is very widely shared.DGG (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I get some help with User:AeturnalNarcosis concerning fair use of album covers?[edit]

AeturnalNarcosis (talk · contribs) is adding album covers with fair use rationales only for the album articles to the article about the band. When I repeatedly try to explain to him/her that that's not a valid use of fair use images, the user replies with incivility [27] and [28], for example. Corvus cornixtalk 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Along these same lines, I could use a hand at Ashley Alexandra Dupré‎, where Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) persists in inserting an album cover image into the article to illustrate the subject. ➪HiDrNick! 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but that's probably a slight mischaracterization, as the image is being used in an album infobox as album cover art, not to identify the article subject. Nesodak (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a picture of the article subject! ➪HiDrNick! 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And? It's not being used to identify the person, it's being used way, way down in the article to ID the album in an album infobox. Nesodak (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The conversation is taking place at IfD here, which is probably the most appropriate place for it. Nesodak (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Grawp harassing edit at Eridani Edict[edit]

Eridani Edict is non-notable {{honorverse}} thing and I removed a one-off redlink to an even less notable bit of fancruft and suddenly a vandal shows up and undoes my edit. I reverted and two IPs showed up to play an undo with a bit of vandalism followed by 2nd IP removing just the vandalism game. This is so Grawp. Seen it many times.

For the past week throw away accounts and IPs have been undoing many edits of mine to "Honorverse" stuff. I request review of all this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello upon reading this thread and looked at the article, he's just been at it again, reverted it though. [35]. AndreNatas (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we're live - this is ongoing. Thanks, and Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Grawp is currently attempting to remove this ANI thread with an ideal number of Ips, I think we should Sprotect this page. AndreNatas (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Perl (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So how about someone semi-protects Eridani Edict? This has not stopped. The diffs above are far from all of it; see the new section at the checkuser case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this still seems to be going on, I've semi-protected it for a week. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Tomorrow, I'll see which of the other honorverse articles I've edited today he moves onto when I pack-in for today (which is soon); this is the ongoing pattern. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to rain on your parade, Jack, but those look like the same style of edits as was used to post death threats to User:J Milburn last week. However, as Grawp targets (such as Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) and yourself) have also simultaneously had edit-links c&p'd to an off-site forum (I'm not saying which, and I will redact any mention of them) for mass-spamming of death threats, I believe that these users and Grawp are allied. These IPs aren't Grawp - Alison ferreted out his IP range in the original Grawp CU case (it's because of the harassment and disruption, and the IPs up top do not match (however, it should be noted that that range's block expired). At best, these are proxies for him. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 23:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

single purpose account - edit warring[edit]

user cormhamster seems to have a single purpose account - the account has only been used to edit 2 articles, both closely related to eachother.

Since March 20th this user has made the same revert six times on the same article, despite the revert removing a information from a reliable source and consensus clearly being against him.

When I mentioned that he had perhaps made too many reverts, the user made it clear that he planned to push the rules as much as he was able to do.

I think you have made too many reverts within the last 2 or 3 days. 3 reverts is not a right, perhaps it might be best for you to leave the article alone for a while. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will operate within the rules of the site. Nothing more, nothing less. CormHamster (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this user is a sockpuppet or not, I dont think there is enough evidence for a checkuser, however single purpose account, multiple reverts, a desire to push 3RR as far as possible and a blatant disregard of consensus, is really not acceptable. I was handed a 12 hour block for my reverts on that article - even though I didnt exceed the 3 reverts limit, and I am trying very hard to not enter into another edit-war, users like this who offer nothing other than reverts have no place in wikipedia, and offer nothing apart from tiresome ANI reports and users like myself trying to keep an article decent, while remaining within the rules and the spirit of the rules.

Oh and excuse the crappy formatting and links, I am rather lame when it comes to wikipedia coding. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Warned about gaming 3RRDGG (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi there. I don't know if I'm posting at the right place, however, I must make a concern that I cannot tolerate User:Nmate's actions any more. I believe he's inserting POV into articles, sometimes in sublime English, and turns a deaf ear to advice/warnings, and erases them. This has been going on for a few weeks now, and I don't know what to do. Can anyone take a look at this and do something about this? MarkBA what's up?/my mess 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs of the problem edits. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Although older, but IMHO still relevant: [36], then various at History of Bratislava (most recent, but there are some older as well), example of removing warnings, and also edits at Košice, Prešov, and more. Though not all necessarily fall into category of problem edits, I think this is enough to be noticed. Because he is now defended by his "friend", it's more complicated to tell him something. Personally, I have enough of his edits and behaviour. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: He also written wrote this personal attack while ago: Quoting:
Dear MarkBA!
why you are not on the Marián Kotleba's seminar than ''otec'' Tankréd ?
For your information, Kotleba is (or was) leader of Slovenská pospolitosť, now a banned Slovak neo-Nazi political party (now it is an association). I think this is a serious personal attack, IMHO indirectly accusing me of Nazism and something needs to be done. He also wrote some similar "jokes" like this one and I find this intolerable. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Update No. 2: I find the comment just under me very characteristic. False accusations, unprovoked personal attacks, etc. Also left another of his "jokes" at my talk, which I've already removed. I believe something needs to be done quickly before this one escalates. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I would like to protest against MarkBA's fabricated complains. All his activity is opponent with the wikipedia's mentality. He thinks that he has more right to edit wikipedia's contents than anyone else as he censors the Slovakian articles all day.He's able to modify each article every day and writes false things into it, in which he belives and this way controls my rights to edit. I have never said that he is a Nazy as he claims, I just wanted to say that his modifications are in harmony with Slovakian extreme right mentality. These aspects are injurious and unfair for Hungarians.Please ignore his complains in the future.Nmate (talkcontribs)

The right one speaks... The fact you didn't answer my objections is to be omitted? Again, few personal attacks in one comment, trying to prove otherwise. You're just trying to divert attention. Please ignore this comment. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 22:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You can see he is a unrealible man. Nmate (talkcontribs)

Please stop using unjustified personal attacks. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Both of you, knock it off. There's nothing we can do about nationalist conflicts in the outside world, but can and do prohibit you from bringing them into Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me? Nothing was said about nationalism... My main concern lies elsewhere, as explained above. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that your talk page history is there for all to see, and some of us admins do our homework before commenting on a dispute. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There were instances of incendiary communication that cannot be reduced to the fact that the contributor has introduced confusion to several articles in the English Wikipedia by posting a foreign language text to a string translator and copying the sometimes little comprehensible output to the English Wikipedia:

— 2/17/2008: "There is a Hungarian joke that whole Slovakia's only history is possible to send in a short mobile phone's text messsage. All the best from mad'arsko. Nmate" [37]
— 3/1/2008: " the important historical events should be there and so Slovak historical event is not exist before the 20th century.All the best Nmate" [38]
— 3/3/2008: "I heard about Frantisek Knapik appointed Juro Janosik for mayor of Slovak army after He death for 300 years.Congratulations!Do you think that from your Slovak sources it is possible to write serious articles? Because you can write English well it is not enough there. 'Cheers' DovideniaNmate" [39]

I commend you, Raymond Arritt, for taking note so soon after it was brought to this page by both parties involved and considering steps to resolve both the recurrent damage to the English Wikipedia and incendiary communication. ilmari (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Despite repeated requests, Starfire777 (talk · contribs) has been on a crusade against "Darwinism"[40] [41] and engaged in edit warring[42][43][44], then after a 3RR warning[45] continued.[46][47] I've given Starfire777 a 24 hour block for edit warring, note that I made one of the reversions.[48] Please review this block. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse by a non-admin. User clearly has an agenda, but doing my best to AGF, the block is warranted by simple repeated violation of policy. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Also clearly a returning user, from the use of the term weasel wording in the summary of his very first edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Laettner semi protect s.v.p[edit]

can someone semi protect Christian Laettner for a month ? or block user ? Cheers. Mion (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically 00:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
History of that user shows it is going on from januari, so 1 day is not helping, Mion (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User: single purpose account

  • 20:41, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→1992 East regional final game)
  • 00:21, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)
  • 03:22, 21 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→1992 East regional final game)
  • 17:32, 12 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)
  • 04:12, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:‎ (Undid revision 187397752 by Anabus maximus (talk))
  • 02:05, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:‎ (→Your recent edits)
  • 01:46, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (Undid revision 187123594 by Duke53 (talk))
  • 20:46, 26 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (Undid revision 186971386 by Duke53 (talk))
  • 05:13, 17 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)
I suggest the middle, two weeks ? Mion (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. If that doesn't stop them, a much longer block is possible - this appears to be a static IP address. Is anyone else involved in the vandalism? If not, there is no need for protection. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I see User: is also being used, but hasn't been in over a month. If they go back to using that address, it can be blocked too. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More anon harassment and vandalism[edit]

In what appears to be a continuation of an issue brought forth above ([49]), (talk · contribs) has been continuing to vandalize parts of my userpage ([50]) and maliciously edit my comments on AfDs ([51]). For the reasons I gave in the discussion above, I believe this anon has some connection with Fredrick day (talk · contribs), even if he is not FD himself; at the very least, it's quite clear that it is someone who has been involved in the OM mess. I'm getting sick and tired of this. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You could take it to AIV, but it'd be a whack-a-mole situation; this person is using a dynamic IP - see also Special:Contributions/ It's a PlusNet account from the UK, which spans; not really a blockable range, I'd say. Black Kite 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, we unfortunately can't block the whole range very easily at all, and even if we could, we wouldn't since we'd be blocking half of England in the process. If you believe there is a connection to Frederick day, you might want to try requesting a checkuser - if things come up positive, we can hardblock that account. Sorry we can't do that much, but as Black Kite pointed out, he'd just pop up somewhere else if we tried blocking him. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs)[edit]

Not sure quite what is the best procedure. The editor has made numerous edits this month, it looks like a pattern of adding random names and phrases to random articles. The only one I know for a fact is incorrect is the edit to Portland Trail Blazers, but the others look like somebody playing around randomly, rather than making substantive and informed additions. Editor has been warned four times, but more edits than that are problematic. Not sure if a block is the appropriate remedy at this point, or something else. -Pete (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP vandalizes again, go ahead and give them a {{uw-longterm}} warning, then report to WP:AIV if it continues. Since it's an IP, we have to be a little more careful about the blocking. They appear to have stopped for the night anyway (or day, rather - IP is coming from Australia). Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the specific reply. There was one more, so I issued the longerm warning as you suggest. I will try to check back tomorrow. -Pete (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo Mbstpo, yet again[<