Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive397

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

Noticeboard archives

Ernst & Young[edit]

For several days now someone has been consistently adding and re-adding the same defamatory remarks about Akio Takisaki, Managing Partner of Ernst & Young in Japan on the Ernst & Young article. I do not work for Ernst & Young and have no axe to grind but per WP:SOAP wikipedia should not be a soapbox Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week. That stuff was defamatory about a living person so falls under WP:BLP as far as I'm concerned. You should list these at WP:RFPP in future. Woody (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing COI issue at WSEAS[edit]

Resolved: These people's understandable enthusiasm for their new venture has led to them creating articles which are unfortunately more promotional than anything else.

This was originally reported at WP:COIN#WSEAS on April 4th, but no administrators have taken up the issue as yet. The COI contributors involved have chosen not to participate in discussion on the article's talk page or on their user pages. They continually restore the same version, purging all other changes (cleanup tags, referenced content, etc) to the version that they seem to insist on keeping. Can someone please take a look? I've reverted the changes, but even without the COI edits the article is a mess and requires considerable cleanup - that's assuming it even meets WP:N, which with a single source of its own site, I question. Much of their version of the article appears to be straight cut-and-paste from their website. To date, there appears to be four editor maintaining the version that's ported from their site: User:Prof.bose, User:Prof.juri, User:TKaczorek, and most recently User:CharlesLong - some of whom also share cross-over in creating and/or maintaining other articles which may also have WP:COI and WP:N issues such as North Atlantic University Union‎ and Nikos E. Mastorakis. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Update, I've reverted twice, and had the reverts undone by the same COI contributor (each of the users mentioned above have comparable names within the body of the COI version of the article) - so I'm stepping aside for someone else to look at this, rather than perform a 3RR myself. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a pretty good argument for G11 deleting the whole thing. CIreland (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like that was just done ... the WP:COIN issue was picked up shortly after I posted this and the article deleted. It always comes down to my poor timing ... --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.168.48.34[edit]

The user behind the IP address 198.168.48.34 has repeatedly vandalized the articles about Mario Dumont (by inserting a picture of the video game character Super Mario) and Baraka (by inserting a picture of Barrack Obama). The users has been warned several times for his/her behaviour (and has been temporarily blocked once) but has chosen to ignore them and continue vandalize these articles. J-C V (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple problems with this report.
  1. It belongs at WP:AIV.
  2. Its a university IP, which means other users share it.
  3. The vandalism is too sporadic.
  4. Blocks are preventive not punitive.
If the IP vandalizes within closer periods of time and violates a final warning during such periods, feel free to report it at WP:AIV next time.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We're sorry, Mario, but the Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

University System of Maryland IP vandals[edit]

Resolved

There seems to be a run of IP sockpuppets going through the University System of Maryland/Combnet IP range and as soon as one is blocked, he/she pops up with a new IP. It's now moved to taunting administrators who have blocked them. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and User_talk:Toddst1#Univ_of_Maryland_IP_troublemakers
Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, perhaps we should investigate a range block. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would there be any chance in giving one final warning to the next IP that pops up, along the lines of "we don't want to put a rangeblock on you, as it will harm others, but if we have to we will"? And how about an abuse report? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just left the "one final warning" here. I'll work on the abuse report. I'm sure there are others involved. Please help me complete the list of IPs involved if you know of any others (I assume there are). Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has vandalized my talkpage. Since I'm involved with this. May I help? Also, how are we going to stop this if these IPs will continue vandalizing (probably)? Block them for a long period of time?--RyRy5 Got something to say? 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) When you say "abuse report", do you mean reporting it to someone at the university? Is there an "official" or de facto accepted way to do that? I ask because I've been having some trouble with vandals using Boston University addresses. I dropped an e-mail to an address I got off of WHOIS, but never heard back. Just wondering if there's another channel to go through. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Abuse report Wikipedia:Abuse reports/136.160.x.x range created. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing official, just some volunteers at WP:ABUSE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty weird, I just recieved sort of a confession on my talk page about this User_talk:Toddst1#Coming_Clean Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If a rangeblock does take place, please use care to make sure it's an anon-only block unless absolutely necessary. (Going to UMBC, my IP is in a range very close and somewhat related to the one causing trouble) Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Per the coming clean, I do think we should give another chance. Those four IP's were all in 136.160.128.0/18 by the way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The user claims now to be User:VegitaU, a seemingly good vandal patroller. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism. I might expect a stunt like this from someone who hasn't been around the project that long, but not from someone who has been a registered user for three years. Recommend a block of at least three days. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll let someone else call that one. I'm a little annoyed right now. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
An attempt at ajusting clue level should be enough for now, with the warning that future disruptive behaviour may result in blocks, if he's not cutting it out. I don't have the idea that he will be continueing disruption on short notice, so a block now would be punitive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If they don't log in as that account, I don't see why we should care who they say they are. :) EVula // talk // // 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the latest contributions from VegitaU (talk · contribs). He/she has apologized for the vandalism spree, so I'd say that pretty well settles it as far as identity. --B (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the second incident in two days I've uncovered where well established wikipedians have gone underground and become rather distructive trolls. The first is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Paul20070 and now this. It really does consume a tremendous amount of an admin's time to track these clowns down. I really think there should be a policy with consequences for this. In the other one, User: Paul20070 claims to have retired. How does one go about proposing such a policy? Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is probably not a good thing to have a policy on for WP:BEANS reasons. I think it falls into the category of just use your best judgment. Whether you feel a block is warranted or not, I don't think anyone will object. --B (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like he's gone back to constructive editing. As mentioned above, a block now would be punitive, but maybe a new policy would be a good idea. Useight (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 5 seconds, so that this stunt was recorded in logs should he/she ever apply for RFA or other duties. Unblocked already. Toddst1 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Recording_in_the_block_log. -- Naerii 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block - The policy Naerii linked was to discourage noting every little thing, but this action done in lieu of a lengthy block, seems reasonable. --B (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with your interpretation at all. It it not subjective. It says Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings. It was a bad block. the_undertow talk 02:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Then pretend that Toddst1 blocked the user for 24 hours (justified under the circumstances) then, after an {{unblock}} request, commuted it to time served. Either way, the result is the same. --B (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that argument. It's called 'the ends justify the means.' 24 hours = good block. Blocking "so that this stunt was recorded in logs should he/she ever apply for RFA" is against policy. I'm not into pretending, by the way, and I don't care for the suggestion. the_undertow talk 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
To close, I would like to reiterate my apologies for this incident and any offense I may have caused. If someone could definitively close the abuse report so that no IP addresses are blocked, everything should be taken care of. Sorry once again. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a note to the Abuse report requesting it be withdrawn. A sincere "thank you" to all who helped guide me through this. Toddst1 (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what WP:BLOCK says, it was probably a good idea to note this in the block log. SQLQuery me! 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So should we consider this issue "resolved" then? Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. The issue, which was the vandalism, has been resolved. The issue of the block can be further discussed at another venue, should anyone wish to pursue it. the_undertow talk 06:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And another death threat[edit]

Resolved

[1]. Corvus cornixtalk 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a threat. We are all going to die anyway, but this IP feels that there would be more satisfaction if the death were of a painful nature. Blocked - 1 week. the_undertow talk 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
His only edit is his rather distasteful post. Perhaps he's a user hiding behind an anonymous edit? – ClockworkSoul 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like JuJube's Talk page is full of threats and personal attacks from IPs. Corvus cornixtalk 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was semi-protected. By the way, death threats should be taken more seriously than regular vandalism. I think more is required for that IP. Either a 4im or an immediate block. Enigma message Review 03:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
But this was really not a death threat. Tiptoety talk 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you're right. Still worse than your run-of-the-mill vandal. Enigma message Review 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Today is the day to revisit the topic of non-admin rollback....[edit]

Ok, so as promised I have went ahead and started a conversation in regards to rollback as promised a few months ago when the previous conversation was closed. Lets try and keep this drama free, and civil. You can find it here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Its that time. (Posted on AN as well, do not want anyone to claim they did not hear about the discussion as happened previously). Tiptoety talk 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks[edit]

User:Stone put to sky has been blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[2][3]

Warned again one month ago for new attacks.[4]

Continues now with new attacks.

"Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs."[5]

"But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you"[6]

"You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it."[7]

Aho aho is a sockpuppet of Stone put to sky.[8].Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


I think that some strong words are needed to calm everything down. Maybe some informal admin mediation? But certainly the atmosphere is too bitter.
As for the request user result, what does "likely" mean for Wikipedia's purposes? Is it treated as the same as "confirmed", or what? Sky has already been blocked for sockpuppet use. If people believe he is doing it currently then that should be stopped, especially as it is not a declared sockpuppet account. Given the level of disagreements over the article in question using sockpuppets is even more dangerous than usual - assuming he is. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As a point of reference, of the four "likely" sockpuppets listed in the checkuser request, only User:Thecryptthing was indefinitely blocked - the others were not, however. I'm not sure why this is. John Smith's (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Thecryptthing was blocked after an earlier case, along with the others that were, in that case,  Confirmed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so that's why that account was blocked. But what happens with "likely" results? I think this is where I'm not clear on what should be done with these other accounts. It is suspicious that of the three not blocked, only Aho aho continued to post - the others stopped. John Smith's (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So can we get an administrative remedy here? A timed topic ban perhaps? Otherwise he will keep attacking these pages with socks. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine and Stone put to sky have been editing warring on the same controversial page for months. I agree with User:John Smith's, the only person, to my knowledge, who has not been personally involved with Stone put to sky that some "informal admin mediation" is appropriate.Trav (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Close, but it's really Ultramarine and SPTS's army of sock puppets, including two that were crated to disparage UM's user name, that have been edit warring. User:Stone put to sky should be blocked for violating policy and it will end two problems. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are they should both be blocked. The page has turned into a war ground for both of them, the few attempts I make to reach a middle ground with either are often met with repetitive arguments, such as Ultramarines continued insinuation that there is a double standard, even though everyone has told him otherwise, and Stone's continued need to battle him. Ultramarines passive aggressive behavior should be examined, and Stones harsh replies to it. While I myself have been annoyed with Ultra for his constant circular arguments, and appeals to random policies as it suits him, the goal is to maintain civility on such a hot button topic. Due to both, primarily Ultra, and it seems the new arrival of DHeyward, I have had to step back from the article.

The participants on it seem to feel they are in a war for the United States, taking each item in the article as personal attacks, renaming the article after not even participating on the talk page, and worst of all appearing here to ask one of the problem people have action taken against them and not the other. Unfortunately everyone's, including my own behavior, has been sub par, perhaps the article should be deleted to save Wikipedia, what appears to be, a handful of good editors.

Just to add it was eluded by Giovanni33 that John Smith and himself are suppose to be avoiding each other due to past admin action, yet John Smith appeared on the page a short while ago, of course arguing the point counter to Giovanni, this article has been turned into a battleground, I am starting to wonder if anyone is really arguing over the article content anymore, or if its a continued fight over past issues. --N4GMiraflores 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni is incorrect. There is no restriction on either of us avoiding pages that the other works on.
If a community sanction is to be placed on both Ultramarine and Sky then that may be appropriate. However, that does not address the issue of whether Sky has been abusing sockpuppets. There was a "likely" result that was not properly processed. I still would like clarification as to how the administration deals with "likely" results and a formal decision made as to whether any action will be taken over the report or not. If it is left idle that will cause more problems. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This article was a mess when I dropped out months ago and is still a mess. It's always been under attack by banned users and socks (socks of NuclearUmph and FAAFA were caught and banned there), when it's not under full prot. Certainly there has been bad behavior on all sides, but abusive socking is unacceptable and needs to be immediately addressed. The alternative is going to be ArbCom (which may in fact be the only entity capable of cleaning this up). - Merzbow (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Merzbow has a great suggestion, fully protect the article for a month to a couple of months. This has worked before. Everyone loses interest and goes their separate ways. Trav (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not exactly suggesting that as the best way forward, but it's a superior alternative if peace can't be had. But one of the reasons peace can't be had is due to socking. Why not this proposal: 1) Article is put on 1RR probation, 2) Anyone caught socking will be be subject to increasing bans, beginning with a week. To enforce this, we need an uninvolved admin to promise to pay attention to the article. This will save the community the time sink of an ArbCom case. Aside from that, I'm out of ideas. - Merzbow (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, SPTS has been virulently aggressive towards anyone attempting to change the article in question to one different from his own POV. As a further note, given the results of the checkuser on SPTS, N4GMiraflores is likely his meatpuppet at the very least. I'll cheerfully submit to a checkuser to prove I'm not Ultramarine's sockpuppet or whatever-- in fact, I invite it. I'm glad this thread has been made, because the repeated incivil behaviour displayed by SPTS is unacceptable.

Ultramarine has been making good faith efforts to clean up a very bad article, attempting to engage in talk page discussion, and creating sandboxes. SPTS (and his allies), on the other hand blanket revert virtually every edit he makes to the article, and accuse him of bad faith, disruptive editing, and vandalism. Frankly, I think Ultramarine has been remarkably restrained considering the torrent of abuse that has been and continues to be aimed in his direction. Any intimations that he is as large of a problem as SPTS are, quite simply, false. The problem is with SPTS and the other editors who have WP:OWN problems with the article in question and resist any and all efforts at cleanup. Jtrainor (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference between a "meat puppet" and a "sock puppet" are, however I already make it clear on my user page that I have an alternate account. It is one of the reasons I have walked away from this mess of personal issues, it has become too much of a distraction. It is difficult to look at that talk page and not realize you have stepped into a mine field of personal issues. Perfectly reasonable middle grounds are ignored, everyone has stake in the ground and refuses to move, everyone uses the talk page because they are required to, yet no one is interested in forming a consensus at all. Even this message requesting administrators assist the situation is split into a defense of one side, and an attack on the other. It is almost unbelievable that those who views are seen as defending the US position are all stating Ultramarine is not that bad, and all those seen as attacking the US, all see it as Stone is not that bad. Is no one concerned with the article itself? Do you think removing the alternate view is going to make the article any less of a mess that needs work? I think the best answer is to make the article disappear, that way all the editors can move on much like I did. N4GMiraflores is my alternate account, subsequently closed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A sockpuppet is an alternate account directly controlled by someone. A meatpuppet is someone you know in real-life who agrees to help you out when you get into disputes, etc. John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I think that distracts from the issues at hand. First of all final action needs to be taken over Sky's checkuser report and whether a sanction is required. Second Sky and Ultramarine's actions more generally. John Smith's (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, User:64.118.111.137 has shown up on the talk page and begun trolling. Given this thread and the user's contributions, I find the timing rather suspicious. Same user has also violated 3RR on the article itself in an attempt to remove tags. Jtrainor (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Four reverts (one over two edits), so yes, it's a 3RR violation. In less than an hour. I'm almost impressed. But if I read this right, the IP was not warned until the minute of the fourth, so I doubt anything will come of that.
However, I'd welcome a checkuser at this time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow, was I wrong! one more revert within the hour, and yet one more revert while I was writing this! Mr. IP wants a time out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
User:76.102.72.153 has now shown up as well. Fortunately an admin semi-protected the page. Giovanni33, however, has begun reverting the page to the version insisted on by the previously reported IP that was blocked for 3RR. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That is Giovanni33...see diff..[9] checkuser will likely show that Giovanni33 has repeatedly violated his 1RR restriction. I think a long term ban is long overdue on his account.--MONGO 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that proves it is Giovanni - could be a meatpuppet or another independent user. I have filed a report to clear matters up. As for the Sky matter, can we please get an admin to confirm:

  1. Whether any action is to be taken for recent activities as mentioned by Ultramarine.
  2. Whether any action is to be taken over the "likely" sockpuppet report, where some "puppets" were not blocked and at least one has continued to edit. John Smith's (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Probable sockpuppet[edit]

User:Rafaelsfingers was only registered at the end of last month and has jumped into the above article, State terrorism and the United States. It wouldn't surprising if he is a sockpuppet - could someone do a checkuser/file a report? I'm not quite sure what to do here. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we have to deal with sleepers... great. - Merzbow (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day threatening to stir up libel actions.[edit]

This user is blocked for vandalism and gross incivility. He's been evading the block by coming in with variant IP, sometimes just his local ISP block, likely, but also from various ISPs around the world. I was reverting his edits, as have some others. He then turned to some biographies of porn stars and removed unsourced material, claiming BLP violation. As he is a blocked editor, I reverted his edits, though in some cases I also posted to Talk, inviting any editor to review his edits, stating that I was not making any content decision in reverting him.

As he had, I am sure, planned, he reported this to WP:BLP,[10] where, as he has before, he stirred up a flap, with the first response being, from a number of users, that he had no right to edit articles. At this point I continued with my reverts. Then other editors arrived and protested at the return of BLP violating material to the articles (which is understandable). Then an admin unblocked one of the block-evading IP addresses,[11] though it was quite certain this was being used by the block evader. Because I was asked to stop the reversions where BLP might be involved, I have; however, this is background. The following is the occasion for this report:

User:Fredrick day (See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IP addresses and socks, the ID is not doubtful) wrote:

am I going to have to email those people to get some action taken? nobody is bothered that a unsourced claim about people having AIDS is being re-added to articles?[12]

so the answer is - I'll have to email each of those people individually and put out the audit trail that shows that I tried to remove libel from articles but it was felt best to add it back in.[13]

[edit inserted by Fredrick day]This of course misses out the context, that Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article. This is all in the history - ABD preferred to just keep reverting them back out. Even in a situation where it was indicated that the article stated without sources that a woman had infected others with HIV. What option was I left with but to get a bit shouty? I'd tried removing the BLP vios,abd reverted me, I'd tried to highlight the BLP vios on the BLP page, Abd reverted me --87.112.67.187 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what I was doing was being explained, and legitimate users were being invited to undo my reversions if the edits were legitimate, my actions weren't based on content, it is as if I were a bot capable of identifying that an edit was made by a blocked user, but not capable of reviewing the content, so no content decision was made through them, and yet attention was called to them, ultimately through BLP, and, indeed, some users did revert some of my reverts, which was quite proper, all I was doing was placing, effectively, Fd's contributions in a kind of "submitted status," instead of allowing him to unilaterally edit articles, given that he is blocked and massively evading it. As I mentioned, I've stopped doing this in the same way, but the above shows that the blocked user is not acting for the welfare of the project, but to force his own agenda. More aggressive measures may be warranted, and, at least, his IP should be blocked on sight.

--Abd (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It does sound as though the blocked editor might be playing games with us. But I don't see the logic of you reverting his edits to biographical articles without checking the content. I think WP:BLP should take precedence over the more subtle issues you have mentioned. Nobody should act like a bot where biographical articles are concerned. Measures to prevent User:Fredrick day from editing biographical articles might be considered, but mechanical reverting should not in my opinion be one of the ways. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I've seen this game before. Banned user edits in such a way that when we revert him we do something worse, which of course is what he wants. It's a particularly refined form of malice. My recommendation is to just check each edit. Dynamic IP -- you probably wouldn't even have to bother to block unless he starts disrupting something, or vandalising again. Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If he isn't banned, then you shouldn't be reverting all of his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, does anyone actually think that he shouldn't be? -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that if he hasn't been banned by the community or an administrator, then his edits should not be undone wholesale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just stop reverting edits that violate BLP. -- Naerii 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking is also seeming a little pointless as he appears to have a limitless amount of IPs. The best thing to do is revert, block, ignore (i.e. deny recognition) with the caveat in this case that you don't restore BLP violations. I know it's tempting to revert him as he is intensely obnoxious but by doing so you're playing right into his hands. -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't bother with the biography changes, but I did revert his edits to the BLP board. They at least were clearly intended to be disruptive and attention-seeking, and I thought that revert, block, ignore was the appropriate action in that case. I was a little hurt that one user said I was wrong to do it, and another admin unblocked one of the ips that I blocked without even contacting me, and if I was wrong to revert and block in that situation, I'd like to know so I don't do it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe in this case ignore, ignore, ignore would be better. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a relatively experienced user very deliberately trying to get editors to fight with each other. He is block-evading, using various techniques, openly defiant about it, very aware that he can manage to edit even with quite a bit of effort made here to prevent him, though more could be done (IP block his home range, for example. The damage from a range block would be small compared to the damage he is regularly inflicting, and the message from an IP block gives ways to get around it, not difficult. There are not many edits from his IP block. He still has other ways to post, but they are, I'm sure, more cumbersome. He can make lots of them for a short time, but keeping it up would be another matter.)
I still believe that the simplest solution would be to bot-assisted revert all his edits, once he is clearly identified, *then* review them manually and bring in what is legitimate. This converts his edits into what I've called "submissions." Just as if we had moderated submissions. Which ain't a bad idea, all by itself.
This user regularly lies about what has happened. He knows that many readers won't bother to check, or that a superficial check may make it look correct. See above, where he claimed that "Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article." No, I did not revert out appeals to the BLP board unless nobody had responded to them yet, the original and long appeal was left in. Besides, editors concerned with this stuff use watchlists, you can't keep edits out of vision by reverting it. I invited users to check my reverts and bring back in anything legitimate, since I knew that some of it was almost certainly legitimate. Now, what he wrote above is totally unreliable, he knew what he was doing, he set it all up so as to be able to make claims that would seem legitimate on the surface. Hence edit summaries can't be relied upon. If he can, he will use copyvio and BLP claims to justify many of his actions, as a cover. He's a deletionist, so all he has to do is claim a violation (copyvio is handy, just claim that something is improperly quoted and it can take some work to determine if that is true). The real situation here is that this is an editor who has had some success setting up wiki-riots. That he can succeed in this is something that we should notice. It's about us, not about him. He plays on all the suspicions that, it seems, many of us hold about each other. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are to believe he's trying to prove a WP:POINT that "ban-evading users can be helpful" and/or "it's easy to bait reverters into looking very stupid", but that he's skipped the low-lying fruit in favor of less trivial (and harder to find) issues which could, potentially, spare us from legal problems... something doesn't add up. So I have to ask, is it possible that at least some of the copyright and "BLP" violations were in fact planted by him beforehand (using whatever another account or IP)? — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history of Sarah Harding, one of the articles he complained about, and none of the bad edits came from ranges he's known to have used. If someone reminds me what the other articles were I'll look through them too. I wouldn't put it past him, especially considering the vast amount of ranges he seems to have access to, but it'd be difficult to prove. -- Naerii 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd never add BLP to an article because I'm aware that I would be legally liable for that edit, if the living figure came knocking. I'd removing it from articles that are in disputed categories and so on. Abd idea of a bot revert of edits of banned users is unworkable because it would make the bot owner legally responsible for adding libel to article (remember the foundation position is that you are all responsible for your own edits and actions, they would not help you). Regardless of whatever made-up rules Wikipedia has, the law is clear, if you add or repeat libel, then you are responsible as if you had created the libel. Saying "well it is our wikipedia policy that we revert banned users" would not cover you in a court of law. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So (can I call you Freddy?) is your goal here to prove that certain policies do not co-exist well and that common sense should ultimately prevail, or that one particular policy ought to be changed, or that you should be re-instated as some sort of "user in good standing", or that User:Abd puts his antipathy toward you ahead of the project's best interests, or are you acting only out of genuine concern for the article subjects, or do you just enjoy watching other users' heads explode? — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm too far gone to be re-instated as a user in good standing so that's not worth discussing. However, the most recent wikidrama we've seen here was kicked off two nights ago when I tried to remove BLP from a single article (a line in the Seal article about him working for prostitutes) - I was reverted and then when I headed over to BLP to bring it to people's attention, I was reverted there and the libel reinserted. I was a bit surprised at this, surely people were checking out if libel was occuring (and I was leaving detailed edit summaries of what I was removing)? So I'll be upfront, the following night (last night), I'd had a look at the porno categorizes and started to remove libel from there, At that point, I'll admit, I was interested to see how far people would go in their zeal to "punish" me. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the answer, people desire to play toughguy override their common sense about BLP - even when the edit summary clearly explained what the libel was. So yes in a sense, I guess I was testing policy - regardless of my status, is it really a bad thing that 2 things have been highlighted 1) that regardless of status, anyone bringing BLP violations to the BLP board should have those claims examined, not just reverted and that 2) regardless of status, that edits that seem to remove BLP violations should not just be reverted without consideration of what is being reverted back in. What I find most staggering is the claim that they should just all be reverted "because it's a lot of hard work to find sources"! that's is a shameful attitude for an ecyclopedia to take in regards to it's duty to Living figures. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to what CharlotteWebb says, there is no example of "certain policies do not co-exist well". Even when dealing with banned editors, WP:BAN is clear on this - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". There is no policy that says that BLP violations are added back regardless of who removed them, and anyone doing so should be jumped on from a great height in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Asking somebody if they are trying to prove X does not mean I believe X is true, or that I even hold any opinion on X. I went on a limb to list several possibilities regarding Fredrick's actual views and motives. I was hoping a compromise of sorts could be worked out here, though I still have some doubt. — CharlotteWebb 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no sign of any effort to "jump from a great height" on those who inserted these allegedly violating claims (more accurately, they have been unsourced claims, low-lying fruit, when I investigated one it seemed pretty solid), but rather an attempt by Fd to get everyone else to jump on me, and on other users similarly aware of his shenanigans, based on some alleged disagreement about BLP policy, being deliberately set up by a blocked user who knows exactly what he is doing and how to get editors worked up, which he has done before (it's part of what he was blocked for in the first place). I'm finding certain aspects of BLP policy "not coexisting well" with BAN policy, on what may be deeper consideration than what is currently reflected on the policy pages. To really pursue this would probably involve consultation with Foundation legal advisors. Better procedures are needed. I have no intention to push the edges of BLP policy, it's important, and I don't blame other editors for being concerned. But be careful. This guy is lying about what happened, so don't jump to conclusions based on his reports. Know, as well, that he will report something that he knows could appear improper from a superficial examination, that is how he worked before. And, from what has been happening, it still works.
My possibly improper reverts are very easy to find, just look at Special:Contributions/Abd, all of them have clear edit summaries that are about the blocked user, not about the content, and are preceded by the edits allegedly fixing copyvio or BLP problems -- or other alleged problems. I have in some cases specifically invited other editors to look at the situation, and whenever another legitimate editor has intervened, I have taken my hands off that article. It's then up to that editor. Given that this information was already up, generally for a long time, my reverting it back in increases the risk to WMF, if at all, very, very little. Fd has claimed that I'm taking upon myself personal liability for what I do. Yes, I know that this could, under some extreme situations, be true. And that's my business, not anyone else's. Frankly, though, I take on more risk just driving down the street or owning a house. Much more.--Abd (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Don't be confused by the barrage of smoke set up by Fredrick day. There were a series of reverts which I did to the edits of a blocked user, and some of these reverts may have been inappropriate, they explicitly did not (much) consider content. Some were definitely appropriate, some, probably not, and Fd was deliberately setting this up so that a bad revert would be likely. Then, today, I made *one* edit to *one* of the articles where someone else, not me, had reverted Fd and Fd had again reverted back. What I did in my revert was *only* to restore the material and supply source, the fact involved is widely reported, and is actually in the article on the living person in question, Darren James, as well. I have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source, though I did check it, and what Fd has discovered may indeed be that there is a veritable hive of improperly sourced material in the articles on porn stars, but I see no sign whatever that the claim involved is controversial (though there is some question about the direction of infection; nevertheless, the original source I found, which, on the face, seems reliable, was old, 2004. The risk to Wikipedia of this material being up is minute. Nevertheless, even though Fd has again reverted it out, that is also harmless, our readers will not suffer for not being informed of something they could find in a few seconds with Google, and so I am not touching this article again. Besides, researching this, I get exposed to lots of material I'd rather not see. The question I have is, can we rely upon a known vandal and troll (one who seriously tries to get Wikipedia editors fighting with each other) to police these articles? One place I agree with him. If he edits an article, the edit should be examined carefully. Now, who is going to do it? And if one person does it, how do we know, so that many people don't duplicate the labor? I had a suggestion. Someone who knows he is a dangerous, blocked editor, who would not hesitate, I suspect, to actually carry out the threat to incite a libel action against Wikipedia, should immediately revert him on sight, and then other editors, more familiar with BLP policy and the general subject area, can look at the edits and quickly and easily restore them if they are useful. In this way, there is no duplication of effort, and the only harm is transient. This material was up for a long time, months at least, and being up a few more minutes isn't going to kill us. But that's my opinion, I'm certainly not going to force it on the community.--Abd (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

should immediately revert him - what part of don't reinsert material flagged as unsourced on BLPs don't you understand. It's irrelevant that people can find it on google, it's irrelevent, how long it's been there, it's even irrelevant that it might be true, because we are not interested in truth but verifiability from reliable sources. Your advice is very dangerous for a number of reasons - the main one, is that any editor who reverts the material back in will then be responsible (in the eyes of the law) if it actually was libel being added in. Be very very clear about this, as mentioned upthread, if someone comes knocking with a lawsuit, the foundation will hand over you IP and other identifying details about you. why? because YOU are responsible for the edits you make, not wikipedia, not the foundation. The correct way to deal with this is NOT Revert>>>check, it is check>>>>add in material that can be sourced. Abd should be asked to either a) stop repeating this advice on multiple boards and threads or b) be forced to add a disclaimer about the position of the editor who makes the revert. He is advocating reinserting BLP violation as a matter of course - regardless of my status, this would have massive ramifications and needs to stamped on immediately. --87.112.233.6 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not advice, it was a suggestion, clearly, not to be implemented unless the community agrees. First of all, I'm not an anonymous editor. My real name is on my User page. And I'm not making reverts that risk BLP violations; I certainly may have done that, there was a fuss, and I'm not doing it again. I made one edit today that I do not consider a risk at all. Fd, who apparently can now edit with impunity, reverted it, and I don't care.--Abd (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty, anyone?[edit]

Interestingly, Fd notes that he's too far gone to be unbanned at this point. But, he is arguably more disruptive and difficult to track when editing from all these IPs. I would rather see him edit from one account, so that his history can be more readily scrutinized. That would also facilitate his investing time in making some more constructive contributions, since he would not have to fear their reversion. Might we not extend amnesty, and allow him to edit under an account, in exchange for an agreement to follow Wikipedia rules? (And indeed, might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation?) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Say, aren't you a banned user who should be immediately blocked? Equazcion /C 18:56, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation? He means himself - this editor is the blocked user Sarsaparilla --87.112.233.6 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been claimed by 87.112.x.x (which is certainly Fredrick day, I think it is also 87.113, 87.114, and 87.115, plus varios singlets of random ISPs around the world). Yes, there is reasonable suspicion that SLN is Sarsaparilla, and not surprising that Equazcion, a nemesis of Sarsaparilla, would notice it. There is a pending checkuser request to test this, I've commented there, confirming that the suspicion is reasonable. The suggestion is nevertheless worth consideration. And is likewise problematic. A great deal depends on details.--Abd (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Whatever, unbanning somebody because they go out of their way to prove that the ban was sound by vandalising and disrupting the project is probably not the smartest thing we could do. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with JzG. banning is banning. we unban to let folks actually contribute, not to control thier disruption. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne[edit]

Resolved: Substantive matters being dealt with in another place

Kbthompson (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way ... what do you expect this notice board to do? Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My first and most important request is that Arcayne be directed to support his specific allegation ("Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks") underpinning his formal effort to ban me, failing that it should be immediately withdrawn and if it proves to be as utterly baseless as I allege there should be a sanction. I would also request that Arcayne be directed to not accuse me of Sock-puppetry and to not follow me around threatening me or changing my talk page edits and include a time-out on reverting my article edits.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd direct you to the notice board header - particularly What these pages are not - you should find the right forum at Are you in the right place?. This page is NOT part of the dispute resolution process - and so can take none of the remedies you seek. The WP:Wikiquette alerts issue against User:Arcane was already dealt with there, and any further bite of that particular cherry is likely to be resolved as the last one was. The Sockpuppet matter is ongoing - and if you are, as you claim, unrelated to the other AnonIPs, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only other resolution I can entertain is semi-protecting the articles that are in contention - this would obviously disadvantage yourself more than User:Arcayne, so not something I shall do unless I feel the situation warrants it (other admins' mileage may vary). Be assured they'll be a lot of eyes on this, so I would respectfully advise all parties to keep it cool. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have claimed all the IP's. I even used a specific identifier to remove all doubt, I used the symbol before Arcayne entered the discussion. Here is a quote from Arcayne himself noting my identifier:
Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. Arcayne

The symbol was affixed because of the rapid nature of the discussion. It was lost on nobody - as Arcayne himself so pointedly notes. There were no incidents whatsoever from those IP's of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".

There is really no substance, nothing at all. It never happened. Arcayne has made it up an effort to ban me - The only thing that exists is a static IP address. There is no pretense whatsoever that there is more than one user using those IP's at all.75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

... and as I said, this is not the forum for resolution of such matters. The process is evidential and an admin will review that matter in that forum. Bringing up the matter in multiple forums is 'forum shopping' and strongly discouraged. Kbthompson (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never previously initiated an action against Arcayne. What is the correct forum for this kind of abusive bullying, stalking, reverting, etc?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the response Arcayne received to the action he initiated against me in the other Forum:

Clerk note: Since the IP does not deny being the same person on a dynamic range, I'm not sure what Checkuser can do to help :). -- lucasbfr talk 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which forum addresses abusive use of Wikipedia forums to harass and harm? Which forum considers McCarthy like baseless user charges? Is there no limit to a members ability to completely fabricate formal charges without even a single example of the charge?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must you consider dragging this issue through the mud? You've already been told to take it to dispute resolution. This thread has been marked as resolved, and I see no further reason that it needs to continue here (or at WQA). You've been forum shopping, and by the looks of your recent edits, perhaps a bit too obsessed with the case in itself. seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has filed a formal charge against me without a single piece of evidence, not one diff. I have NEVER initiated a single action against this individual at any other Forum. There is NO forum shopping. I guess I just believed in the core Wiki philosophy "The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. ".

Arcayne has used the formal levers of Wikipedia power in an effort to ban me - I've asked for nothing more than a single shred of evidence. I apologize if I am out of place, or that my honest, civil and supported defense is now "obsessive". No links, no diffs=Good/Citations, Reliable Source=Bad? 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If I were the AnonIP, I would take a day off from wiki, or have a cup of coffee, and just calm down. It has been pointed out (ad nauseam) that you both need to pursue some form of dispute resolution; and there will be a forum there where you can have someone help untangle this mess. This is just becoming disruptive, and I feel, not helpful to you. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see: you complained about Arcayne, absolved; it now appears that his sockpuppet counter claims are resolved. The process is evidential, and has been followed in those places. This is not the correct place to consider these matters and a recommendation has been made that allows you to resolve your disputes within the system. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


You sent me here first:

My personal opinion is that it is a storm in a teacup and the two parties should go there to sort out their differences, rather than forum shopping for a resolution in their own favour. Kbthompson (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that I go to WP:DR? I looked at your second link and it is a resource for resolving disputes about content. I have explicitly stated that this is not a content dispute - nothing that I have written has even the hint of a content dispute. I shall do as I am directed though and post this dispute in DR.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a partial quotation. At wikiquette, the admin closing the case against Arcayne suggested dispute resolution. I reiterated that advice, I went on to describe the matter as a 'storm in a teacup'. You have consistently been directed to dispute resolution, this forum is unable to provide any of the remedies you seek (see above).
I have communicated with Arcayne and asked s/he to treat you with respect and civility and make a genuine attempt to settle your differences. Basically wikipedia is about trying to create quality content for an encyclopaedia, and NOT about managing the relationship between you. In the previous thread to this one, User:Stifle provides some good advice to two editors in a similar dispute, and that is if they can't get on, to avoid each other.
I closed this off as resolved because when I concentrated the previously unstructured debate on the outcomes you were seeking from this forum, they were identified as not being appropriate for this forum. It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette. I still feel that to pursue sanctions when the issues appear to have been dealt with is fruitless and disruptive. I would urge both of you to concentrate on the content of articles and to assume good faith on the part of the other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear, the issue is now about communications and relationships and Kbthompson offers sage advice. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
"It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette."

Responding directly to the quoted matter above, the formal charges he brought against me were done without ANY evidence. This is unacceptable. He had no more basis to accuse me of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks". than I do of you.

What is the Wiki standard of evidence required to bring formal charges? Society always punishes those who make false accusations in official forums(Not a single citation was ever presented.). This is not a one-off, Arcayne has brought charges against numerous editors and multiple administrators[47] and on a near daily basis posts threats of formal charges and sanctions against various individual editors. What is the policy?

(Note: I did not initiate any action at Wikiquette - this is not a quid pro quo matter.)75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As said before, your options can be found under WP:DR. You may not have read that policy in full as you appear to have followed advice from its top sections. DR applies to content disputes as well as behavioral disputes. Since you have complaints about the behavior of Arcayne, your options are e.g.: talk page discussion, mediation, RfC/U. I would say it isn't worth it though. Simply keep your interactions with Arcayne to a minimum and on-topic and don't overreact to accusations you know to be incorrect. If you need the advice of an experienced editor, you may want to register a user name and put a {{helpme}} or {{adoptme}} tag on your talk page. Avb 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did miss the comments in WP:DR that addressed non-content issues. A final question then, Is there a Wiki standard for supporting formal charges and accusations with a citation or evidence?75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the forum (examples: WP:RfC and WP:RfAr require such formal evidence). However, accusations that are not supported by diffs or other links to problematic edits are generally not taken seriously and editors who keep accusing others without merit don't have a good reputation. Other things that come to mind are a WP:guideline called Don't bite the newcomers and an essay called No angry mastodons. Also worth noting is the principle that admin tools and especially WP:BLOCKs are not to be used as punishment. If I find the time I'll post a couple of pointers on your talk page. My advice re Arcayne remains: let it go. Avb 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Social network aggregation[edit]

Igorberger keeps removing my valid AFD nomination of Social network aggregation. Angrysusan (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be confused between the templates from his edit summary that you are marking it with a CSD tag, I'll drop him a line just to let him know. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
He keeps calling me a vandal and erasing my messages pleading with him to actually read the tempaltes he is removing. Angrysusan (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[48] and now calling me a troll and claiming I put 10 CSDs on the article. I never once put a CSD on there, and was just trying to get him to listen on his talk page, but he keep deleting. What's up with this guy? Angrysusan (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think if you search the archives here you will find his name has come up before in the last month or so. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref the user who posted this, anyone know the likely main account of that user? It's an obvious sockpuppet, and the AfD as edit one suggests a problem. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr. Wheely Guy[edit]

Resolved: ON WHEELS!!!!!

This user page - acceptable or not? Saw it while checking the usages of some commons images of dubious value. First time I've put anything here, I think, so if this is the wrong place, feel free to tell me to take it elsewhere. Brilliantine (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, while WP:USERPAGE gives users a whole lot of control over their userpage, wikipedia is not a porn site and I really see no way that this is constructive what so ever. Have you tried asking the user to remove it? Tiptoety talk 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalised as instructed to.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How could I resist? I moved it to User:Mr. Wheely Guy ON WHEELS!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem the original user added it himself but a rather perverted vandal instead.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know- mr wheely just put "you are all free to vandalise, ' and a User:Morecomes added the porn, someone else the cow. Looks a bit chan-ish, but might just be genuine wiki-ers having a laugh. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Do not think there is anything that says they can not request users to vanalize their page, and honestly I know a bunch of other users who have pages just like that. Tiptoety talk 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - User:UBX/hornysonofabitch, User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n, User:Cyde/Weird pictures are a few examples. They should all be MFD'd and deleted, but too many people enjoy Wikipedia providing them with GFDL porn galleries. Neıl 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all in the censoring wikipedia camp, but maybe there should be some kind of guideline on this. Or maybe not. Are all or any of them on the bad image list? Might be a good idea to place the there if not. Brilliantine (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue here is more about user inviting others to vandalize their userpage. Tiptoety talk 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's all about the wording... I mean, the line between good faith edits and vandalism is blurred at the best of times, and even Jimbo encourages others to edit his page, just in slightly more guarded terms. There is precedent for images such as this to be placed on the bad image list in any case, to avoid their placement where their presence would be likely to be unwelcome. In any case, the bad image list is in need of an overhaul in general, containing as it does a large number of deleted images. Brilliantine (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I took him up on the offer also. KnightLago (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandals taking time on my page will take time away from them vandalizing real articles. So everyone is free to screw around with my user page all they want. And of course if you don't like what someone (such as that porn guy) puts on my page then anyone is free to revert it. Mr. Wheely Guy (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Resolved? Tiptoety talk 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Neıl 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threat[edit]

Resolved: Resolvedresolvedresolvedresolved. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See Appleappleappleapple (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Corvus cornixtalk 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blockedblockedblockedblocked. Thatcher 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:DrHeLpErZx[edit]

Resolved

Continually deletes the AfD tag from the article he wrote about himself: DrHeLpErZx. This is despite being warned by another editor on user talk page: [49]. Can we get him blocked for a while, at least while the AfD has a chance to run through? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That revision was not the proper warning to place. I replaced it with the L2 AfD tag removal warning, and gave an explanation why other editors frown on such actions. DarkAudit (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD snow-closed, placed on watchlist; will salt if recreated. Black Kite 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/130.113.111.210[edit]

Resolved

User:130.113.111.210 persistently adds unverifiable information on Peter J George article in which the nickname "Ruddiger" is added. It is explained to this user many times that sources have to be verified online to be valid but ignores it and just insists it can be found in the 2003 academic calendar which is only available in paperback form. 218.102.179.31 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What gave you the idea "that sources have to be verified online to be valid"? It's not true; never has been. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, what is this "academic calendar" and is it a reliable source? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
An academic calendar, in Canada (not sure about elsewhere, but I presume not in the States, since you're unfamiliar with it) is an annual university publication that lists university regulations, courses offered, etc. In general, I think it would be a reliable (albeit self-published) source, but I'm a little confused as to why it allegedly includes a professor's nickname. That certainly isn't true of any university calendar I've ever read (not that I've read all that many). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah! In the States, they're usually called "catalogs" and have gone (mostly) biennial or online-only, due to the cost of printing. I used to maintain a library of those for a state educational agency. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the calendar in question *is* available online, here. I'll try to find the referred to information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find the information in question. In any event, I've left a note on the article talk page explaining policy and asking for assistance in locating the actual cite. I don't think any admin action is required here. Marking resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The so called claimed "trivia" section cannot be found online. On the other hand, if sources cannot be verified online how can you make sure whether the user is posting rubbish or not. Do you really expect anyone to go through the trouble to verify his source. If it were anymore, it should be the original poster to do that 203.218.143.38 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming good faith includes an assumption that a cite to a non-online publication is legitimate. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Iolani School- 204.130.130.185[edit]

Resolved

I believe that this IP address should be permanently blocked. I also attend this school, and I have noticed vandalism levels going way too high. I am currently working with school administrators on this problem, but until further notice, 204.130.130.185 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia because whoever did this is still on the loose causing trouble elsewhere and will not stop. In addition, the problem still resides on new people to the school and others who are new to Wikipedia. There are multiple vandals at Iolani, and I think should not be overlooked. Once again, I am still working with school administrators, but this means the vandals are still free to do whatsoever they want, so until further notice i would like to request ip address 204.130.130.185 be blocked permanently or until further notice. Look at the user contributions of this address if you don't know what I mean.
Thanks, and I hope we can track-down and destroy this vandal!
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I have reviewed the User talk for this IP Address, and I do confirm this is vandalism. Also, there are a few edits that are legitimately not vandalism. These edits were done by my friend Midorihana and she agrees to making compromises at school to make Wikipedia a better source for information. If you are ready to "pull the trigger" you may when you get this message.
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of: {{schoolblock}} applied 23:22, 7 April 2008 by Blueboy96 for 6 months. BencherliteTalk 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User ImatrollROAR[edit]

Resolved: blocked

User:ImatrollROAR created a provocative username and has proceeded to vandalize the userpage and talkpage of User:Utgard Loki‎. --JoeTalkWork 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:VegitaU[edit]

Hi. Regarding vandal edits here over the past few days: the above user has stepped forward here to own up. The IP addresses that he used - 136.160.138.51, 136.160.150.110 and 136.160.154.150, to name only the three which affected me, were given blocks for vandalism. I believe that the user himself requires an additional block for extreme disruption (I was not the only recipient of this stressful and unacceptable bahaviour, and I lost a lot of valuable editing time dealing with the user's idiocy).

If a block is not forthcoming, it will clearly set a precedent for any so-called reputable editor to carry out such experiments in the future. If there have been unpunished examples of this before (I have not checked), then conversely this is as a result of such lack of punitive measures. I have not taken this up with the user; I have no intention of having anything to do with such an immature mind. I would appreciate some action or at least a reply. If this is the incorrect place to take this, please point me in the direction. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Ref (chew)(do) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with in a section above, titled University System of Maryland IP vandals. - auburnpilot talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Klejas[edit]

Can someone stop this Klejs character and also undo the moving-articles damage he has done? [50] Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped for now. I think he doesn't quite realise he isn't on the Polish WP. Maybe. Or something. Anyway, I undid his move and put the resulting redirect up for CSD; all his other edits have been reverted (including one self-revert), so no harm done. -- Zsero (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

sock and/or meatpuppet issue with WSEAS and related articles[edit]

These articles continue to be recreated by multiple user accounts despite being deleted each time as blatant advertising (G11). The images have also been re-uploaded. The related articles this time are WSEAS, Wseas, World scientific and engineering academy and society, and Nikos E. Mastorakis.

Please see prior discussions at WP:ANI#Ongoing_COI_issue_at_WSEAS and WP:COIN#WSEAS. Thanks. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mokedi[edit]

Kind of a borderline vandal IMO. All his edits to date have been totally self-promotional including his image uploads. Just came back on to repost a NN bio about himself, one that was deleted back in March. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The article's been deleted, but the images are still there. Thanks. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image deleted under G11. EVula // talk // // 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Truly odd userpage[edit]

Resolved: Speedily deleted

Came across User:Adam's Body in Noah's Ark today. Apparent attempt to build a fairly odd article in userspace. No other contributions by user. Not sure where to take this one. Is AFD appropriate for a userpage?Kww (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If there really is a "joke" somewhere in there, I don't get it. Tan | 39 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedily delete as

Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.

per Wikipedia:UP#NOT Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:Soap, no article edits at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, if anyone looks at the page history, I accidently added a speedy delete tag while browing the options. I rolled it back as fast as I could. Oops. Tan | 39 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It can't be speedied but I think a MfD would be ok (done). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What looks like the same article except for the last sentence is at a blacklisted site http://hubpages .com/hub/Adams-Body-in-Noahs-Ark -- space added in link so I could put it here!Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as copyvio of hubpages. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks[edit]

User:Stone put to sky has been blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[51][52]

Warned again one month ago for new attacks.[53]

Continues now with new attacks.

"Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs."[54]

"But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you"[55]

"You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it."[56]

Aho aho is a sockpuppet of Stone put to sky.[57].Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


I think that some strong words are needed to calm everything down. Maybe some informal admin mediation? But certainly the atmosphere is too bitter.
As for the request user result, what does "likely" mean for Wikipedia's purposes? Is it treated as the same as "confirmed", or what? Sky has already been blocked for sockpuppet use. If people believe he is doing it currently then that should be stopped, especially as it is not a declared sockpuppet account. Given the level of disagreements over the article in question using sockpuppets is even more dangerous than usual - assuming he is. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As a point of reference, of the four "likely" sockpuppets listed in the checkuser request, only User:Thecryptthing was indefinitely blocked - the others were not, however. I'm not sure why this is. John Smith's (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Thecryptthing was blocked after an earlier case, along with the others that were, in that case,  Confirmed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so that's why that account was blocked. But what happens with "likely" results? I think this is where I'm not clear on what should be done with these other accounts. It is suspicious that of the three not blocked, only Aho aho continued to post - the others stopped. John Smith's (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So can we get an administrative remedy here? A timed topic ban perhaps? Otherwise he will keep attacking these pages with socks. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine and Stone put to sky have been editing warring on the same controversial page for months. I agree with User:John Smith's, the only person, to my knowledge, who has not been personally involved with Stone put to sky that some "informal admin mediation" is appropriate.Trav (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Close, but it's really Ultramarine and SPTS's army of sock puppets, including two that were crated to disparage UM's user name, that have been edit warring. User:Stone put to sky should be blocked for violating policy and it will end two problems. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are they should both be blocked. The page has turned into a war ground for both of them, the few attempts I make to reach a middle ground with either are often met with repetitive arguments, such as Ultramarines continued insinuation that there is a double standard, even though everyone has told him otherwise, and Stone's continued need to battle him. Ultramarines passive aggressive behavior should be examined, and Stones harsh replies to it. While I myself have been annoyed with Ultra for his constant circular arguments, and appeals to random policies as it suits him, the goal is to maintain civility on such a hot button topic. Due to both, primarily Ultra, and it seems the new arrival of DHeyward, I have had to step back from the article.

The participants on it seem to feel they are in a war for the United States, taking each item in the article as personal attacks, renaming the article after not even participating on the talk page, and worst of all appearing here to ask one of the problem people have action taken against them and not the other. Unfortunately everyone's, including my own behavior, has been sub par, perhaps the article should be deleted to save Wikipedia, what appears to be, a handful of good editors.

Just to add it was eluded by Giovanni33 that John Smith and himself are suppose to be avoiding each other due to past admin action, yet John Smith appeared on the page a short while ago, of course arguing the point counter to Giovanni, this article has been turned into a battleground, I am starting to wonder if anyone is really arguing over the article content anymore, or if its a continued fight over past issues. --N4GMiraflores 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni is incorrect. There is no restriction on either of us avoiding pages that the other works on.
If a community sanction is to be placed on both Ultramarine and Sky then that may be appropriate. However, that does not address the issue of whether Sky has been abusing sockpuppets. There was a "likely" result that was not properly processed. I still would like clarification as to how the administration deals with "likely" results and a formal decision made as to whether any action will be taken over the report or not. If it is left idle that will cause more problems. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This article was a mess when I dropped out months ago and is still a mess. It's always been under attack by banned users and socks (socks of NuclearUmph and FAAFA were caught and banned there), when it's not under full prot. Certainly there has been bad behavior on all sides, but abusive socking is unacceptable and needs to be immediately addressed. The alternative is going to be ArbCom (which may in fact be the only entity capable of cleaning this up). - Merzbow (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Merzbow has a great suggestion, fully protect the article for a month to a couple of months. This has worked before. Everyone loses interest and goes their separate ways. Trav (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not exactly suggesting that as the best way forward, but it's a superior alternative if peace can't be had. But one of the reasons peace can't be had is due to socking. Why not this proposal: 1) Article is put on 1RR probation, 2) Anyone caught socking will be be subject to increasing bans, beginning with a week. To enforce this, we need an uninvolved admin to promise to pay attention to the article. This will save the community the time sink of an ArbCom case. Aside from that, I'm out of ideas. - Merzbow (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, SPTS has been virulently aggressive towards anyone attempting to change the article in question to one different from his own POV. As a further note, given the results of the checkuser on SPTS, N4GMiraflores is likely his meatpuppet at the very least. I'll cheerfully submit to a checkuser to prove I'm not Ultramarine's sockpuppet or whatever-- in fact, I invite it. I'm glad this thread has been made, because the repeated incivil behaviour displayed by SPTS is unacceptable.

Ultramarine has been making good faith efforts to clean up a very bad article, attempting to engage in talk page discussion, and creating sandboxes. SPTS (and his allies), on the other hand blanket revert virtually every edit he makes to the article, and accuse him of bad faith, disruptive editing, and vandalism. Frankly, I think Ultramarine has been remarkably restrained considering the torrent of abuse that has been and continues to be aimed in his direction. Any intimations that he is as large of a problem as SPTS are, quite simply, false. The problem is with SPTS and the other editors who have WP:OWN problems with the article in question and resist any and all efforts at cleanup. Jtrainor (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference between a "meat puppet" and a "sock puppet" are, however I already make it clear on my user page that I have an alternate account. It is one of the reasons I have walked away from this mess of personal issues, it has become too much of a distraction. It is difficult to look at that talk page and not realize you have stepped into a mine field of personal issues. Perfectly reasonable middle grounds are ignored, everyone has stake in the ground and refuses to move, everyone uses the talk page because they are required to, yet no one is interested in forming a consensus at all. Even this message requesting administrators assist the situation is split into a defense of one side, and an attack on the other. It is almost unbelievable that those who views are seen as defending the US position are all stating Ultramarine is not that bad, and all those seen as attacking the US, all see it as Stone is not that bad. Is no one concerned with the article itself? Do you think removing the alternate view is going to make the article any less of a mess that needs work? I think the best answer is to make the article disappear, that way all the editors can move on much like I did. N4GMiraflores is my alternate account, subsequently closed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A sockpuppet is an alternate account directly controlled by someone. A meatpuppet is someone you know in real-life who agrees to help you out when you get into disputes, etc. John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I think that distracts from the issues at hand. First of all final action needs to be taken over Sky's checkuser report and whether a sanction is required. Second Sky and Ultramarine's actions more generally. John Smith's (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, User:64.118.111.137 has shown up on the talk page and begun trolling. Given this thread and the user's contributions, I find the timing rather suspicious. Same user has also violated 3RR on the article itself in an attempt to remove tags. Jtrainor (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Four reverts (one over two edits), so yes, it's a 3RR violation. In less than an hour. I'm almost impressed. But if I read this right, the IP was not warned until the minute of the fourth, so I doubt anything will come of that.
However, I'd welcome a checkuser at this time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow, was I wrong! one more revert within the hour, and yet one more revert while I was writing this! Mr. IP wants a time out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
User:76.102.72.153 has now shown up as well. Fortunately an admin semi-protected the page. Giovanni33, however, has begun reverting the page to the version insisted on by the previously reported IP that was blocked for 3RR. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That is Giovanni33...see diff..[58] checkuser will likely show that Giovanni33 has repeatedly violated his 1RR restriction. I think a long term ban is long overdue on his account.--MONGO 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that proves it is Giovanni - could be a meatpuppet or another independent user. I have filed a report to clear matters up. As for the Sky matter, can we please get an admin to confirm:

  1. Whether any action is to be taken for recent activities as mentioned by Ultramarine.
  2. Whether any action is to be taken over the "likely" sockpuppet report, where some "puppets" were not blocked and at least one has continued to edit. John Smith's (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Probable sockpuppet[edit]

User:Rafaelsfingers was only registered at the end of last month and has jumped into the above article, State terrorism and the United States. It wouldn't surprising if he is a sockpuppet - could someone do a checkuser/file a report? I'm not quite sure what to do here. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we have to deal with sleepers... great. - Merzbow (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day threatening to stir up libel actions.[edit]

This user is blocked for vandalism and gross incivility. He's been evading the block by coming in with variant IP, sometimes just his local ISP block, likely, but also from various ISPs around the world. I was reverting his edits, as have some others. He then turned to some biographies of porn stars and removed unsourced material, claiming BLP violation. As he is a blocked editor, I reverted his edits, though in some cases I also posted to Talk, inviting any editor to review his edits, stating that I was not making any content decision in reverting him.

As he had, I am sure, planned, he reported this to WP:BLP,[59] where, as he has before, he stirred up a flap, with the first response being, from a number of users, that he had no right to edit articles. At this point I continued with my reverts. Then other editors arrived and protested at the return of BLP violating material to the articles (which is understandable). Then an admin unblocked one of the block-evading IP addresses,[60] though it was quite certain this was being used by the block evader. Because I was asked to stop the reversions where BLP might be involved, I have; however, this is background. The following is the occasion for this report:

User:Fredrick day (See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IP addresses and socks, the ID is not doubtful) wrote:

am I going to have to email those people to get some action taken? nobody is bothered that a unsourced claim about people having AIDS is being re-added to articles?[61]

so the answer is - I'll have to email each of those people individually and put out the audit trail that shows that I tried to remove libel from articles but it was felt best to add it back in.[62]

[edit inserted by Fredrick day]This of course misses out the context, that Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article. This is all in the history - ABD preferred to just keep reverting them back out. Even in a situation where it was indicated that the article stated without sources that a woman had infected others with HIV. What option was I left with but to get a bit shouty? I'd tried removing the BLP vios,abd reverted me, I'd tried to highlight the BLP vios on the BLP page, Abd reverted me --87.112.67.187 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what I was doing was being explained, and legitimate users were being invited to undo my reversions if the edits were legitimate, my actions weren't based on content, it is as if I were a bot capable of identifying that an edit was made by a blocked user, but not capable of reviewing the content, so no content decision was made through them, and yet attention was called to them, ultimately through BLP, and, indeed, some users did revert some of my reverts, which was quite proper, all I was doing was placing, effectively, Fd's contributions in a kind of "submitted status," instead of allowing him to unilaterally edit articles, given that he is blocked and massively evading it. As I mentioned, I've stopped doing this in the same way, but the above shows that the blocked user is not acting for the welfare of the project, but to force his own agenda. More aggressive measures may be warranted, and, at least, his IP should be blocked on sight.

--Abd (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It does sound as though the blocked editor might be playing games with us. But I don't see the logic of you reverting his edits to biographical articles without checking the content. I think WP:BLP should take precedence over the more subtle issues you have mentioned. Nobody should act like a bot where biographical articles are concerned. Measures to prevent User:Fredrick day from editing biographical articles might be considered, but mechanical reverting should not in my opinion be one of the ways. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I've seen this game before. Banned user edits in such a way that when we revert him we do something worse, which of course is what he wants. It's a particularly refined form of malice. My recommendation is to just check each edit. Dynamic IP -- you probably wouldn't even have to bother to block unless he starts disrupting something, or vandalising again. Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If he isn't banned, then you shouldn't be reverting all of his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, does anyone actually think that he shouldn't be? -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that if he hasn't been banned by the community or an administrator, then his edits should not be undone wholesale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just stop reverting edits that violate BLP. -- Naerii 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking is also seeming a little pointless as he appears to have a limitless amount of IPs. The best thing to do is revert, block, ignore (i.e. deny recognition) with the caveat in this case that you don't restore BLP violations. I know it's tempting to revert him as he is intensely obnoxious but by doing so you're playing right into his hands. -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't bother with the biography changes, but I did revert his edits to the BLP board. They at least were clearly intended to be disruptive and attention-seeking, and I thought that revert, block, ignore was the appropriate action in that case. I was a little hurt that one user said I was wrong to do it, and another admin unblocked one of