Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive427

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

Noticeboard archives


FSFS (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Done

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it has confirmed that FSFS is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). Can an available admin issue the appropriate block whenever possible, please?

Thank you! SWik78 (talkcontribs) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Tiptoety. AvruchT * ER 22:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Theft of Wikipedia content to populate fraudulent web sites for pupose of link farming or similar[edit]

Someone has registered a number of web sites whose domain names include the character string "-pedia". Content from Wikipedia, related or not to the domain name, is stolen and somehow copied to web pages under that domain name. At the bottom of many pages are a list of randomly-generated links. The links are generated using a PHP script found here: The links generated reveal the inventory of fraudulent web sites. The aforementioned link failed once and left an error message--that's how I found out about the link.

Some of the pages have banner ads at the top. Surprise, surprise...the ones I've seen look like they would take one to a porn site.

I hope an administrator finds this and can take action against it.

Kelly Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellydcarter (talkcontribs) 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a page we have to report these, but I've right now forgotten where it is. :/ Can anyone help? Orderinchaos 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All or something similar. Good night, all (it's 02:00 where I live). -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Admin of Wikipedia != admin of the Internet; we don't have any special authority in these matters. If the reproduction in question complies with the GFDL then it's perfectly legitimate, and if it doesn't, chances are the infringement isn't actionable anyway. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There could be trademark (confusion among the public) concerns but that's for the lawyer(s) to deal with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a GFDL violation. They don't credit Wikipedia or its contributors anywhere. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll send the standard email to the site owner and web host. Should I get a reply, I'll report back. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Underbelly (TV series)[edit]


Anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is adding a list of people unsourced and based on original research (Sources added don't state that they have been in the series) and there has also been a past discussions on the very same thing Talk:Underbelly (TV_series)#Brincat and Faure as mr t and mr l Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've informed the editor of this page and I've also replyed to there latest comment on the Underbelly talk page. Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I gave him another warning. I think he is failing to understanding our OR and V policies (not to mention edit warring and consensus) rather than being deliberately malicious. Sarah 02:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Just a few minutes ago I received a personal threat from someone claiming to be the singer I.R. (whose page is currently under deletion discussion) regarding the deletion of an album image he uploaded. He left the following comment on my talk page (diff):

I would like ti adress of the person/administrator whom added the template of deletion for Image:Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.]]. The image is copyrighted by my record label Atomix Productions and is held copyrighted laws by me I.R.. I will remove the template and it shall not be added, its a stricit violation to our policy:

paragraph 7: any information added about our musicians shall stay, may be edited by shall not be deleted as code 412367 states "Editing shalt not be done unless the musician decided to do so."

if this template is shown again in Image:Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.jpg Image:Puakenisweet.jpg your account will be deleted.

I don't know what to do here. I have already dropped the user a note letting him know that conflict of interest is frowned upon (someone else already told him that but he won't listen), and that his images serve no purpose since they're for non-notable albums. I don't know what else to do though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiight. "Editing shalt not be done"? I mean, seriously? Why don't you ask him to point you to this "policy", such as in the label website? While you're at it, you may want to let him know that
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
You know, in case he missed it at the bottom of every single edit window on Wikipedia ;) A link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem may always be in order. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, our policies trump his... EVula // talk // // 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think the GFDL trumps both, and the GFDL says Ivan is full of it. If he's really the copyright holder, then he has already released the image in question under the GFDL and has forfeited a number of legal rights regarding the intellectual property. If he's not the copyright holder, then the image is a copyvio and deletion is the appropriate response. Either way, I think the proper response is to ignore him, warn him if he doesn't stop, and if he still doesn't stop then report him here to have him blocked.
My prediction: He'll get exasperated when all of "his" articles and images get snowball-deleted, and go back to MySpace. --22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
He's 14 years old, FWIW. Corvus cornixtalk 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the article as an A7, but the fact it included his DoB was disconcerting. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
He also apparently doesn't really understand copyright, since his ripoff at Image:EniSweet.jpg is a copyvio of the original image. Corvus cornixtalk 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I just snowballed the last of the articles. The above comments are ridiculous attempts at sounding legal, nothing else. WBOSITG has warned - we'll see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this looks to be related to this AFD. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal threat? Are you kidding me? You must be kidding me... --Badger Drink (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology[edit]

I need some eyes over at evolutionary psychology. According to the page history, someone is using WP:SPA accounts and anonymizing proxies to delete content from the article, edit war, and avoid the 3RR. Having just seen this, it appears to have been going on for some time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protect filed here. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Archilles last stand[edit]

Given the behaviour of Archilles last stand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and his edits to Usury, (Incident archive 425) I was bored enough to check his latest contributions. In both his latest page edit and in the edit summaries for Scott McClellan I think he's still being a dick as Neil so amusingly puts it. Can someone wield a cluestick in his direction please? --Blowdart | talk 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blowdart - I am keeping an eye on Archilles' editing. You don't need to keep reporting this. He's just about okay, for now - the McClellan edits are brash but not really incivil. Neıl 08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)



The above user persists in editing an article on Javorník (Jeseník District) on which I have worked hard for very long time and refuses to even consider a remotely flexible approach to discussion. Several days ago, I added a new references to the article to help readers and editors alike. He keeps on removing these without explanation. I have had some experience with this person before and he often acts in league with other editors in order to avoid the 3RR. I frustrated that he keeps on bullying other editors and should be stopped at once. Thank you. Bolekpolivka (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This RFCU might be of some relevance here. I am not blocking Bolekpolivka here because I don't have the time to review the case at this time. -- lucasbfr talk 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the blocking of Darwinek that's been requested, not the blocking of Bolekpolivka. Although at the moment, it seems to be an article dispute that's got out of hand, as Darwinek is a respectable admin. Discussion between the pair has taken place since this comment was posted by Bolekpolivka. Lradrama 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Darwinek and Bolekpolivka have both reverted 3 times on the affected article (including Bolekpolivka's logged out editing). The question is, is Bolekpolivka logging out on purpose to avoid scrutiny or accidentally. This edit suggests the former. Thatcher 12:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So does this one. Lradrama 12:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
@Lradrama: Yeah I know, but I wanted to point that before a good willing admin blocked Darwinek for 3RR without a full review of the situation. -- lucasbfr talk 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bolekpolivka is a wiki-recidivist, been blocked in the past for intentional use of sockpuppets in similar situation. I suggest not taking him seriously, everyone who would read his excuses and tricks back then before he was blocked would agree with me. He tried to "lie-out" from it back then. As for the article, there is really no case here. I have edited list of municipal parts of the town added by him, because it was wrong. I provided a reference to the State Administration website and corrected his edits. No case here, Bolekpolivka should be blocked for using sockpuppets again, this time longer block should be applied. Meanwhile he can read WP:OWN and our other policies. - Darwinek (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there point giving him links to essays he probably won't read? I'll send him a few words of advice in the meantime... Lradrama 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, it is sometimes hard to fight for decency and firmness on Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. Unfortunately, thats what you get when you persist with working here, because there will always be those who are just plain ignorant or simply can't grasp what it means to be one of our community. If he continues, he will be blocked for a longer period of time. Lradrama 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
After carefully reviewing the situation, myself and Darwinek have reached the decision to block the disruptive editor / sockpuppeteer Bolekpolivka for 1 month. Lradrama 14:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and Locke Cole blocked for editwarring on WP:BOTS[edit]

I've blocked both Betacommand (talk · contribs) and Locke Cole (talk · contribs) for edit-warring on WP:BOTS. Locke Cole made 4 reverts, and Betacommand made 3 reverts. Part of a long, protracted, edit war on that page. — Werdna talk 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A valid block, let's not this devolve into another Betacommand focused thread. Two blocks, for 3RR, cut 'n dry. Keegantalk 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well not technicaly 3RR cut and dry, as Beta apparently didn't violate that, but probably a good block anyways. Gwynand | TalkContribs 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, I sort of hate to do this, but it actually looks like Beta only made 2 reverts, not the four required to violate 3RR. As for edit warring, it looks like other editors were involved as well, (SQL made the same revert that Beta did). Looking at the whole scope, I guess I do agree with a general block for edit warring, although I'm not sure what good a 24 hour block will do to an edit war that has been ongoing for weeks/months.Gwynand | TalkContribs 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If it resumes, then a 48 hour block might be appropriate. If it resumes again, then a week's block would be appropriate. Sooner or later, warring editors either get blocked indefinitely or learn to play by the rules and work collaboratively. Neıl 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would note that no-one has changed the last edit to the page that Locke Cole made. Does that mean he is right? That there is consensus on the talk page that There is presently no method for joining the Bot Approvals Group which has consensus? Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed, sorry, returned WP:BOTS and WP:BAG to the versions that everyone settled on (happy-melon's last version IIRC). Thanks for the heads up. SQLQuery me! 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, the two of them edit warred about this issue (though not the identical diff each time) on April 21, May 5, May 15, and again now. Someone needs to take both of them out to the woodshed about this. Good job Werdna. GRBerry 14:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if 3RR isn't technically being broken, edit-warring is edit-warring. HalfShadow 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Complex IP vandalism -- again[edit]

One of the IP addresses I mentioned earlier (User: just had its block expire, and the editor promptly began vandalizing again. I'm pasting below the bulk of my post that was archived -- would appreciate a response, or someone to semi-protect this editor's apparent targets (problem being that part of the vandalism is the removal of maintenance tags from seemingly random articles).

Hi. An editor in Arkansas takes exception to . . . well, to not being a WP:DICK. During the school year from an IP address registered to the University of Arkansas, and over winter and now summer breaks from a series of proximate IP addresses, the editor has continued to undo a series of redirects and to remove maintenance tags. Several of these IPs have been individually blocked, but I thought I’d mention it here to see if a range block would be appropriate or if there’s anything to do other than have a beer sitting nearby when this fellow acts up again. The editor's talk-page comments make clear he/she has no intention of abiding by consensus or contributing anything useful to Wikipedia. A few of the popular targets -- Simon Tam, Eden McCain, Planet Express -- have received temporary semi-protection, although my most recent request for two of them to be semi-protected again was denied.
School IPs:
More recent (home for break?) IPs:
Statements of non-good faith: here and here

I'd request for now either a long-term ban on those specific 70.178.*.* addresses, with the option to automatically expand that block of this editor clearly shows up under another IP from 70.178. I'm reluctant to suggest a range block on 70.178.*.*, since that's 65,536 addresses that'd be axed -- yikes. As for the 130.184, let's see what happens in the fall. --EEMIV (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As the person responsible for the merger of Firefly characters (e.g. Simon Tam), I endorse this summary as far as 70.178.*.* is concerned, and would like to see something more effective to be done because bureaucracy is currently not in favor of us (regular temp-semiprotection requests and AIV reports). – sgeureka tc 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have anonblocked the three 70.178 addresses for 3 months, which should get us through the user’s summer break. —Travistalk 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that, since most of the edits from these IP addresses are to redirects, the simplest, least disruptive approach would be to semi-protect the redirects that have been edited. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
At least one -- Simon Tam -- has been. Planet Express could probably stand to have permanent (or at least very long-term) semi-protection. But, the catch is that this editor also runs through and randomly removes maintenance tags. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If more IPs pop up and start the same disruptive editing, I suppose that semiprotection would be a better solution, but as it stands, it is simply easier to anonblock the identified IPs IMO. I’m certainly open to suggestions, though. —Travistalk 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:TinucherianBot malfunctioning, and not supervised[edit]

Resolved: Ragib unblocked after operator closed bot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked TinucherianBot (talk · contribs) (15 min). The bot was approved for the following function:

"To tag talk pages with {{WP India}} banner for assessment purposes, and if the category is a stub category with a class rating of Stub (Purpose:WikiProject India. See related discussion here... I am from the Assessment Team of WikiProject India)."

However, it is tagging articles unrelated to WP India. Despite my repeated request to stop the bot until the issues have been solved, the bot had been running, apparently unsupervised. I had to clean up 50+ mistagged articles.


This is not the first time the bot malfunctioned. I had reported the bot malfunction yesterday to the bot operator (see User_talk:TinucherianBot#Bot_malfunction). I have again repeatedly requested the bot operator to stop the bot till these issues are fixed (see User_talk:TinucherianBot#Miscategorization.2C_again). I'm getting no response from the bot operator at this moment, so I've blocked the bot temporarily for 15 minutes. If I don't get any further response after this block expires, I'll block it for longer.

I put the block up for review here by other admins. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: The bot is still running unsupervised at this moment, so I've blocked it for now, till I hear from the bot operator. --Ragib (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive IP[edit]

Resolved: Tiptoety talk 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs · count) Edit warring on many articles, reported legitimate editor to AIV four times, leaving irrelevant warnings on my talk page, etc. Enigma message 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AIV for fast action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
User does not really fit the "AIV" type, as he is not a clear vandal. I mean there have been some constructive edits mixed in there, or at least some attempts at being constructive. Tiptoety talk 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given the user 24h block for edit warring Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writetomorrow?[edit]

Not sure this needs an admin but, I can't seem to locate the proper policies/pages to tell me what to do. Could someone have a look as I can't see this actually listed at RfA to comment one way or the other (or if I even should). Is this a MfD candidate? Should I be putting this question elsewhere? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This could probably just be CSD'd as a test page if it is not properly formatted or transcluded within the next day or so. Maybe drop a friendly note for the user. In future, these kind of things can be brought up at WT:RFA. best, xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't delete it yet - it's only a day old - the editor may have created it with the intention of working on the Questions. Per Xenocidic a short note at Writetimorrow's talk page is the way forward. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to be reasonable here, but an account that was created yesterday, who's only edits are to two rather marginally notable people is creating a request to be an admin? Something just doesn't seem right. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is no response from Writetimorrow, CSD as housekeeping since it isn't even listed at RfA. If he does list it later, it will be closed/quick failed pretty quickly.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wild, it's usually not funny-business in these cases (they happen all the time). Many people join Wikipedia and believe adminship is a formality of requesting it and stating a good intent. The other likely thing is they are basically seeing if "is it really that easy for me to run for this?" Of course, on occasion it is probably a joke or a request in bad faith. Gwynand | TalkContribs 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Gywnand, I realize that, just struck me as kind of odd, especially for such a new user to go right to WP:RFA. I've been here 2 years and only tried once after about a year, and I'm waiting until I feel like I'm ready fully, or if I'm nominated somehow to give it another try. Either way in good faith, it's just an eager new user who doesn't understand what's quite needed for adminship. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Question: how does the RfA's mere existence matter? I'm always curious when I see people gunning to delete throw-away RfAs like this; they (the RfAs) aren't doing anything, aren't causing anyone harm, so why not just ignore them? EVula // talk // // 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed per WP:PERF they can be safely ignored. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
They take server space :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleting them technically takes up more space; the history is still there, but now it has to log the deletion as well. And then there's all the resultant discussion that comes from not ignoring them... :P EVula // talk // // 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
True, he says adding to that space, but deleting the RfAs of new users is the humane thing to do. The last thing we want is for a brilliant editor, 6, 8, 12, 24 months later, to be haunted (and judged rigorously) by them having an RfA1 being the ghost at the feast of RfA2. Better to forgive and forget early mistakes in a Wikipedia career by deleting them. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
One could also make the argument that MfDing inappropriate pages is a deterrent to using Wikipedia as MySpace, so in the end you might end up saving server space in the long term. That said, I usually look the other way when I see inappropriate userpages, unless they are spam, offensive, or extensive. (e.g. I know of one user who has a few K of fan fiction that he wrote stored in his user space. I suggested he might be better off storing it at Google Docs, but I'm not going to force the issue) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal IP[edit]

User: Is adding spam links to or something --LiteralKa (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is where you need to report :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry LiteralKa (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is legitimate to report here: it's an IP-hopping spambot which could use a few more eyes. This one has been around for a while. It's currently using an edit summary of "Reverted vandalism." with +24 of content. As soon as you block one, it finds another proxy. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I unblocked the IP to reblock as an open proxy, but it kept spamming while it was unblocked. Over 30 IPs have been spamming that link. Is there a way to modify the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist so it blacklists any variations of ""? Spellcast (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it isn’t adding links, it is adding “www.''''''” and I doubt that the blacklist will catch it. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken. —Travistalk 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the link to the blacklist some time ago. I'm not sure how one could blacklist the link with that formatting *scratches head*...anyone think they can figure this out?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I know you're right; we can't prevent addition of simple text strings. Anontalk is already in the blacklist.
Anyone with a little extra time might find it worthwhile to go through all the edits by these IPs, since they were deliberately targeting high traffic articles (possibly from recent changes), so some may have crept through in between other schoolkid vandalism and RC patrol reverts. Antandrus (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted some of these from yesterday and they weren't high traffic artciles at all. The insertions seemed to be bookended by other IP edits of dubious quality. Is anyone gathering up IPs involved in this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yah, that's what I meant ... "recent traffic" articles. Its tactic is to try to sneak edits in adjacent to others. Antandrus (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A Google search didn't find anything, though the cache is a few days old. The spammer seems to be using open proxies, so list any IPs that haven't already been blocked as open proxies at WP:WPOP so someone can check. Hut 8.5 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Korman[edit]

Resolved: protected by User:Masem

Man just died. People are posting cause of death as heart attack during sex and "complications from stupid head disease". Please lock this biography. Edits are being made in very poor taste.

Timestamp so this gets archived. --Rividian (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Greg L[edit]

(Sorry for the length.)

For several months, User:Greg L has been on a single-minded crusade to rid Wikipedia of a standard unit convention that he really doesn't like, by pushing a rule into the Manual of Style without consensus. The issue has been disputed off and on for about 3 years now, but his intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution.


He constantly ridicules and belittles the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him, and doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with this ( 'That’s “ridicule” of certain arguments, not a “personal attack”. No whining.' [3]) His tone is very often personally-targeted, combative and mocking:

  • "“Oh God! The people who go to Star Trek conventions wearing Spock ears have hijacked Wikipedia.” That’s not intended as a personal attack whatsoever. It’s the simple truth; an observation intended to help yank some authors here back to reality!"[4]
  • "I’m sorry, I can’t debate something with someone who doesn’t have a remote connection to reality. ... You can don orange robes, douse yourself in gasoline, and set yourself alight over how you don’t think FCL had or has consensus. I don’t care." Greg L (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "You should read more before being so anxious to play the role of den mother and admonish others for not being as logical and organized as you pretend to be." Greg L (my talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "What’s going on with you Jimp? Have you been up too late? ... I’m quite done trying to have a rational discussion with you; I can’t handle writings that exhibit military-strength detachment from reality and wholesale disregard of simple facts; I’m going back to Earth now." Greg L (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "I won’t rest until I’ve done my part to help put an end to this hogwash." Greg L (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "I can’t see any evidence that trying to accommodate any of the “oppose” elements’ concerns accomplishes anything." Greg L (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Your above post is purely specious garbage. You’re now running around to articles and mucking them up with stupid edits ... Stop acting like a stubborn child, go with the flow of the level-headed majority here that has spoken clearly, and grow up!"[5]
  • "No. I’m not willing to be unnecessarily dragged down a path of mental and verbal gymnastics for something that is so simple a sixth grader could settle it. ... I am truly not interested in wasting my time in the name of “finding common ground”" Greg L (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More inside the yellow box:

...and you can find more in the talk page archives and other related pages. He's been called out on this many times,[9][10][11] but continues unabated. Where do we draw the line for "gross incivility"?

Edit warring

His objective is to get his preferred style "turned into a policy as fast as the process will allow."[12] As such, he repeatedly re-adds his text to the Manual of Style, despite a number of other editors opposing the changes and removing them.[13] When they put {{disputed}} tags on the section, he removes them.[14][15][16] He's violated 3RR at least once during these wars.[17][18][19]

Vote stacking

He repeatedly claims that "his side" has "won" consensus through majority rule (like a 7:5 vote when dozens of people have expressed opinions in the debate), proposes votes regularly,[20] and ridicules the notion that we don't make decisions this way.

After creating a vote, he notifies a number of users about it on their talk pages,[21] selected because they had voted "support" on a previous poll.[22] When criticized for canvassing, he responds, "I never let myself be hemmed in by piss-poor rules."[23]

Few of the people who oppose him are actually participating in his votes, and a number have stated that they are avoiding the discussion altogether because of the poisonous atmosphere and unproductive argument. His claimed majority includes at least one sockpuppet.

He will likely come here and complain about me "abusing my admin powers" by removing the text from the guideline page, but I believe the burden of proof for consensus rests on the person adding the content to the policy or guideline, not removing it. When a number of editors immediately add a "disputed" tag to a new section and then revert war over the placement of the tag itself, it can hardly be said to have consensus, can it? — Omegatron (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise the squabble over SI or Imperial units was still going on - I remember nearly getting dragged into it back in 2005 when I started editing. Why is this not at RFC? Greg is clearly very upset, but I think a warning from someone wholly uninvolved would suffice, rather than resorting to blocks. I won't do it, as I am very biased in this dispute, having a personal preference for SI.
This dispute needs to go to RFC for concerted community input, to get a consensus on the matter. Neıl 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Who doesn't have a personal preference for either SI or Imperial? I'd hardly consider that a bias. Basically, that perceived bias renders everyone powerless to act if you look at it your way. I agree with the RFC though. This issue needs a more directed attempt at community input.--Atlan (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Greg's writing style is colorful but he has a powerful argument. Wikepedia should follow the general style that other encyclopedias, the technical press, the general press and the computer industry follows. The proponents of the IEC binary prefixes claim that it doesn't matter if no one else uses them, they are blessed by SI.
This is a content dispute. Omegatron was instrumental in getting the IEC binary prefixes into the manual of style and has been a persistent supporter of them. An RFC to a wider audience would be a good idea. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I am one of the editors involved in the 7:5 vote referred to above by Omegatron, and was at the receiving end of some of the edits that he mentions. I wish to clarify that the dispute has nothing to do with SI or Imperial units. It involves the units used to quantify computer storage.
  • In a nutshell, there is an international standard for such units that Greg L and other like-minded editors seek to deprecate; another group of editors, including myself, prefers to avoid such deprecation.
Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been in and out of this discussion over the months, usually just lurking. A large reason for my disengagement has been GregL's tone. While it may be colorful, nobody enjoys having their ideas mocked and belittled. It amounts to a ready assumption of bad faith on the part of anyone whose position he disagrees with, and is very fatiguing even if not formally incivil. He does know how to be constructive, but still he habitually chooses to make fun of other editors. When not engaging in this behaviour, GregL can be both energetic and perceptive in his analysis. It is unfortunate that so much of that energy goes into squabbles around this one trivial aspect (IEC units) that affects few articles touched on by the guideline as a whole.
It should be clarified that the content dispute seems to a considerable extent to have its roots in a weak definition of WP:CONCENSUS. We all know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but with a little intransigence on both sides it seems this style guideline will be fought over ad inf. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it disputed or accepted that at least people should not go changing articles where one form or another is used? Perhaps the disputed tag can be limited to the matter under dispute. It's hard for someone not previously inbolved to tell without going through this whole debate--can someone summarize the issue?DGG (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily ad infinitum. I'm sure that in a few years, a generation at most, use of the IEC prefixes will become common, perhaps even predominant, and the argument will become moot.
For those new to this, Greg and others (myself included) have argued that Wikipedia should not use the IEC units, because essentially no one else does, and Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Others have argued in favour of IEC units based on their consistency with the SI system and lack of ambiguity. Real-world usage is inconsistent (if you see 1MB it might be used to mean 1,000,000 bytes or 1024 x 1024 bytes or even 1000 x 1024 bytes) but the IEC-approved unit 1MiB always means 1024 x 1024 bytes. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The substance of the discussion centres around the fact that the most common units of computer storage (kilobyte, megabyte etc) are ambiguous. Everyone involved agrees that editors should be required to disambiguate by stating which kind of (eg) MB they are referring to. The dispute revolves entirely around how to disambiguate. One view is that the guideline should be prescriptive, stating precisely how it should be done (and banning an alternative method in all but exceptional circumstances). The other view does not wish to see the deprecation of that alternative method.
But the issue raised by Omegatron is not about substance. If someone can find away of getting Greg L to avoid using inflammatory language, and listen to opposing arguments instead of ridiculing them, I am confident that we can find a solution at the page itself. But for as long as LeadSongDog (and others who avoid the page for similar reasons, including Omegatron) feels unable to contribute, it is hard to see how a consensus can be reached. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to say unable. It just seems like the aggravation isn't worth it if there's no resolution in sight. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure some users got sanctioned at RFAR over disputes over m/z nomenclature, not to mention that interminable dispute over highways names. We tell non-notable bands, companies and authors all the time, "Wikipedia is not a tool to make you famous but we will write about you when you are famous." So when the rest of the world adopts mibibytes or whatever they are, we will too. Until then, editors who can not be flexible in their demands for change will likely find themselves at the receiving end of Arbcom's big 'ole cluebat. Thatcher 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not about deprecation as Thunderbird2 claims, but rather it is about making sure guidelines accurately reflect what would be suitable to go into an article. In a nutshell we have Omegatron and a mintority of others trying to advocate the virtually unused and unfamiliar IEC prefixes which goes against several Wikipedia policies about using notable content in articles with a neutral point of view. It is also about the undue weight for IEC prefixes advocated by some. Omegatron claims there wasn't consensus when actually the fact is there was consensus for the change and Omegatron personally disagrees with the result of the debate. The burden of proof for consensus has been demonstrated several times already and several uninvolved editors have stepped in and said so over the past few months. Omegatron's personal disagreement with the consensus is not a good enough reason to keep on reverting something that was placed with consensus. As for the "incivility" one only has to look at the repeated edit warring from Omegatron (removal of content with edit comments incorrectly claiming there isn't consensus) and uncivil comments (for example trying to belittle Greg by calling him fanatical) which is probably why Greg sees Omegatron as abusing his position as administrator. Omegatron had one simple solution which was to stop reverting content but Omegatron did not stop doing that. Omegatron's actions have escalated the situation to where it has reached now. Omegatron should know better than to try to game the system by continuously reverting the same bit of text, even if Omegatron keeps on doing it every few days it is still tendentious editing. I would also say to Thunderbird2 that Greg does listen to opposing arguments, however the opposing arguments (for IEC use) have been refuted many times and are very weak but still they are repeated ad infiniteum. Thus, one can only see the same old refuted arguments so many times before laughing at them. Fnagaton 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From Greg L: For the benefit of the administrators who have to quickly sort this out, Let’s take a look at what the real issue is. This dispute with the use of the IEC prefixes has raged for years on Talk:MOSNUM. The fact that there are now twelve “Binary” archives devoted to this one topic, shows that its use on Wikipedia has likely proven to be the most contentious, most disputed, least successful guideline/policy on all of Wikipedia. A clear majority of editors want it changed but a highly active minority has blocked change from the beginning. Omegatron admitted that there was no consensus to use the IEC prefixes when he lead the effort in getting the policy posted to MOSNUM but he went ahead and did so anyway. It has had its extreme detractors and extreme proponents and this brings about passions. I’m relatively new to this dispute but have studied the past history and am now up-to-speed on what has transpired in the past.

    As for charges of “vote stacking”, many, many editors have voted on various incarnations of a policy that would discontinue the use of the IEC prefixes. In each vote, a clear majority of editors wanted to discontinue the practice. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), most of these editors aren’t nearly as passionate about the IEC prefixes; they just weigh in with a vote comment along the lines of “makes sense to me and will solve a long-standing problem that has been a source of friction for years” and then go off to happier editing waters where there is less bickering. After those votes had been conducted, the opponents of change (proponents to continue using the IEC prefixes) moved the discussion to hard-to-find backwater venues and took the issue completely off the radar screens of all these moderate, less impassioned editors. It magically seemed that they also knew how to work in a highly coordinated fashion when doing so. Then, when a new vote comes up, the only people voting on it were a very small subset of the original editors who had voted on the original proposals. Because of these tactics, the issue was off these moderate-minded editors’ radar screens and they had every right to know they were now disenfranchised and their original votes were completely meaningless. I did this out in the open using postings on talk pages and did not use e-mails whatsoever. First I was told this was “canvassing”. When it became clear that I had only contacted moderate editors who had lost track of the issue, I was told it was “vote stacking.” I responded that the proponents of the continued use the IEC prefixes could contact “no-vote”-minded editors if they liked. They didn’t take me up on the offer and the obvious reason is that all the editors who were ever going to continue to vote “oppose” to the new guidelines were the ones who were active on the discussion and were working in consort; the tactic of moving the discussion to remote backwaters had achieved the intended effect of taking it off radar screens. And my letting these other editors know about that their original votes had been nullified amounted to playing right into a trap. I feel like a civil rights advocate working in the deep south, trying to alert poor votes than the voting precinct “magically got moved” and the cops are trying to throw me into jail for doing so.

    As for incivility, my read on policy is that I am not permitted to do “personal attacks”, which I have no interest in remotely getting close to. So it comes down to whether my “incivility” has risen to the level of being terribly rude and disruptive. I’ve come across other pages where editors where sanctioned for calling other editors “stupid” or suggesting that certain editors should leave editing to others who “are more intelligent.” Again, I don’t think I’ve written anything that rises to this level, and if I did, I apologize. At the same time, I have no difficulty calling childish behavior childish. For instance, to choose just one of the above quoted “charges” against me, I feel that Thunderbird2 had gone to an article (Mac Pro) and purposely did an extraordinarily poor job at disambiguating it without using the IEC prefixes just to show how “impossible” the task was. He even wrote on the Talk:MOSNUM pages that “Something isn't working. I have attempted to apply Greg's new guideline on a number of different articles, but the success rate is patchy.” I checked, and there wasn’t a “number of different articles” that he tried it on, just the “Mac Pro” article. I’ve written numerous times that what he did was a simple case of passive resistance to prove a point. It took me only a half hour to disambiguate the article without using unfamiliar terminology and I did so using common techniques and terminology that were in conformance with common practices seen in current literature on the topic. I am a believer in “assuming good faith.” But when certain editors have clearly demonstrated a clear pattern of behavior, such as pledging to support a proposal with a “support” vote if I do exactly as they request with some modified wording (removal of some text and addition of some other), and then they reciprocate with an “oppose” vote, I don’t think any policy on Wikipedia requires that editors have to suspend common sense.

    Finally, as to the charge that my “intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution”, that is utter and complete nonsense. The only reason this issue is being discussed at all is because I first got involved back in March with my Third, hybrid proposal: Binary prefixes in computer memory and storage. That developed into Fourth draft in April, which a number of outside, uninvolved editors declared as having achieved consensus and was posted to MOSNUM as Follow current literature. That new guideline calls for no longer using the IEC prefixes. Thunderbird doesn’t like it. Both he and Omegatron allege that it didn’t have a consensus for being posted. Of course, both can’t be considered as unbiased as to whether or not a consensus was truly achieved. It is notable that uninvolved editors, one of whom Francis Schonken, who is active in dispute resolution and policy issues on Wikipedia stated as follows: “A rough consensus seems to have formed.” And that was before yet another major vote was conducted, which was 8:3 for adoption to MOSNUM, with no more “oppose” votes in over two days. No, in fact, the only reason Omegatron has come to Administrators’ noticeboard is because a consensus has been building in a direction he does not want it to go. Below is the vote, as of this writing on an alternative policy that would still call for no longer using the IEC prefixes:

Figure of Merit—Binary prefixes (Purplebox)[edit]

5 - Purplebox is perfect, it is as if a benevolent deity (which I may or may not believe in) came down on earth and gave us this version of MOSNUM.
4 - Purplebox is a vast improvement over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. While I have some minor concerns, it addresses all of my major concern in a satisfactory way. I can fathom that there is a possibility that someone comes along with a new way of doing things that might be better than this one, but this is good enough for me.
3 - Purplebox is a improvement over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. However, I still have some major concerns that were are not addresses by this version of the purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before I can say I'm comfortable with things.
2 - Purplebox is an downgrade over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. I have some severe objections to this version of the purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before being I can say I'm comfortable with things.
1 - Purplebox is a severe downgrade over what the current section 4 of MOSNUM offers. I have some nearly irreconcilable objections to this version of the Purplebox. Someone needs to comes along with a better way of doing things before being saying that I am even remotely comfortable with things.
0 - Purplebox is the the pinnacle of counter-productiveness that all trolls strive for. It's as if the authors wrote it with the goal of maximizing the ill-effects that would ensue if people are silly enough to adopt this version of things.

Degree of support
User 5 4 3 2 1 0
Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) X[1]
Greg L (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) X[2]
Fnagaton 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) X[3]
Woodstone (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) X[4]
SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) X
Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) X[5]
MJCdetroit 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) X [6]
Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) X[7]
Dfmclean 19:00, 28 May 2008 X[8]
New user

Vote Comments[edit]

  1. ^ This version of things gets a 4 vote from me (disambiguation in bytes and bits unstruck to avoid edit wars over disambiguation techniques) - Headbomb
  2. ^ I support this.
  3. ^ I'm not able to edit regularly at the moment so I will support this version. Greg has my permission to change my vote on my behalf if a later revision is substantially changed regarding IEC prefixes. Restored 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) by Greg L proxy
  4. ^ Revised vote; since the explicit ban of IEC has returned.
  5. ^ The solution is workable, though not optimal, but a stronger focus should be placed on disambiguation. I also don't like well the outright ban on IEC prefixes, as these are an excellent way to disambiguate. The main thrust should be "KB/MB/etc. are ambiguous terms and must be disambiguated either by the use of IEC prefixes or exact numbers. Exponential notation is acceptable for providing an exact number."
  6. ^ Makes sense to me. I can live with it.
  7. ^ Well, it was subtle - there's nothing subtle about it now
  8. ^ I have never seen any discussion of the IEC units outside Wikipedia.

The consensus has been building (again) to not use the IEC prefixes. The wording Thunderbird2 had been advocating would have made it less clear that the IEC prefixes should not be used. We tried voting on a version with some key wording stripped out. After a day of thinking about it, Thunderbird2 voted with a reduced vote after concluding that the present wording still didn’t allow the use of the IEC prefixes. Indeed, that’s what the proponents are trying to do here; we solve nothing by allowing policies to be posted that have ambiguous wording that allows a handful of editors to continue to use the prefixes. We’ll have a “B24” archive before this bickering finally ends. Note too that since this weekend, I have had very little involvement here this week (my contributions). Note my limited activity Monday and Tuesday, except to motion that a policy was close enough to consensus that it should be adopted into a larger policy proposal for unitized voting. I did so at 00:13, 2 June 2008. Omegatron comes here to complain.
I think the main problem here is that “Follow current literature” (the policy that is currently posted to MOSNUM) has not been voted on by a wide enough spectrum of editors. I suggested on Talk:MOSNUM that a big, BIG vote be conducted where wide spectrum of editors from all over Wikipedia’s computer and technical articles be invited to comment on whether FCL is something they support. I think it is highly revealing that NONE of the editors who oppose “Follow current literature” and who support the continued use of the IEC prefixes like the idea of soliciting wider input. I suggest we put an end to the bickering here (and this outrageous attempt at exploitation of Administrators’ noticeboard) and solve this issue once and for all. The question is simple: all other general-interest encyclopedias use the conventional binary prefixes like “megabyte”. Why? Because all the computer manufacturers in their literature, and owners manuals, and packaging, and advertising to end users do so. As a consequence, all general-interest computer magazines use the same terminology that the computer manufacturers are using. As a consequence, The word “mebibyte” (symbol MiB) is not widely recognized by the typical Wikipedia reader. The issue we would put to a much wider spectrum of editors here on Wikipedia would be this: Is “Follow current literature”, and its call to put Wikipedia in line with real-world usage, a good thing? I further submit that this wider-input voting and discussion be monitored by a panel of three mediators, who would rule whether or not a general consensus had been achieved, and that their ruling by binding. I think this is a better solution for Wikipedia, rather than allow Omegatron to stifle the voice of the lead proponent of a move to reverse something he was largely responsible for three years ago; something that has had twelve archives devoted exclusively to bickering over, something that makes Wikipedia all alone as the only general-interest publication (either print or on-line) to use terminology that only confuses readers.
“[Greg L’s] intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution.” OMG Omegatron! That is such a flagrant attempt to paint yourself as Mahatma Gandhi, and paint me as someone who suddenly interjected himself into the thoroughly peaceable goings-on of some editors who were r-e-a-l-l-y close to achieving a consensus on this dispute. Since—particularly in this forum—I must be “civil” in my response to this, I guess I will just say that the picture you painted isn’t at all true (in my opinion). Greg L (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And now we get a new user appear who has removed the same text that Omegatron has a history of removing. Fnagaton 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That’s why I used only historical links to FCL in my above post; I knew one of them would do that. This is likely User:NotSarenne (aka “217.87…”), who is banned for life. Now we do edit wars, exceed the 3RR, he goes to the noticeboard for 3RR violations, dresses up in Mahatma Gandhi robes and complains of your abuse of Wikipedia’s rules (which don’t apply in reverting the edits of banned editors and sockmasters), and then one of us has to defend himself in that forum too. Fun. But like I said, Wikipedia doesn’t require that editors suspend common sense. Greg L (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it's not me. Ask yourself "Cui bono?" and who brought it up in the first place. -- (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already addressed Greg's accusations about my behavior here. This complaint is entirely about his behavior, not about the SI dispute itself. Please don't drag the entire dispute over here in an attempt to deflect attention from it. — Omegatron (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron, maybe Greg focused on you because your name is at the top of the first binary prefix archive. [24]
Farther down in that archive, User:Nohat suggested The Wikipedia should only represent common usage. You dismissed Nohat's suggestion with a "Greg L" style response, "Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. - Omegatron 12:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)" It appears that you have been against Greg's "Follow current literature" proposal for 3 years. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably the right explanation. I've provided diffs in the above link showing that I didn't start the discussion, didn't start the vote (in fact opposed it), and didn't add the section to the Manual of Style. Yet he repeats the same accusations.
Greg L's "Follow current literature" was written only in the last few months, purely to prohibit IEC prefixes (as evidenced by his refusal to remove that section from the proposal). He hadn't even registered an account 3 years ago.
Sorry if this was the wrong forum to bring this up. I've started an RFC. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg LOmegatron (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Omegatron: Deflecting? Like most of the other editors above already did? No, we see your complaint as a red herring so we’re simply ignoring your accusations of uncivil behavior and are just cutting to the chase. We see your complaint about my “uncivil” behavior—which is really rather mild and certainly isn’t “disruptive”— as really being one over frustration with the latest trend on Talk:MOSNUM. What I dish out isn’t much more than what you’d see from any college-level debate class; I think you’re a big enough boy to handle it. It’s also rather notable that you’ve stayed largely out of the discussions on Talk:MOSNUM so your postings there haven’t been the target of any of my rather mild ridicule. Yet, despite that no one seems to have seen fit to go to your talk page and complain about my outrageous behavior, here you are complaining about me. In fact, when I just went to your talk page to see if someone did complain about me, all I found is “Annoyed by top-posting recurring argumentative comment”, which is a complaint from an annoyed editor about you. Come to think about it, what was the last post on my talk page? Besides the very last post, the one notifying me of this complaint of yours, was “Thanks for supporting the Kilogram“ (I’ve been quite active on Kilogram, which some feel should be promoted to good article status).

    No, your complaint is more consistent with an administrator who rammed through a record-setting Wikipedia fiasco of a policy three years ago without consensus and is now willing to resort to games to forestall the inevitable. That’s the way I see it. And I’m not alone; see the above comments by other editors, including rather “uninvolved” editors who have watched the goings on over on Talk:MOSNUM and have taken the time to weigh in here in my defense. Note Swtpc6800’s posting. In his edit summary, he wrote “This is a content dispute”. See also the above responses of Neil, Atlan, LeadSongDog, Fnagaton, and SheffieldSteel. Note how consistently they are all homing in on the real issue? Most of these editors have a great deal of involvement on the IEC prefix issue. They are familiar with how I’ve conducted myself there. More importantly, some editors like SheffieldSteel are uninvolved; they just watch from the sidelines. Note how much play he gives in his posting to the issue of my being uncivil. Zero This uninvolved editor thinks it’s a content dispute.

    Given that the rest of us here think this is a content dispute, I repeat my offer. Let’s just have a Wikipedia-wide discussion and vote on “Follow current literature” by inviting editors from a wide variety of computer and technical-related articles. That will settle the issue and I’d be gone in short order from Talk:MOSNUM. The entire proceeding would be monitored by three mediators and their ruling would be final. Deal?

    Now I offer you this: I’ve got an FDA clinical trial going on at Washington State University and one of the study pigs just died of sepsis. I’ve really got other things on my mind right now besides responding to your fallacious claims here. That FDA study is the only reason my participation the last few days on Talk:MOSNUM has been so sparse. Why don’t you take your parting shot now, for I am quite done with wasting my time with you. You and Thunderbird2, the only super-proponents of the IEC prefixes, seem to be the only ones alleging that the issue is over my conduct; the rest of us think you’re just resorted to trumped up charges in an effort to get administrators to silence an editor who would undo what you were responsible for. Looking at the archive list on Talk:MOSNUM, I see 101 general archives. There appears to have been a lengthy debate over “Years and Dates” that produced five archives. And what you were instrumental in ramming through (without consensus) is a record-setter, at twelve “B” archives (and still growing). Do you really think this issue is going to go away by getting rid of me? If we don’t settle this now, once and for all, there will be endless bickering that could grow to 24 “B” archives. That just doesn’t seem like a viable option to me. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Falung Gong related AfD with COI problem (Arbcom_related)[edit]

If any administrator has a chance, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Falung Gong related AfD with COI problem (Arbcom_related). MrPrada (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the related AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Not sure what exact protocol is here, but this user has a record longer than Longcat and seems to have no mercy in destroying things. Ziggy Sawdust 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? A cursory look at their edits doesn't show any "merciless destruction". I see a talk page full of notifications, but nothing really blockable. Seems to me this is an editor that needs a little bit of guidance.--Atlan (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've notified the user about this thread. That should've been done first.Exxolon (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement on User:Xasha[edit]

This user continues to make racist comments and personal attacks on others. He was blocked and warned before. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See his attacks on Moldova, Moldovan language and many others. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He trolls again and makes disruptive edits. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at this a little bit. I see a disagreement but it's not clear to me yet what exactly the problem is. I see where you said you were reverting trolling, but I don't know why you consider this trolling. Can you provide some relevant diffs? Friday (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Claudiuline is most likely a sock of User:Bonaparte and he is really harassing me (just check his latest contributions).Xasha (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You make again racist comments and personal attacks. Nobody can trust a troll like you. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have blocked User:Xasha for 72 hours regarding violation of the civility parole made in respect of the Digwuren Arbitration (which the editor appealed before I was able to provide the rationale together with template), and issued User:Claudiuline with a level3 NPA warning relating to this thread. I blocked Xasha for 3 days as they were the recipient of a 24 hour block for the same violations 3 days ago, but have not moderated their behaviour. I am not requesting a review of this block, as it appears that Xasha will appeal this sanction and I would not wish to influence the reviewing admin (one appeal has already been rejected been made, but the appeal has been commented upon and then modified and re-entered). I note that Claudiuline has now been blocked for further personal attacks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


This user, recently warned and then blocked for making offensive remarks against me, has resumed his attacks. Here, here, here, here, here and here he goads and prods me, insinuating dark motives on my part. Let me elaborate: I noted at Template:Romanian historical regions that certain regions were part of Romania in 1941-44, which in fact they were. Now, how exactly the template should be constructed is open to interpretation. What is, however, completely unacceptable is that Xasha, despite his recent block and warning, and despite my pointing out to him repeatedly that he is violating AGF, CIV and NPA, accuses me of "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" - the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, in which Romania's fascist wartime regime also took part. Obviously these are very serious, but also entirely baseless charges. I have asked Xasha to withdraw the charge, to comment on content rather than on the editor, to stop attempting to smear my good name, but all to no avail. It is not up to him to air his "impression" and "supposition" that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", but if I can't convince him of that through discussion, then it only remains to me to seek a more formal means of clearing my name. Biruitorul Talk 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't obscure the issue, don't "interpret" my edits in sinister ways, and things will be fine. Again: unacceptable to say that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", a charge that very clearly implies I am trying to put fascism and Ion Antonescu in a favourable light. Or, if it doesn't imply that (which I'm sure it does), then the best solution is always silence - not coming up with your own "impressions" and "suppositions" regarding my motives. Biruitorul Talk 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was mistaken. It's not you who is trying to do it, it's the version of that template you created who does it. When a version edited by you is seriously flawed and biased, is my right to bring it to the community's attention.Xasha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You show you're racist. That's all that counts here. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: ClaudiuLine (talk · contribs) was quacking too loudly. Fut.Perf. 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Creationism series image[edit]

Resolved: I don't know who did it, but it's fixed and the template {{Creationism2}} semi-protected. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, I noticed that the box appearing beside pages related to creationism has as its image a picture of the flying spaghetti monster. While I can appreciate the humor, it's really not appropriate. Unfortunately I have no idea how to fix this or even if regular users can, so I thought I'd report it here. Thanks, Vonspringer (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User creating multiple articles of questionable notability[edit]

Not sure how to handle this one. Colors8 (talk · contribs) appears to be spamming new articles of actors with little to no notoriety by copying certain info from IMDB in a very regular fashion and providing limited context, formatting, etc. in the new wiki articles. Am I being overly sensitive or is this person making a huge mess? Thanks for looking into it. ju66l3r (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The user has certainly racked up a nice list of warnings on their talk page. As for the articles, as long as the actors, etc. are notable, then I don't see why they can't have an article. Someone will have to look at each individual article to verify notability, though. Gary King (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

POINTY article creation[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalberto Hilário Ferreira Neto is a deletion debate over some Brazilian soccer players. Since finding that other users weren't willing to dismiss WP:ATHLETE here, User:EconomistBR has taken off on a spree of creating articles that they believe should be deleted. I was hoping someone else can weigh in on this; perhaps I'm wrong, and this isn't inappropriate behavior, and if I'm right, I think I have no chance of successfully communicating with EconomistBR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's wrong, I accepted defeat already. I created 4 articles about soccer players just to show in practice what WP:ATHLETE is. The articles about non-notable soccer players are sourced, reflect nothing but the truth and meet WP:ATHLETE.
I didn't disrupt Wikipedia doing that since there over 10,000 articles just like the 4 ones I created, but Prosfilaes is for some reason not worried about them.
Can't I create articles about soccer players? If I can't, no problem, I will stop.
I want to create 2 more articles, can I do that?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No comment on the merits, but Creating articles to demonstrate a policy seems to be pretty much exactly what WP:POINT cautions against, isn't it? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't violate WP:POINT because I was not disruptive. How can the act of creating 4 articles be disruptive?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. No one's "won" or "lost" anything. shoy 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC is that way > Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia to make a point is okay. Editing Wikipedia disruptively to make a WP:POINT is not okay. EconomistBR is not being disruptive, so he is okay. Neıl 09:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think EconomistBR's behavior is approaching the level of disruptive. This user created 4 new articles that were sub-stub quality (misleading because in one example the article indicated that a soccer player began his career at age 32, although he really began his career many years earlier). I cleaned up that particular article and asked the user to cease doing so. However, EconomistBR created 3 additional articles today that have the same sub-stub quality. I am trying to assume good faith, but it would be nice if he listened to advice before creating more problem articles simply to prove a point. For full disclosure, I completely disagree with his point about WP:ATHLETE. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Creating articles is not disruptive. The fact that EconomistBR thinks he is harming the encyclopedia when he is really helping is besides the point. Catchpole (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In general, I would agree that creating articles is not disruptive. However, if you read this user's comments on the AfD mentioned above, you will see that he has no intention of making accurate articles and is going to leave the work of cleaning them up to others. I am tired of this behavior and think there are much more constructive things EconomistBR could be doing (e.g., discuss the merits of WP:ATHLETE at the appropriate page). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

!BADSITE! hacked?[edit]

Not that this is strictly related to Wikipedia, but it appears that WR has been hacked - going there resulted in an attempted infection by an ActiveX downloader virus which tried to get control of my e-mail. Just a heads-up. Kelly hi! 06:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel kind of bad about asking my friend to check to see if it worked for him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
ActiveX is IE only isnt it? ViridaeTalk 07:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it can work in firefox, however, not running windows, I'm not sure. SQLQuery me! 07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Since linking to this site now creates a security danger for the 80% of the world using MSIE, can a smarter admin fulfill my request at Spam blacklist and blacklist the site? MBisanz talk 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. ViridaeTalk 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let's not do that right now, given that the link is already on many, many pages (go check) and that it will cause future editing problems, etc. It's hardly likely to have any effect security-wise at this point, so I'm not really seeing a reason to add it ... - Alison 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That occured to me, but I would prefer the links were stripped or delinked at this point given WPs ability to reach millions. ViridaeTalk 07:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There are 409 pages with links to WR, most are archives and talk pages, so the danger of a user hitting the spam filter and not knowing how to remove the link seems to be less than the odds of some less skilled user running upon the link or it being spammed into articles. MBisanz talk 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
ONly super active page i can see on there is a current arbcom case evidence page. ViridaeTalk 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Owch! Well, I'm kinda glad to be on a Mac, so :) I note that the site is simply blank right now - Alison 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's how it's appeared to me all day (on Mac and Windows versions of Firefox). I assumed that something was just blocking the site, because I was able to view it via an anonymous proxy site. But I think I also know less about computers than everybody else in this thread, so perhaps I'll stop speculating. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, which one of you guys did this? :-) - Alison 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I detect a noticeable improvement. :) And yes, it should be blacklisted, at least temporarily, given the amount of links here and the amount of people that view this site. Enigma message 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well ok - I think it's ok to break my deep agent cover now.... I'll be accepting the vacant position on the arbcom shortly as a bit of a thank you, and look forward to ruling you people with a rod of iron, working together for a better project.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (whose poor sense of humour has a tendency to get him in trouble once in a while...... ;-) )
"once in a while"?? Mate, your poor sense of humor is almost as bad as mine. More seriously, an enhancement that disables link following (rather than addition) of links on a list might be a good feature. WAS a bugzilla bug raised? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone confirm that activeX is IE only please? I seem to remember that it is, but I would rather like to know. ViridaeTalk 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope Firefox isn't able to load ActiveX according to their ActiveX FAQ.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
whoop! Thanks PPG. ViridaeTalk 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they've caught the initial hack. Don't think any blacklist needsd to be taken.. SirFozzie (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it from the blacklist, as the hack has been fixed. Note it wasn't solely on Wikipedia Review - it was to many high traffic sites using Wordpress. Neıl 09:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Although the links should be checked, or at least spot-checked, to make sure they still go to the same place after the restore from backup. Thatcher 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
More than happy to take that on if someone can show me how to find all the WR links currently sat on Wikipedia. Neıl 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Like this -->* - Alison 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is why we need a quick-response way to actually stop links to a given place from rendering, without actually requiring pages to be edited/saved without the link. The current system is geared towards A) preventing addition of the link and B) forcing people to remove it (or don't bother saving), which is fine for spam but not at all the right solution for viruses. --Random832 (contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Bugzilla feature request for this? This is code for "can anyone less useless than me find it in a search, coz I couldn't". And, I'd just like to say that this couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of sociopaths. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just run Linux folks, you will be fine. 1 != 2 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
...a solution which suggests a degree of technological sophistication in our readers and editors that I had not previously noticed :o) And I speak as someone who is sitting on the floor in order to be close enough to his new, first, Mac so that the keyboard will stay in contact with it. I've owned a computer since 1982: if Bluetooth pairing is beyond me, Linux might as well be Linear B :op ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mozilla ActiveX Plug-in, which isn't supposed to be compatible with Firefox 2.0 and above, apparently can be installed and configured wrongly. This plug-in allows Internet Explorer ActiveX controls to be installed and run in Firefox, which is dangerous. One of the main reasons I use Firefox is because of the very insecure ActiveX environment. It is relatively easy to hack the Firefox plug-in installation process to get a plug-in to install in many versions of Firefox, where it may, or may not work, and may, or may not cause unwanted effects. I have hacked a plug-in to get it to work with an upgraded version of Firefox until an upgraded plug-in is released. The following from the Mozilla ActiveX FAQ: Note: Installing a version of the ActiveX plugin that did not match your Firefox version could cause it to ignore its configuration and run any ActiveX control - a significant security risk. So we cannot say that all Firefox browsers are safe, only those without the ActiveX plug-in installed. — Becksguy (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK now?[edit]

Seems OK now:

"A regrettable incident has occurred, involving a rather nasty and malicious "hack" perpetrated against numerous websites running WordPress - including Wikipedia Review. Apparently no actual data was affected, only files - which we have backups of, though it might take a while for us to get everything restored properly. However, we expect to be back in business within the next 48 hours.

More importantly, though, we can't guarantee (at least not yet) that the hack in question didn't attempt to redirect browsers onto other sites that could have, in turn, attempted to deliver various forms of malware to visitors' computers. We don't wish to alarm you, but we would nevertheless urge anyone who visited us recently (and saw only blank pages) to scan their machines for viruses as soon as possible."

--Justallofthem (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

IP troll[edit]

Resolved (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this disgusting comment (and this) on Talk:Slavic peoples, a page that he has been trolling for a long while. He has been using (at least) these following IPs as well:

It is quite clear that multiple accounts have been used to do wholly inaproppriate damage such as in the diffs you provided. All IPs block indefinately under abusive sockpuppetry. Lradrama 10:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked" (etc) suggests that indef IP blocks are unwarranted here. BencherliteTalk 10:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but this is not an isolated incident. The sockpuppety dates back a few months. Have you not seen the comments that were left? Such abusive sockpuppetry over such a wide range of IPs, which has been used to intimidate others should be one of the exceptions to alomst all. Lradrama 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was concerned about the potential collateral damage from indef blocking a number of IPs, rather than downplaying the severity of the abuse. We're not even talking about one static IP. But I'll defer to others on this. BencherliteTalk 10:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought a case as severe as this might be one exception. It certainly makes sense. I'll let you be the judge of the period then --> unblocked. Lradrama 11:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

←Gee, thanks(!) Just as well I was still here, then... 6 months each, but if anyone wants to vary up or down, go ahead. BencherliteTalk 11:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I suppose he thus has time to consider what he's doing, but we'll be the ones crying when Wikipedia is once more under ihs wide-scale attack. I suppose it 'fits the policy though'. But in situations like this...surely... Lradrama 11:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorted via talkpage discussion. Resolved. Lradrama 11:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd sockpuppetry and vandalism by editors on articles related to The Intruder (1986 film)[edit]

I came across this while new page patrolling and spotted The Intruder 2: Fatal Intrusion (a.k.a. The Intruder 2: Intrude Harder - US title) 2003, which I have since nominated for deletion as a hoax. While looking at the articles for Peter O'Brian (actor) and Craig Fairbrass I saw a bunch of BLP violating and largely vandalism edits all of the same type by separate users:

Could I get a second set of eyes on this? –– Lid(Talk) 10:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sudden onslaught of edits certainly appear to be a coordinated meatpuppet attack at the very least. I'm inclined to indefblock the three accounts. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Already done. I speedied the hoax and blocked the hoaxers (accounts indefinitely, IP - which appears static - for 12 months). Neıl 10:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is very little sourcing in the O'Brian article before the edits. I'd either find some sources or stub it. Mr. O'Brian clearly has some non-fans out there. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Stubbed and cleaned up. Neıl 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD tag removal[edit]


Ajacob4 (talk · contribs) is continually removing CSD tags from the article they created: Khiladiz. I have given him a template warning to not do this but the behavior persists. Can an admin look into this? Thanks. The article pretty clearly meets WP:CSD#A7 and is a loosely reworded copyvio. --Rividian (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted. Nothing more than a warning needed for user. Rudget (Help?) 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I left a 3RR warning. Note, he just recreated the page. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Page has been deleted again. Thanks... hopefully the second round of warnings will get his/her attention. --Rividian (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
And deleted again. If it comes up again, I'll block for 24 hours. Rudget (Help?) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
...and salt the article for good measure, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Salted. EVula // talk // // 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks EVula. Rudget (Help?) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User Luobos (contribs) malware links[edit]

Resolved: Referred to WP:RFCUTravistalk 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this user indefintely for inserting unrelated links to odd URLs into many articles, sometimes in a manner clearly meant to obfuscate the destination – prima facie evidence of bad-faith. I recommend against following the links. I work in computer & network security and would classify the sites linked to as at least borderline malware. E.g., the first thing they do is to try to execute some JavaScript to add themselves to your "Favorites" list. Even if they do nothing worse after that than to display ads, that in itself is underhanded and unfriendly. Unexpected links to .cn domains are inherently suspicious.

Request: It is my understanding that some but not all admins can determine the IP address employed by a registered user. Is it possible for someone to investigate whether additional mischief has been perpetrated from the same source under other names, or anonymously from the same or related IPs? Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious: You’re an admin and you don’t know about WP:RFCU? —Travistalk 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the request was more referring to the fact that there is no obvious sign of abusive sockpuppetry, but the severity of the offense (and malware is pretty severe in my book) might justify a checkuser. I'm really hoping that's the case, as everyone should know about checkuser. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess that either