Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive452

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

Noticeboard archives

User:Italicus is ignoring the issue[edit]

Italicus appears to be one of many sockpuppets—a series of IPs and a couple of accounts.

I responded today by notifying all of the accounts of the report for suspected sock puppets, but probably noticed and went ahead with the same thing (here we go again).

When that IP was blocked today, Italicus simply continued in doing the same thing. I don't think that I can deal with this for ten whole days. What should I do??? ~ Troy (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Italicus for continuing the edit war. Kevin (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright ...if something happens before the sock puppetry is confirmed, I might need some help. This situation is not quite what I'm used to, although it has been months now. ~ Troy (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole[edit]


Not seeing what admins can do here. An unfortunate case where two good editors are in conflict over something extremely trivial, and at least one of them is saying things they really shouldn't. WP:CIVIL is policy. Orderinchaos 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has continued with the uncivil insults[1][2][3] and will not remove the comments made yet remove mine. If this user is allowed to continue to insult me and left those comments up then that leave a message out there saying it's ok to insult of other editors. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a note that I've posted this here and they call my notice as trolling[4] Bidgee (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the user "Hey, you, out of the..." Gene Poole, is unhappy about this article being nominated for deletion, and is spending his time baiting other editors instead of actually working on improving the article, i.e. on finding reliable sources. Maybe a good word from an admin would get Poole refocused. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww FFS. This does not require admin intervention, unless Baseball Bugs and Bidgee are somehow compelled to look at Gene's page. Gene's being a prat, but he's also being needled at home. Go find something else to do, please, everyone. - brenneman 07:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As an Admin you should know better then what you said above (and here) and know that the comments made by User:Gene Poole are uncivil not matter where it's posted, Do you have a personal problem with me? Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Get over yourself. This is a bilateral problem of baiting and biting. Either bury the hatchet or walk away, but don't come here looking for people to take sides because you might not like the side they take. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not about sides but it's to do with insults and it seem JzG it's ok for a user to call someone stupid and an idiot which is wrong and you fail as an Admin since they user broke Wiki's policys. I could careless if the list that I put up for deletion is safe. As of now I'm will no longer be an editor on here since the Admin (Aaron Brenneman) refuses to remove the statements made by Gene Poole. So it seems to be ok of users to insult and for Admins to leave the insults and have ago at the victim. The way it's going editors will see insults as ok which is the wrong path for Wiki as a project to take. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That didn't help either. But I am pig sick of people who come here bitching about the reaction their actions provoke, and refuse to admit any fault whatsoever. It's rare that any issue like this is wholly the fault of one side. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The two editors need to leave each other alone and work on proving or disproving that the article in question should be deleted. As I've told them. And also warned Poole that calling people "idiots" enough times is a blockable offense, unless the standards have relaxed in the last year or so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have respect for both editors from past dealings, and I'd say Baseball Bugs's advice immediately above has merit. AfD can be an emotionally fraught area, I avoid it for weeks at a time for that reason. Orderinchaos 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The unfortunate result here is that failure to take any action on the civility policy implicitly states that calling other editors "idiots" is OK. I was once blocked for doing that. Has the level of civility worsened so much in the last year that "idiots" is now considered to be an insult only on the order of "you silly pudding"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Bugs, if they are being idiots, then there really isn't a problem. But actually what's happened here is a dispute which has escalated over time to the point of insults, and to treat that as a problem of only one side is wrong on several levels. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the overall problem as one sided. And I offered the complaining editor what I thought was good advice, and he ignored it. There's only so much we can do. If I were an admin, I would have blocked the both of them for a day or so and let them think about things. Whatever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawrencoma's identity theft[edit]

This user User:Lawrencoma has very recently created a similar user name to my own (as well as copying my user page) to evade previous banning for sockpuppetry as well as to continue their disruptive edits to the Al Anbar Governorate and Ramadi articles. I think this user has already been banned previously under the names of Hisham 5ZX, Hisham100 and Shihab20 as well as a number of IP addresses in Haifa, Israel. Following the ban, he created Hisham600 and the new Lawrencoma.

  • Supporting evidence:

Here is the diff for the most disruptive edit to the Al Anbar Governorate article: [5]

I also think that our respective user pages is clear evidence of a breach, not to mention identity theft. It should also be noted that I always include an edit summary in my edits - this user clearly does not.

Please move this to the correct page if I have made a mistake. Lawrencema (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the userpage because it seems like impersonation and left a message on the users talk page asking him to change username. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This would be reasonable if the similar names were a coincidence, but they aren't. A deliberate impersonator should be blocked outright. — CharlotteWebb 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User changed names, so I think everything's good here. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked for a week. Perhaps a clue will emerge in this time --Rodhullandemu 00:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This user is being really disruptive. Last week,he kept changing the genres on Rihanna and Britney Spears,and because of that,he was blocked for 24 hours. As soon as he was unblocked,he went back on his genre-changing spree,and got blocked for 72 hours as the result. And tonight,as soon as he got unblocked again,he started changing the Rihanna genres again,as you can see here and here. If he continues this,a block for anytime between a week and a month may be necessary. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully he'll stop when the block expires. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Already blocked by someone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted some template vandalism by this user. Then went to user's talk page to post warning. Appears to be a Grawp sock. Can someone please block immediately? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you  – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 31 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) has made repeated vandal edits to my talk page. [6][7]. Could this IP be temporarily blocked for a week or so please? The person behind the IP shows no indication of stopping. Kopf1988 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two edits over a two day spread is not "repeated vandal edits" with respect to your talk page, however, I did block for 31 hours for other offenses. seicer | talk | contribs 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, friends, Wikipedians, countrymen....[edit]

Resolved: Error that has since been rectified this acceptable? As far as I'm aware, the IP isn't an OP. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you notify Daniel Case of this? Or take it to his talk page, for what may be an error? seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm on my way to do so; I have other things going on. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, your first stop should have been DC's talk page, not here. Tan ǀ 39 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, and I admit I slotted up here. I did, however, start a thread asking about it on DC's page and backlinking to here; I came here first because this is the first time I've had to second-guess a block from another addy. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 02:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a mistake I made and have since corrected. Since school is not in session in North America I've been doing more username and VOA blocks lately and so have been almost reflexively hitting indef. Thanks for catching the error. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Resolved, and ready to be slapped in the face (use a marlin, it tends to be more memorable than a rainbow trout). -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, done. :-) Fut.Perf. 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

gold heart still on a similar IP range, which doesn't seem to be blocked[edit]

Resolved: As stated below by SirFozzie, the /16 has been blocked for six months - DigitalC (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please extend the block on this range. This is him today User:, him the other day User:, there was another one too. As you can see, the IPs are similar so a range block would sort it at least in terms of this current access he has at home or wherever it is. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problems with blocking out to the /16, that happened previously, and per CheckUsers, he's the only editor on that /16 currently (any new folks that come by, we can judge collateral damage at that time, and look in releasing the block, narrowing it, or granting IP Block Exempt. I won't do the block myself, due to my extensive history with Gold heart, however. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, this has already been mentioned here [8], don't know if it's already been done. Sticky Parkin 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it, I've brought up Alison's statement that there should be no problems with blocking out to the /16, as he is the only user on that /16 (despite his claims that a rangeblock would take out "all of Ireland") SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all agree, Gold heart's word (at this point) is worthless. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What can we do about this? I've just spent the last half hour reverting stuff he's been trying to add to articles. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The /16 IP Range has been blocked for six months. SirFozzie (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Range Block of Ireland Beam 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Now now, it's not a "range block of Ireland." It's a range block of an Irish ISP, which is apparently only being used by one individual to edit Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this IP range belongs to Vodafone Ireland, an Irish mobile phone operator (IE-EIRCELL-20080409). Checkuser shows that there are no other anonymous editors on this range other than Gold heart - no others, not in months - and that there will be little if any collateral damage. The IPblock is assigned to the Dublin area and while there are some registered editors on it, a softblock will not hurt them - Alison 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have blocked everyone who edits anonymously from a Vodafone phone. Good thing the iPhone is on O2 in Ireland, eh? :) Stifle (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
And good thing I use O2 as well... Stifle (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Restoration of Personal Attack at Talk:Haile Selassie[edit]

Last March, "user A" made a personal attack against "user B" at Talk:Haile Selassie, which "user B" then removed, with a note to the effect that the comments had been removed. No problem, business as usual. However today, an anonymous user User: (Contributions) located in Brazil restored the personal attack. I reverted this, because it serves no purpose whatsoever to have this irrelevant personal attack between users "A" and "B" on the talkpage. The anon then began edit warring with me, has broken 3RR, and insists through edit summaries that wikipedia policy fully justifies his edit warring to restore the Personal Attack from 4 months ago to the talkpage. I have read all the concerned policies very carefully, and can find no such justification. This very insistent user has now begun making personal attacks against me for reverting him. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you are right. Stop the edit warring, which applies to both you and the IP. You've both violated the 3RR, though I think it's hardly enough to count for anything but a warning right now. WP:NPA says quite clearly that there is no policy regarding this sort of thing, only that it is generally frowned upon. This isn't the sort of thing I'd remove, but some people have thin skin (or whatever, it doesn't matter why it was removed). If he wants to revert you should just let him and leave it at that; avoid the drahmahz. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
When an anonymous user comes out of the woodwork and starts re-adding personal attacks from 4 months ago, insisting to the point of 4RR, I consider that purely disruptive behaviour - on his part. It serves no use whatsoever and it merely takes up a lot of my editing time dealing with it, or at least trying to get it dealt with. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I see two users violating 3RR, I have decided not to act on it. Stop edit warring, both of you. Chillum 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Last I had heard 3RR only applies to article space, not talk, or otherwise. They might be disruptive, but 3RR doesn't apply here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP contacted me on my talk page, resulting in this discussion. He didn't post here because it is permanently semi-protected.

Hi there! I'm the IP mentioned here. I cant edit the ANI page so I'll leave a comment here instead, as much as I hate to drag you into this. I tried to talk to user Eulenspiegel but he simply removed my message from his talk page, that was before my last revert. He branded my post harrassment and is now calling me a vandal. See here [9]. I feel strongly about this issue because the comment was removed by the user it was directed at, and in its place the user left a note calling it trolling which it clearly was not. Assuming that he continues to ignomre as he did last time what course of action do I have? I do not wish to continue reverting, although I see that he has reverted yet again. (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are the same person (I assume this is true) you've got a dynamic IP and it's changed. I suggest you just let it all drop, leave the talk page in whatever form it's currently in, and go do something else. You violated 3RR as much as Til Eulenspiegel has and further edit warring will just get you and him in trouble (as well as probably start stupid things like a WP:SSP....). No moar drahmahz. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I'm the same person. I'm too involved now to just let it drop, but I'll settle for this: An independent admin, can be you or ony other, reviews the situation and decides if it should indeed have been removed or not. I'll abide by whathever they decide. how does that sound? (I know this whole thing prob seems silly to you, but it has a greater importance to me: I've edited as an IP for a while and frequently I've seen that when users disgree whith IPs theyre fast to call them vandals even when theyre not, so I decided to make a stadn on this issue) (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chillum's assessment, as well as my own, this this: Just drop it, leave it however it is, and walk away. It's not that big a deal, guys. It's not the end of the world or anything. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for a block review[edit]

Carol Spears IP edits[edit]

Resolved: Community Banned.

Carol Spears requested, on her user talk page, that an edit be made to the article Senecio vulgaris to undo an edit she had made earlier (before being banned/blocked).[10] A single purpose single edit took care of this for Carol.[11] I suspect this is Carol editing with an IP account and would like this checked, if appropriate.

It also revealed even more problems with Carol's edits. She apparently used herself as a source to insert nonsense into articles, this one back in February:[12]

and one mention that perhaps it is distilled water which is harmful to laboratory animals and to human beings since every thing that drinks it inevitably dies.[1]

  1. ^ Carol Spears. "Distilled Water, Just Say No!" (HTML). Retrieved 2008-02-05. All laboratory animals drink distilled water and they all die.

This nonsense edit was recently reverted by User:Cacycle as vandalism, although it had stood for a long time.[13]

I request that arrangements be made for all of her major edits to be gutted, rather than allowing them to stand any longer on Wikipedia or requiring editors to spend hours checking this crap.[14][15] Her crap should not be returned by search engines as sources on any subject. Preferably this could be done by a bot as I first suggested.

I won't be arguing this point or participating in this discussion if one occurs. There are too many supporters of Carol Spears' contributions willing to attack anyone who finds problems with her making stuff up to write articles on Wikipedia.

But it should not go down when her edits come back to mock Wikipedia in the press that no one knew what was going on. This is a notice about the potential for Wikipedia to look really bad for supporting Carol Spears as an editor and allowing her edits to stand without large scale reversion.

--Blechnic (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that IP is her, it's on a different ISP and in a different country to the last IP she used. I just removed two more links to Carol's webpage. One was a link to her chili recipe that that she added as an external link in the Sherzer Observatory‎ article and had been there for over a month. The other one was to a page that doesn't exist (404 error) on her site that she was using as a citation in the Annona cherimola. There's another ten or so links that show up on the Special: EL tool but they all seem to be on discussion pages. Sarah 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
More than likely it's (the single-edit IP) just someone who's seen the drama and forgotten to log in before fixing it. Orderinchaos 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You are most probably right. I also saw her request and I made another change to that photo on that article right after that IP. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. I doubt the IP is a proxy so I also doubt she is in the UK ATM since she lives in another Country. Also that cite above was added by Carol on the (8th Australian Time) Feb 2008[16]. Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
As an editor who was blocked and caused a lot of work for other editors to repair the damage I was amazed to see she is still editing. I agree with Blechnic and others, all of her edits should be removed immediately. A bot would be the easiest way I assume, that is if there is a bot programmed for this kind of work. She was given plenty of opportunity to help fix the massive amount of edits she did, and then did nothing to help with the clean up. Thus I feel the block should be enforced in full and any socks she is using should also be blocked. If necessary, her talk pages should also be blocked to stop her from interfering or trying to stay involved. If a bot cannot undo what she has already done, then can an administrator do a rollback on her account to remove her edits? I'm sure there are probably edits that she made that are acceptable but given there is so much that is not, I think removing her contributions completely would be the best. There are other knowledgeable editors that can add to the articles she has edited to get the information needed added. I endorse her block and feel block should continue and maybe even a community ban be considered from Wikipedia since her behavior has shown she sees nothing wrong with what she has done or is doing. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
As the account is indef blocked and the user talkpage is not being used to request unblock or otherwise for appropriate purposes I feel it should be protected. I was also against the community ban, but given the subsequent actions by the editor I am no longer in a position to advise that I would unblock the editor should consensus allow me to. I think that there was one other sysop who was not willing to sign up for the community ban, and if that individual were to clarify their position we might open a brief discussion to formalise a ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I did express a willingness to undo my block, but sadly I've seen no sign on the talk page that she's prepared to play nicely. I think Wikipedia needs protecting from this editor - endorse ban proposal. EyeSerenetalk 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:CarolSpears[edit]

Based on the above, User:CarolSpears is banned. I will update her userpage. Mangojuicetalk 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fair to say that this user fell on its surname. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What's next[edit]

Something still has to be done about her edits, in spite of her wish to "keep her edit history," it appears that there is not much she contributed outside of taxoboxes that is worth keeping. Particularly now that it has been shown her references don't contain the information, were misquoted, are gratuitous, or joke references to herself. What can be done about this? Can her edits be reverted with a bot in some way? Or what?

Also, about her talk page, while I appreciate that Privatemusings may want to chat with her, she is abusing her block by using her chat page to ask others to edit for her, and by making personal attacks. None of these are allowed uses of talk pages on Wikipedia. Also, if an editor had an account used only to chat with others on their talk page they would be warned, then blocked. This isn't the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. Carol Spears can find a social networking page for this.

--Blechnic (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a level 4 warning template for her latest personal attack on her talk page. This has also gone on long enough. Editors who enjoy her humor should make contact with her off Wiki to continue accessing it. --Blechnic (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have commented on your talkpage, and am watching it there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh heh, yeah, that warning probably didn't achieve too much. I'd suggest full protecting the talk page and courtesy blanking it. --barneca (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll concede that point. --Blechnic (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs) Aaaaand, another IP sock. CarolSpears edits her talk page to complain about how an editor reverts a IP edit from 21 July [22]. We can see that the same IP was used on 7 July (when Carol was already blocked) signing as "IP editing allowed" and announcing two templates on Commons where the only contributor was Carol [23]. Had this been spotted already? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have since protected the talkpage, and now I have archived the content that was there (and I am watching that archive, and will protect that if necessary). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unusual action by admin FCYTravis[edit]

You know I don't really see the point in archiving this only 8 minutes after the last comment is made. Honestly the final comment of "The chances of him ever using his admin tools again are miniscule" does not leave me sitting easy. If he claims to have left the project indefinitely and there is serious doubt about his actions, why in gods name does he still have his administrative powers? (if I read that correctly). Those should have been stripped immediately upon him claiming he is leaving the project. There is zero reason we should allow a user behaving this childishly to keep his power.--Crossmr (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Note: Enable email block when blocking Grawp accounts, Tiptoety talk 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing that can really be done, but FYI Grawp has moved to special:Emailuser for his amusement so if you block a grawp sock, please remember to disable email. --B (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pfffft, he can spend all night sending me e-mail if that's what he wants to do. I can delete them faster than he can send them. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:BEANS. Don't think he's not reading this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The beans have already been spilled. Let this just be a reminder to admins to block email when blocking said accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
He tried that stunt on me, too, but they all fell into my gmail spam filter. Bummer! Probably something to do with his MASSIVE COCK stories etc :/ Either way, I strongly recommend blocking all Grawp socks with email disabled. Same goes for User:TougHHead, if anyone encounters his socks - Alison 04:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That Gmail spam filter, always one step ahead :) Gary King (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ausonia is ignoring the issue[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 24hrs.

Ausonia has made the exact same reverts as several IPs and a user called Italicus.

The user has decided to ignore the issue and bypassed an IP block as Italicus yesterday (see User talk:Italicus and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/

Today, that user is Ausonia as the other two were blocked. I have tried to explain that no consensus was reached for those edits to be made on Italicus's talk page—and failed to convince him/her. What should I do? ~ Troy (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I also highly suggest that you stop edit waring as well; although you're right, you've violated the 3RR a few times yesterday. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to see here, move along please

I started a new page which Phil (rightly) identifed as needing more work - of course -but wrongly immediately started a deletion process on. Since then, despite modifications, he has been repeatedly seeking its deletion, without changing his arguments at all... this looks like prejudice. But more blatent is he has evidently followed my edit history and attempted to 'undo' my other edits: as his 'history' shows

  • 14:22, 22 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'101' as a teaching method for Philosophy‎ (→the comments on the new version, 'Teaching Methods in Philosophy' are here) (top) (attacks me)

These 3 edits are nothing to do with me

  • 13:39, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who‎ (→Determining companions)
  • 02:02, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who‎ (→Determining companions)
  • 01:38, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who‎ (→Determining companions)


  • 01:29, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People‎ (I disagree.) (attacks me)
  • 01:28, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Why Truth Matters‎ (I disagree.) (attacks me)
  • 22:55, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Docmartincohen‎ (→MfD nomination of User:Docmartincohen/Wikipropaganda and manipulation) (attacks me)
  • 22:54, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 20‎ ({subst:afd3|pg='101' as a teaching method for Philosophy}}) (top)(attacks me)
  • 22:54, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 20‎ ({subst:afd3|pg='101' as a teaching method for Philosophy}})(attacks me)
  • 22:53, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'101' as a teaching method for Philosophy‎ (←​Created page with '{{subst:afd2|pg=Incidents|cat=U|text=Article, created by User:Docmartincohen, talks heavily of Martin Cohen's work on the subject, making it pretty c...') (attacks me)
  • 22:52 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Teaching methods in Philosophy‎ (attacks me)

Phil might be right to disagree on all this! That is a content issue... But my complaint is that he has followed my edit history to disagree and reverse my activities. This seems to be 'wikistalking' not legitimate editing.

I suggest he be warned or blocked...

Docmartincohen (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide links or diffs, please? It is very difficult to judge things without being able to see it. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Researched it myself. We're talking about this AfD of this page (note that it was moved after the discussion began). --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I went through and looked at some of the edits he cites, and removing a pair of tags (which Phil did on two of the listed edits) is not a personal attack, nor is all of the stuff regarding the addition of the AFD tag. While the discussion at the AFD may be considered a personal attack (I disagree with that interpretation), Phil is unquestionably correct that there is a serious CoI issue here, and it could be construed as self-promotion. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, that's exactly right. Phil hasn't done anything wrong here, hasn't attacked you, and generally doesn't appear to have done anything but make you angry. This isn't the place to try to get him blocked, especially under false pretenses. The people who comment here generally do their research, and the "history" you've provided shows nothing you're accusing him of. I suggest you keep any issues you have with him off-wiki. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an established understanding that concerns about an editor's behavior are properly followed up by a trawl through the editor's edit history. I had some concerns, looked deeper, and found some things that I felt required some action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Nothing to see here folks. Chillum 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Oh, there is, could an independent admin look into the behaviour of Docmartincohen??? In particular, these accusations on my user page sums it up for me. I moved it to my talk page and responded. It is completely unfounded and related to our current disagreements on the Julian Baggini biography. After that kind of stuff, he comes here complaining suggesting Phil be blocked?

Well, I suggest Docmartincohen be warned or blocked... Merzul (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I confess, I share the concerns - between his seemingly spurious COI tags of books by other authors, and his writing of promotional articles for his own work, I am very concerned about this editor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done, warned Docmartincohen. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ii consdier the above commetn by Phil to be clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy, in that it slanders me as and my motives. I'm not going to take legal action, of course, but I DO think the adminstrators noticeboard shoudl be a place a user can raise a matter without being slandered.

Docmartincohen (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not being slandered. First off, when it's written it's libel, not slander. Second off, there are no accusations of anything here that aren't backed up with evidence that shows the sorts of behavior the accusations are about. Persons not agreeing with you does not amount to libel, nor does it amount to a personal attack. Please do not assume that editors mean you any harm. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible infringement of Wikipedia content?[edit]

User:Ziggythehamster expressed a concern on WP:RFC (here, specifically) that an external website[24] is using Wikipedia content without citing Wikipedia as its source. Is this really an issue, and if it is, can someone please send it to the right people? I figured someone here would probably know how to deal with this. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This can be reported at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, someone might want to send a Standard GFDL violation letter. Algebraist 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann conflict of interest[edit]

Resolved: FuPe stuffed the sock in the washer, Dab cleared of any possible wrong doing. Beam 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann has protected an article here for which he is involved in dispute. This issue was brought about in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann in which a decision was made here that Dbachmann should not protect pages of articles he is involved in disputes. Dbachmann is involved in a dispute at Origin of religion per his numerous contributions such as July 4 and here. Crazy baldhead (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another probable Muntuwandi sock.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Besides that, looks like a kosher WP:SALTing of the page too. Might've been better to ask someone else to do it, but I'm not concerned as long as the outcome is fine. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't like Dbachmann, but looking at the topic and article content, looks like a reasonable redirect. I can't see any prior content of the old article, however, so there may be more to this. ThuranX (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
He has deleted the edit history and there are other editors who made comments Talk:Evolutionary origins of religion, so it was premature of him.Crazy baldhead (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It was an article validly deleted after AfD, and then recreated by an obvious banned sock. Preventing obvious banned socks from abusively recreating articles is as legitimate for an involved admin as fighting vandalism. Nothing to see here, move on.