Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554

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

Noticeboard archives


Protect Mark Buehrle[edit]

(Moved from WP:AN)

Can someone go over and protect Mark Buehrle? He just threw a perfect game and the article is being slammed by vandalism. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a day. I do note that this is probably the funniest vandalism I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I got a kick out of that too. 718smiley.svg Simultaneously hilarious and deeply disturbing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, he did yell "YES!!!" five times, which is probably a personal best. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hawk is lucky that the Angels' team of Hudler and Physioc are around, otherwise he would be, by far and away, the worst announcer in all of baseball. His homerism is unmatched and insufferable (thus my amusement at the vandalism). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect game could use watching for the same reason- it appears to be under control, so need for protection, but the editing rate is currently quite high. Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, members of WP:MLB are already watching those two pages, along with 2009 Chicago White Sox season, Chicago White Sox, and 2009 Tampa Bay Rays season. Help is always appreciated, though. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned user is back with sockpuppets[edit]

John.Edwards.1967 (talk · contribs) at article Cluj-Napoca and Babeş-Bolyai University. See history: Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Babeş-Bolyai University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:John.Edwards.1967's contributions User:Nobias101's contributions User:Lincoln1984's contrubutions

User:Nobias101 and User:Lincoln1984 accounts are the puppets of banned user User:John.Edwards.1967. These accounts are only used for vandalism. Compare John.Edwards.1967's edit (Edit summary text: "Funar is mentioned three times in this article") with Lincoln1984's edit ("Funar seems to be mentioned three times"), or check Nobias101's edits or this. Nobias101 already blocked by admin, Please check contributions and block puppet User:Lincoln1984 too. Thank you.--B@xter9 08:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic returns[edit]

Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs), who was blocked for long-term vandalism, disruption and sockpuppetry, has returned and is disrupting Report about Case Srebrenica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page. It has been temporarily semi-protected for now, but it would be helpful if admins could watchlist this article and deal with further disruption. A newly created sockpuppet, Arthur999 (talk · contribs), also needs to be dealt with. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive editing by a possible sockpuppet[edit]

Know-censorship (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that has made a number of unproductive edits to satanic ritual abuse articles. See their first edit which adds a personal complaint right into the middle of an article, and this allegation of criminal complicity on the talk page. This is not the first time such issues have arisen with this article, and I suspect that this person may be a sockpuppet of the banned user ResearchEditor (talk · contribs) who has used numerous such sockpuppets in the past (see here and here). Whether they are or not, I don't see a likelihood of productive contributions coming from this account. I think that an administrator should consider blocking it. *** Crotalus *** 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me someone could apply a broad interpretation of WP:NLT and take exception to his You people shouldn't be aiding and abetting criminal activity. You won't get away with it forever.. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I expect we'll see an increase in this sort of activity, they are upset because we've spam blacklisted a number of domains related to SRA that were being used to spam. --Versageek 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's fast, moving to black already. I don't know what a sock puppet is. You have my IP, it should be traceable to the city where I live and simple to discern a difference with any banned editor, unless sharing an opinion with a banned editor makes one susceptible to banning? Spam, I thought spam had to do with selling products. So, is there a list of certain peer-reviewed journals and mainstream media outlets that are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia? Please direct me to that list so that I won't make the same mistakes as previous editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Know-censorship (talkcontribs) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look good. I say give him a little more rope though. Either he'll use it to really get that noose just right, or he'll climb out of the hole with it. Let him bring to the article talk page a list of reliable sources, per our WP:RS, which he thinks substantiates the SRA as a real phenomenon and not a moral panic, and discuss those sources calmly there. IF he's incapable of that, then ban him. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely a sockpuppet, could be a meatpuppet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Editors may have already seen off wiki canvassing. See, for example, this Usenet News post -

start headers
From: childadvocate email address removed
Subject: blacklisted by wikipedia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
end headers
start quote
[. . .]
It is recommended that people write wikipedia to complain about this blatant censorship of information exposing child abuse crimes. It is also recommended that people do not use wikipedia as a resource until these websites are taken off their blacklist and are allowed on wikipedia pages again.
[. . .]
A sample letter to send is below:
[. . .]
An encyclopedia should contain a variety of information, especially accurate information about child abuse issues. Blacklisting these pages is a censorship of information of research exposing child abuse crimes.
I will not be able to use wikipedia as a resource again until these websites are taken off your blacklist and are allowed on wikipedia pages again.
end quote
Clearly disruptive campaigning, with little understanding of various wiki policies. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New user TOV[edit]

SPONGEBOBSQUAREPANTS109 (talk · contribs) made this edit [1] (deleted). The location appears to be Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Almost certainly just a crank, but is there anybody down that way who feels like making a phone call to the authorities? --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By authorities are you suggesting the police?--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Smart move. But who here is from Australia?--The LegendarySky Attacker 07:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to try the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

user:SOPHIAN - copy of Obama's birth certificate on user page and talk page (and the file itself).[edit]

SOPHIAN (talk · contribs) (who seems to be mentioned a lot recently and whose signature I note has been question as he doesn't use Sophian in his sig() has uploaded File:Obama's short birth certificate problems.jpg and placed it on his talk and user pages. He has also placed it, for some reason, on another problematic file of his, File:R1A map.jpg. He just escaped a block for edit warring at Genetic history of Europe because the page was protected just before the block was placed (the editor first warned Sophian and then reverted the warning with an edit saying "nevermind, the page is protected". We seem to be having continual problems with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it from the R1A file, as it has nothing to do with the subject. Otherwise, the user is obviously pushing a viewpoint, although why he thinks an obviously blacked out item, as well as a smudge, need to be circled is hard to figure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Comment:He also started to spam other, not subject related articles (or sections) with his image. For example he added it to article Slovakia History/Before the fifth century section (?!), but it was removed by another user. After this he re-added it with a "possible vandalism" comment. He also added it to Hungarian prehistory (?) "Migrations" (??) section, after this.--B@xter9 10:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that SOPHIAN says he created this elaborate image File:R1A map.jpg and owns the copyrights, yet the user is consistently unable to properly format urls/wikilinks as exemplified here. He has yet to provide a source for this information contained in the map. So I have listed it possibly unfree noticeboard Wapondaponda (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to block the user for edit warring on that (Genetic history of Europe), and other pages (per this), but for the former page there was what appeared to me as a genuine content dispute between him and another problematic editor so I went with protection rather than blocking both. I am completely neutral with someone blocking however and unprotecting the page if need be. I was simply trying to cause the least amount of drama as possible, but as it's already here.... Nja247 13:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we remove the stupid damn birther SOAPBOX violation immediately? Any jackass who can't be bothered to read up on the facts of the case really deserved to be community banned, and they certainly must not be given a soapbox to stand on. This thing has been so thoroughly debunked so many times that the only people still believing it are brain damaged. ThuranX (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't followed closely the ArbCom stuff on Obama related pages, but does that apply here? Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Drama is never too far from SOPHIAN. Many are aware of SOPHIAN's activities, but some aren't so I will give a short recap a brief history

  • SOPHIAN takes sides in content disputes without demonstrating any depth of knowledge about the subject matter. In some cases this gives the impression that legitimate content disputes are taking place. For example SOPHIAN has been edit warring on E1b1b article. But on his talk page, he demonstrates that he hasn't read one of the most important publications on the article E1b1b. He requested certain information, which I volunteered to provide [7]. After doing so, SOPHIAN deleted the comments from his talk page [8] and continued edit warring pretending that the latest information I provided him didn't exist, and reinserting info from an obsolete source. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN is the gift that keeps giving. All these events have taken place within about a month of editing and there has been no sign of improvement. Within the last month, he has received three 24 hour blocks and one 48 hour block [9]. But these appear to have been ineffective, because as early as yesterday, he was causing drama by uploading Obama's birth certificate. With such a record of absurd behavior. It is very difficult to collaborate with this editor. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. Since I won't be online all that time let me say here that anyone wishing to revise this block should do so without consulting me. The multiple links to a POV-titled file are pointless disruption; the unexplained upload of it into R1A [10] is just baffling. I have formed the impression that SOPHIAN doesn't really know what he is doing and doesn't take wiki seriously enough to learn William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Mgillfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been a long-term problem on articles about California roads. Here he admits that he doesn't know what the phrase he's putting into articles means. Is this really the kind of editor we want writing articles? Can anything be done? --NE2 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And do we want this kind of editor, NE2 (talk · contribs), who constantly ignores community consensus over the period of several years with overwhelming evidence of these: 1, 2, and 3? Mgillfr (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The latest one of these was two years ago, and the issues behind those were largely resolved. Please stop referring to stuff that you were not on Wikipedia for and do not understand fully - it is clear you don't understand what the issues involved here were. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop acting like you know everything, as well. Mgillfr (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
NE2 - did you notice the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr filed? I wasn't sure if you did. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That seems to have produced no result. --NE2 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It does provide documentation should we decide to take this up further through WP:DR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss this without either side making it into a personal attack. Both sides chose to lead with that, but it has to stop now. NE2 and Mgillfr, both of you, further personal attacks here or elsewhere will result in short blocks. Mgillfr - Do you acknowledge that your english grammar and usage have caused some specific mistakes on article pages? It appears that you've stated english is not your native language and that you're still studying it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

English is my native language, but to be honest it's not that strong - my reading/writing skills are basically below national average. Mgillfr (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure how I've made a personal attack. We have someone here who doesn't understand what he's writing in articles. --NE2 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That was not the most politic phrasing to use in filing the report, exasperated by the situation or not... Please be aware of that moving forwards... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:GraYoshi2x removing information from AFD discussions[edit]

User:GraYoshi2x has been removing information posted in the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie (elephant). He is arguing that the information from the New York Times index used to refute his arguments for deletion are still under copyright, even though they have been published in 1922 or prior and are in the public domain. I am only posting the abstracts, a line or two that appear in the index, and in Google news archive as the abstract. He has removed them 4 times. His argument is "If the [news] site still exists and it has a copyright policy with no exceptions, then it is NOT in the public domain." The argument is incorrect, all the articles are published in full by the New York Times. For example here: Hattie Dies. I want my list restored to the discussion so other editors can see the full bibliography of material available to establish notability. He was warned about 3RR and to not remove other editors comments from an AFD. He deleted the notice and again removed my comments. The deletion of the NYT information skews the AFD by denying access to the information for people commenting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't copy from an article in the public domain, but rather the search results page. The New York Times copyright policy states that it is intended for private and noncommercial use, not for carelessly spamming the AfD page with a bunch of copyvio text. What started as a simple AfD has now turned into an unnecessary ANI report, when the fault is on you for both acting completely uncivil (your talk page shows that you've been involved in a past Wikiquette alerts issue, also on an AfD) and that you consistently restored text that is copyrighted under US law. If you still feel that for some reason that information is needed, then for heaven's sake, LINK TO IT. GraYoshi2x►talk 19:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please brush up on US copyright law and Wikipedia policy. You can not reclaim an expired copyright. You also should not be removing other people's comments from an AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

GraYoshi2x - the NYT itself says, as one of it's FAQs

Q May I use portions of New York Times articles, such as quotes or excerpts; may I edit or adapt New York Times articles? A Under certain circumstances, it is permissible to make direct quotes from New York Times articles. The context, number, and length of the quotes will determine whether permission is or is not required.

Also, all text created before 1923 in the US is now in the public domain. This is a nice simple explanation.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, publishers frequently make claim to copyright over material they do not own. We do not go by the publisher statement--we go by US law. DGG (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


User that was blocked for sockpuppetry for a week on the 16th at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nightmareishere/Archive appears to have jumped the gun and started using a new IP (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) a day early on the 22nd, to evade the block. Based on his resumption of wikidrama at New Order and Gene Loves Jezebel I feel fairly certain that this is the same disruptive editor. He's not socking with the new IP (as he did with his old IP and the named account) so I'm not sure how to proceed, but posting here seemed a place to start. I couldn't find a warning template for block evasion to post at the new IP. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:DUCK would do well here, wouldn't it?--The LegendarySky Attacker 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up; the ARIN whois service seems ill[edit]

To those admins who use WHOIS links, the ARIN whois service seems to be a bit belly-up at the moment. Queries are returning

DataBase Error: Table 'arindb-200907242009.net_ip_index' doesn't exist

Tonywalton Talk 21:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by dynamic IPs[edit]

Over the past month or so, a dynamic Telstra IP has been repeatedly modifying others' comments, primarily at Talk:Defense of the Ancients and Talk:Left 4 Dead, citing them as "personal attacks". After a third party reported this at WQA, I attempted to have this resolved there, and I was advised to bring it here. Despite being told about WP:TPO (see WQA) and having their edits reverted by multiple users (see talk pages' histories), they've persisted and made their own attacks (e.g. calling me "hilariously pathetic"[11] and implying that I'm "arrogan[t]"[12]) They occasionally register an account (i.e. AgoINAgo, Moaners), but they aren't used for long. I admit that I've removed some of their comments too, but I believe that those were clearly uncivil or irrelevant, and they existed at the end of the thread (as opposed to the middle, where it would create holes in the conversation).

On a side note, at Talk:Defense of the Ancients#Reception (a long read) their "refusal to get the point" lead an admin to "draw the line" and they have since continued their conduct,[13] but I'm more concerned about their modification of others' comments. —LOL T/C 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Would temporarily semi'ing those pages be a viable option? -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't very optimistic about semi-protecting talk pages especially because the IP has been modifying others' comments since early June,[14] but I guess that would be a good idea if nobody thinks they can communicate well with the user. —LOL T/C 21:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Long-term serial copyright infringer; indef-blocked. Review requested.[edit]

Investigating a couple of articles at the very backlogged WP:SCV, I have uncovered another serial copyright infringer, this one having infringed across multiple account. Under his current username, I have discovered infringement going back several years. Learning of his alternate accounts (See [15]), I found that CorenSearchBot picked up problems with another (User talk:Mirza Barlas/Archives/2008/June}, while he was given personal warnings by several users as far back as 2007 under another ([16] and [17]). I need to run a contribution history so that we can eliminate material that the user may have pasted under his various identities.

I have indefinitely blocked pending some assurance that this contributor will not continue violating copyright policies, which he's been aware of for several years, under any username. Since I do not typically start with an indef-block, I wanted to invite review. Also, please, assistance. WP:SCV is swamped, we have several multiple-article infringement issues up for cleaning at WP:COPYCLEAN, and I do not know until I run our contribution surveyor program on these username how extensive the investigation is going to be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have accidentally cross-posted this to WT:AN, where I somehow wound up while trying to post it here. ? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ack. That much, that many accounts, going on for so long... I would recommend permanent blocking and IDing the IP range to do something about that too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got the contribution surveyor program running through his various usernames, and it's looking pretty extensive. So far, I've found infringement in every contribution he has made. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of socks of User:Hatherington[edit]

Let me sum up the outcome of the thread WP:ANI#New editor Bogglevit messing up layout of lots of articles above, because I fear it has fallen off the radar, and something needs to be done. It is clear that:

are all socks of Hatherington (talk · contribs), who was indef-blocked by Rlevse for socking, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hatherington -- however I haven't been able to locate an SPI page for this case. This editor has a pattern of creating a sock and using it for a few hours to do 20-100 of what appear to be harmless copy-edits, but actually are subtly destructive. If possible, it would be good to auto-revert all the edits by all the socks. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to give direct evidence on this page to show that all of these socks are related?--The LegendarySky Attacker 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The user pages all consist of two-word phrases, and the contribs all have a lot of entries saying "Wikify" as edit summary -- if you examine a diff for any randomly chosen one of these, you're likely to see a bunch of added paragraph breaks. Looie496 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are right about one thing. Something is definitley going on here. Any CheckUsers viewing this thread, can you please check for any sleepers?--The LegendarySky Attacker 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. I don't know why this section exists on the Administrator's notice board. Every edit I have made to wikipedia has been a good faith, constructive one.

There are three main building tasks I like to do:

One, to link together interconnected articles that are not yet linked - basically, to build the knowledge web. This includes putting articles into categories, and linking categories together.

Two, I like to find orphaned articles, and link them to appropriate others. This can be a lot of work.

Three, I seek to improve the readability of articles. Many articles contain wonderful information, yet are not easy to read. There is little copy editing, with large amounts of text clumped together. There are no paragraph breaks. Simply putting paragraph breaks into a mass of text allows that text to be more easily read & comprehended by a reader.

Anyway, that's what I like to do. I'm very proud of my work, because I feel it increases people's accessibility to education.

Bogglevit (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds very noble. Have you considered asking for an unblock in the usual way, and working with just a single account, or is there something that makes that impossible? Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism or Content Dispute[edit]

I'll try to make this succinct. We have User:Bal537 who seems to have one purpose here and that is to introduce this idea: [18][19]. This user is arguing with 2 other users on article talk pages with this tone. I have been approached by an editor who is concerned that Bal is 'vandalizing' pages with this information. Apparently it is inflammatory. Given Bal's edits, I am inclined to think that Bal is not concerned about consensus, and is obsessed with placing this edit across various articles.

Here's the deal - I know less about Indian culture than I do about women. I don't want to take administrative action until somebody can tell me if this a content dispute, or if the information is inflammatory, or perhaps just flat out wrong. I'm resigned to the idea that Bal is not playing by the rules, but I don't know how serious this is. I thank you in advance for the help. Law type! snype? 12:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this is at its core a content dispute, there are many worries. User:Bal537 is making personal attacks, the sources posted as "proofs" don't look reliable and there may be some cite spanning and moreover, half the sources cited in Ramdasia are en.Wikipedia articles, which as we know, is never allowed (I can't recall the last time I even saw an en.WP article as an inline citation). If Bal537 doesn't stop this behaviour quick, I'd say it's blockable. This said, if there are clashing PoVs to be had in the reliable sources on this topic, they can and should be brought forth together as such in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Bal537 would be welcome to contribute if he wanted to engage in discussions and wait for consensus. So far, besides introducing his controversial bit of data, he has reverted comments by others on Talk pages. If he continues he should be warned of a possible block, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many worries, I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby sock?[edit]

An edit filter is tagging contributions from Smithsoni0201 (talk · contribs) as being a possible sock puppet of Scibaby (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log).   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Wilson II, Matthew O'Connor and Patrick Wilson (soccer)[edit]

(Moved from WP:AN)

Hi. The page Patrick Wilson II is currently undergoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilson II, but a user User:Zombie433 has moved the page to Matthew O'Connor re-written it for the new subject and removed the AfD notice. Additionally this user has created Patrick Wilson (soccer) with pretty much all the same information as the pre-move version of Patrick Wilson II, which I would also nominate as AfD under same rationale as the original nomination, but don't see the sense in running the same argument twice. What is the best way to untangle this, given the current Patrick Wilson II has no history any more, it is probably inappropriate for me to move Matthew O'Connor back as Matthew O'Connor may (or may not) be a legitimate notable person.--ClubOranjeT 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

addition: I have redirected Patrick Wilson II to Patrick Wilson (soccer) and added a note to the AfD , but if there is a better or more appropriate option, please advise or do it. Thanks--ClubOranjeT 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Religiously offensive, deceptive user name used by User:Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

Resolved: User changed signature over editor concerns. Law type! snype? 08:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User Supreme Deliciousness has previously requested a user name change to "Supreme Allah". Obviously, his request has been denied due to the offensive nature of the proposed name, in spite of his begging for the change. Please see here:

Other users have expressed disapproval of User Supreme Deliciousness's proposed name change. Please see the following:

However, unfortunately, Supreme Deliciousness has snuck around the Admins' decisions and is now deceptively making his signature appear as "Supreme Allah" using: "User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Allah". Please the following examples:

This is a very offensive turn of events on this matter and is grounds for serious Admin action against this user.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Too late. Users, including myself, have already taken offense to this insult to God, Muslims, and non-Muslims alike. User SD had been pre-alerted of the hugely offensive nature of this matter. The fact that SD has snck around the Admins' decision is a violation already committed, in addition to the offense itself. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No it is not too late, your personal pissing match with SD will have to resume at another place and time. Editors expressed concern, he responded to the satisfaction of those editors, end of story. nableezy - 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If I remember rightly, Supreme Allah was also a character from the TV series Oz, so possibly Arab Cowboy's dudgeon is a touch too highly placed. Crafty (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally someone gets it, Supreme Allah was one of my favorite characters, after Poet and Kareem Said. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to reopen this - AC, SD changed his signature. Please discuss the religious and Oz-related aspects of the former signature on your respective talk pages. There is nothing else to be done here. Law type! snype? 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Law, there's nothing else to discuss. SD only changed his signature after the AN/I had been brought up. He had ignored previous Admins' decisions on the name change request as well as other users' concerns on his Talk page. Mission now accomplished. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't "Supreme Allah" a redundancy? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

←I've yelled at SD on his talkpage for this incident. He's seems to be a good editor, but clearly this wasn't one of his brighter moments. Crafty (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind the supposed genesis of the username, SD is wise enough to know that offense that would be taken by such a username. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I guarantee this would not have happened or have been as heated were his signature "Supreme Jesus." Sad commentary on political correctness. Pzrmd (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless his real name was actually Spanish, and was Jésus Suprémo, yes, I would report "Supreme Jesus" to WP:UAA in a flash. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind, Allah is not a given name in any Arabic culture I've heard of, whilst Jesus is a given name in many Romance language-speaking cultures. The rough Anglo-Saxon match to this username would be Supreme God, which I do think would raise some hackles in sundry ways. This is not "political correctness," words have meanings and one shouldn't be too startled when folks who like editing encyclopedia text tend to get stirred up by them. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to change my signature to "Supreme Muhammad" then. Muhammad is a common given name. Pzrmd (talk)
Are you unable to participate in Wikipedia without being disruptive? It seems like every time I turn around you're doing something disruptive, or threatening to. I would have thought the recent ANI discussion about you might have convinced you this isn't a wise path to follow. You'd probably enjoy your time here a lot more if you didn't engage in this type of behaviour; certainly everybody else probably would. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am in a civil debate. Pzrmd (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I might do likewise and change my signature to "Supreme Redneck". Although I might become a lightning rod for complaints that I'm promoting Double Wide Supremacy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was just waiting for someone to say Jesus was a given name so that I could say "Supreme Muhammad." Pzrmd (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, "Allah" essentially means "The God", as in "The one and only God". It's not the "real name" of God, anymore than God is the real name of God in English. Only God knows what His own name is. But it's used as His real name, hence the meaning is the same as if it were His real name. Meanwhile, "Supreme Allah" essentially means "Supreme Supreme Being". Think about that the next time you're using your Automatic Teller Machine Machine and entering your Personal ID Number Number. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Pzrmd, I can guarantee you that I would have denied the CHU request if it had been "Supreme Jesus." Thanks for the faith, buddy. EVula // talk // // 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the signature. Pzrmd (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Besides, AFG wouldn't even apply here. Pzrmd (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The excessive outrage over this reminds me of a particular Monty Python song. I forget the exact title. It might have been, "Never Be Rude to a Cowboy". :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, in all seriousness - it's best to use ID's and signatures that won't likely get anybody upset. Use some common sense, ya know? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Boycott Blues[edit]

Over at Talk:Left 4 Dead 2 are a couple of editors who seem to, either through refusing to read the links others keep giving them or flat-out making baseless claims of bias on the talk page, have a very big beef over the article's section detailing the boycott of the game. Although the section is as neutral as can be from what I have read, these users seem to think that "NPOV" means "My Point of View". Other highlights include:

Could I get some help instilling these users with some clue? I have the patience of a saint with most users, but this is just willful ignorance and lawyering, and I'm about ready to blow my top. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to get angry Jeremy, we are acting in good faith. You refuse to explain the rules you enact, and obviously have some sort of personal stake in this discussion. I, for one, am not angry. I am simply trying to get a biased section either reworded or removed entirely. Keep in mind that I am new to Wikipedia, and haven't had the time to study every rule in it's entirety. However, my understanding of the NPOV rule says that if users feel a section is biased, then the use of a NPOV dispute tag is warranted. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What, it's too much work for you to click a blue link and read a page? ...Oh, wait...
The only personal stake I have in this discussion is that I'm anti-idiotarian. If you really want me to push the talk page's size to the point a dial-up user will just give up, then you'd just be better off reading the pages I keep pointing out, rather than glossing over the bluelinked text. Hell, I linked some of them above, as well. In any case, I have been explaining the rules to you, and you two keep dismissing them ([25], [26]). -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't suspect the admin to be the one throwing insults around... seems silly if you ask me. I have read the articles you linked me to, many times in fact. PJthePlayer (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, normally I don't get frustrated to the point where I act like Rambo, but this lawyering and ignorance has rightly pissed me off. Anything I could say in re the article-reading would be outside AN/I's remit as an editorial dispute, but rest assured I doubt you've done so. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, it seems you have taken my postings as a personal attack on your integrity. I never intended to offend you, or anyone for that matter, I just want the article to either be rewritten to reflect a neutral point of view, or be removed entirely. However, reguardless of how this plays out, I don't think anyone would argue at this point that there is not a dispute over this article's neutrality, which is why I feel the NPOV tag should remain. PJthePlayer (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You're starting to branch into content, not conduct (what AN/I deals with). -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, you need to rein in your impatience. This is a content dispute, and all you have demonstrated conclusively is that you don't like the opposing point of view. Meanwhile you use words like "anti-idiotarian" that would justify an incivility block all by themselves. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Editwarring over 'Not a ballot' notice, accusations of bad faith at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience[edit]

User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy are reapeatedly removing the not a ballot template on the AFD discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience[27] [28] [29] [30].

The template was placed on the page after User:Verbal and others posted messages on the AFD page[31] and on WP:FTN implying that the AFD was invalid without addressing the policy issues at hand. Since then there have been repeated baseless accusations from User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy on both the AFD page and on WP:FTN that I am acting in bad faith and that the article be kept, despite the fact that neither of them have demonstrated that sources sufficient to meet WP:N are available (I have repeatedly stated that if such sources are added to the article I will withraw the nomination).

I ask that the template be restored, that keep arguments in the AFD that do not address polivcy be disregarded (somewhat of a given, obviously) and that User:Verbal and User:DreamGuy be asked to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Artw (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

this edit summary is of a particular worry.--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  • IMO the template isn't terrible important either way. If this isn't something too important to you I would just be "the bigger man" and let it go. Also, this isn't terribly incivil, though it shows a lack of understanding of POINT. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Artw (talk · contribs): we understand that you do not get along with Verbal (talk · contribs). Might we hold off on the AN/I reports for just a few days anyway? Maybe try some good old-fashioned talking it over without the overblown rhetoric and antics? Perhaps even avoid each other by contributing separately to our millions of articles?
I am honestly not sure why the template matters for that debate one way or the other. Usually I have seen it used for debates that get mentioned at 4chan or wherever or otherwise seem subject to canvassing and votestacking. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been no canvassing or bad faith, etc. This is the second such report from Artw in only a few days. I agree that DGs edit summary is strong, but that is an issue Artw should take up with him using WP:DR. ANI is not a first recourse, and coming here for something so trivial is a waste of time and will only encourage drama. If Artw thinks the tag was so important, he could simply have justified it on the AfD talk page. So far the AfD looks like a merge/no-consensus, and now it's been brought to ANI like this I think the tag is appropriate - but not for the reasons outlined by Artw, who for some reason keeps bringing me here. I have not been uncivil in any way in my dealings with Artw. I did ask Artw to withdraw his nomination so the merge could go ahead, but he didn't respond. Following 2/0, if Artw were to avoid articles I am already actively editing then that would be ok with me, and likewise (although I don't think this has ever occurred). I don't know why Artw has such a problem with me, he seems to think I use FTN inappropriately, although I use it in the way it is usually used and within the bounds of WP:CANVASS. I've also tried to be conciliatory on his talk page, and when I had an issue with his posting ANI notices to multiple talk pages I took it to him and asked him to remove them rather than complain to ANI. As far as I'm aware the only talk page messages I've had from Artw are ANI notices! Sorry for the long reply, summary: I don't think this complaint is justified. DG has been short in some of his replies, but he has been baited by some users (not Artw that I'm aware) and I understand his reaction, although I feel it can counter-productive. However, DGs behaviour seems to be well within wikipedia norms! As always, improving advice and constructive criticism accepted on my talk page. Best, Verbal chat 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Side note, the title is a bit long and loaded. Could it be shortened? Just removing the names would go a long way to shortening and neutralising it. I'd do it, but as it's my "name" I'll bow out. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The matter of whether WP:FTN is being used as a getaround for WP:CANVASSing is entirely seperate.
As for my title and description of the situation of the situation I stand by them - though I will conceede that it's mainly User:DreamGuy making accusations of bad faith. Artw (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I changed the section header. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Changed again. Using Wikicode in a title busts the goto arrow. HalfShadow 17:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just the latest incident of "civil POV pushing": people trying to game the system by blatantly violating core policies and then claiming it's uncivil for other editors to tell them they're breaking those policies. I also find it odd that User:Artw waited to run off to ANI to complain about my removing the ballot template until after I was no longer removing it. It's like he knew the situation was going to blow over and he'd lose his chance to complain and escalate the conflict instead of letting it resolve. And, frankly, the idea that he could suddenly nominate the article about that book for deletion immediately after he lost a bitter argument to have it removed as a source on the Ian Stevenson article (first by claims it wasn't reliable, then by claims that it didn't say what it obviously said) and not expect to have people raise their eyebrows is just absurd. These kind of actions should not be encouraged, as it just teaches other editors how to game the system. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:OckhamTheFox and Bambifan101[edit]

Resolved: Rangeblock and other blocks in effect

OckhamTheFox is acting in concert with Bambifan101 to post articles here at Bambifan101's request through discussions they are having on the Russian Wikipedia. He started by recreating The Seventh Brother, an article created twice by Bambifan101 socks and CSDed as such. See[32][33] for the discussions. I suspected as much when the article was posted, and its basically been confirmed by the newest IP sock[34]. Thoughts, options, etc? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some fun quotes from their discussion: "Collectian is probably away now, so I think you can post my new draft there whilst she's away. Tell her that you are new to English wikipedia and are doing this in good faith." and his bragging about his sockpuppeting "FYI, Collectian isn't editing much, and the user Cactusjump is back after a four-day wikibreak. I had used an account called "TheRescuers" to trick Cactusjump into thinking that I was a Rescuers fan" clearly showing that OckhamTheFox (supposedly an administrator there?) knew what he was doing. I'm inclined to think its bannable, but will leave to others to decide how to respond to this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's more than high time for a formal complaint to Bell South. I am sick and tired of this individual wasting valuable volunteer time. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked and tagged the account. As for a formal complaint, you're always welcome to take a look at WP:ABUSE. Icestorm815Talk 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Meta finally decided to act on this to some degree and has blocked some of his global accounts, including The Seventh Brother one he was using on the Russian Wikipedia[35] and they are starting to block others as well[36] (only took a year after I first made multiple requests </bitterness>). He's being a pain on the many language ones as well, creating vandal articles and copy/pasting English articles from here (his preferred versions) to there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been informed that OckhamTheFox is an administrator at the Russian Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means that Bambifan101 and OckhamTheFox are unrelated? It's odd how an administrator could do something like that. -- Pinkgirl34 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
They are unrelated, but for whatever reason, OckhamTheFox agreed to help him here despite knowing full well that he was a multi-time banned sockpuppet. Scary to think that is the kind of admins the Russian wiki has...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm from Russian Wikipedia too. Sorry, are there any pages other than listed on this page, which would help to find any additional information in order to get a complete picture of the situation with The Seventh Brother and his/her relations to Ockham The Fox? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
We only just learned about this, so I doubt we've got anything other than what's on this AN/I thread, Drbug. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I looked through the User:Bambifan101 and didn't understand exactly what initilally there was disruptive in his behavior. Have he put false information into the articles or just inaccurate in style?
As far as I understand, the informatia lot on that Ockham the Fox carried into Wikipedia didn't contain any false information? It looks to me like all the OTF's edits were good faith ones... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he has put false information, reverted to very old versions after clean up and referencing was done, randomly removed comments from talk pages to the point of blanking them, and refactored others comments. It just depends on his mood. Sometimes he does decent edits for a short time, but he almost always reverts to the status quo. He has deliberately vandalized other articles, including blanking and copyvio violations, to get the attentions of those familiar with him, repeatedly merged and unmerged articles at his own whim, attacked and harassed other users, made both death and suicide threats as a joke, threatened to have his "daddy" "buy" Wikipedia and kick everyone off, etc. And sorry, but OTF's edits were far from good faith ones. Seventh Brother AKA Bambifan had already bragged about how he was sockpuppeting here, and OTF KNEW he was banned from editing here, so he turned around and performed specific edits that Bambifan101 wanted to do, including recreated a multi-time deleted article (figuring if OTF did it, it wouldn't be CSDed again) and taken from content Bambifan101 provided. The edits to The Fox and The Hound were to restore deleted content and a version Bambifan101 prefers from one of his many bad versions he's spammed around the other language Wikipedia's. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks a lot for the info. Ok, I see now that the movie fails WP:N and WP:NF. Hm, I probably guess how OTF could think: "no matter what is the primary source of the work, it should be included in Wikipedia if it is legal and adds a value to Wikipedia according to its rules", provided that it's him responsible for the information he brings in. In Russian Wikipedia it's not universally prohibited to bring an article of a banned user to Wikipedia. So he doublechecked the information and put it in. Ok, I won't continue this topic in this page. Thank you! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
For some more detailed info, this LTA subpage should help. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 02:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If he did mean well, may want to warn him that the sock is still trying to "work" him and get him to do things for him. Ilikepiepieisawesomeright is probably him, again, and most certainly is (one of his known IP ranges). Likely decided OTF is an easy mark and will continue trying to trick him for awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone else incredibly tempted to just rangeblock, with a block notice that anyone inconvenienced by it should just be pointed towards Bell South's abuse reporting email address? Black Kite 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, but I'm too busy getting "Gremlins from the Kremlin" out of my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone block User:Ilikepiepieisawesomeright. Its the named sock he made yesterday while he had the IP active. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As an update, OckhamTheFox is continuing to perform edits for Bambifan101.[37] While he may be an admin on the Russian Wikipedia, he is continuing to violate this Wikipedia's rules about making proxy edits for a sockpuppet knowing full well what he is doing. His block was released because of his admin status, but he is still not helping anything by continuing to edit for Bambifan. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will talk to him in Russian. I think he does not realize the difference in policies concerning banned users. Ruwiki user Kv75 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've brought this back from the archive as OckhamTheFox is STILL continuing to attempt to edit for Bambifan101 after telling him to contact him via email on the Russian Wikipedia (making their conversations impossible to continue to track). He is now trying to create another Disney article for the sock, despite a unanimous rejection on the The Fox and the Hound talk page. Can we get a topic ban or something? Its bad enough dealing with this mess, but now we have another user who appears to be socking joining OckhamTheFox to encourage him to do it anyway and now wikihounding me and making edits to The Fox and the Hound just to be aggrieving. Would appreciate eyes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marktreut as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Should he be just blocked temporarily for disruptive editing? -- 科学高爾夫 19:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one? OckhamTheFox was blocked for proxy editing, but the block was undone because he is a Russian Wikipedia administrator (though personally, I don't see why that mattered). Marktreut has been blocked once for disruptive editing, and is now using socks to get around 3RR on various articles and not even doing a very good job of it. At minimum, I think all the socks should be indef blocked, Marktreut get a longer block, and a strong warning to cease his inappropriate behaviors (disruptiveness, edit warring, personal attacks, vandalizing to make a point, etc). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Our own admins sometimes get blocked for good reason. Why should being a Russian admin be an automatic get-out-of-block card? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
He shouldn't be. Proxying for Bambifan101 warrants an indefinite block, regardless of his status on other Wikipedias.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Ockham's block was quite appropriate. JavertI knit sweaters, yo! 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is true that this user has proxied for a banned user and inserted specious edits into articles, then the indefinite block should be restored. However, I am admittedly having trouble finding a pattern of specious diffs in Ockham's contributions. I have seen the since-deleted recreated The Seventh Brother article but precious little else ([38] from July 20). Can someone please list the diffs in question here? -- Samir 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There aren't a lot more, but that's enough. This conversation shows that it was done with full knowledge that we was proxying for a banned user, and here is the log where OckhamTheFox deletes the talk page where his side of the conversation would be found. Unless and until OckhamTheFox explains that he knows that what he did was inexcusable and that he will never repeat it, the block should remain in effect.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the Seventh Brother edits, he also has done and continues to try to do proxy edits to The Fox and the Hound. Before that, he never really edited here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Ockham has engaged in conversation with Bambifan101/The Seventh Brother on ru.wp and possibly by e-mail. But the disruption has amounted to a now deleted article (The Seventh Brother); Ockham had indicated that he thought he was acting in good faith at the time. The edits to The Fox and the Hound are being discussed on the talk page of that article, and DGG has provided a cogent argument in favour of detailing the characters in the article, which is what Ockham's edits amounted to. In my mind, there is no argument for an indefinite block of OckhamTheFox based on the evidence presented. -- Samir 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
He made the edits for Bambifan first, directly copy/pasting it from Bambifan's current version of the article at Simple Wikipedia. He is now claiming to be editing on his own, which Bambifan101/The Seventh Brother had encouraged him to do during their RU discussions, and simply wants to restore the same bad content. And yes, DGG made an argument too, even though it goes against the article guidelines, however all others have agreed that the section does not belong. The issue, however, is not a content dispute, it is his continuing to try to edit for Bambifan regardless of whether one or two editors thing the edits themselves are "okay" (and his additions were not).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind that "indefinite" does not mean "infinite" or even "long". In this case, "indefinite" would mean "until OckhamTheFox promises that he will never knowingly proxy for a banned user again". If he truly understands what he did wrong, that block could be cleared in 20 minutes.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but the simple fact that an admin anywhere would think doing so was a good idea suggests to me that not having him here doesn't hurt Wikipedia. HalfShadow 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have re-instated the indef block, ensuring that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users is noted both in the block log and on the accounts page. Perhaps they do things differently on ru-WP, but on en-WP they were in knowing violation of the policies that pertain to editing here. I also note that they spent their time post unblock in attempting to convince various parties to allow the creation/editing of the article under dispute - they were not even interested in stepping back from the matter.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm actually more concerned that this is an administrator on the Russian Wikipedia. Any damage here can be undone fairly easily. I'm not fluent in Russian, but is anything being done there? Enigmamsg 09:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, apparently this guy's a furry. 'Furry' and 'smart' are not two words that mesh well. HalfShadow 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Just for your knowledge: his admin flag has been removed by his own request after the Russian Arbitrary Committee had decided to began a confirmation procedure of his adminship. He had been accused with violating some rules in ruWP. So don't be concerned with this. Arbitrator of Rusian AC, Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


  • Support the indef block. I'd support the /16 on that range of bell south IP addresses if I could be sure that we would catch most of the IPs assigned to BF101. There is (should still be up) a set of smaller ranges to block him, but I'm not sure of the efficacy. LTE is kind of a black hole. ISPs tend not to care that someone is vandalising wikipedia and most of the '' addresses are required for registrants but not terribly well attended. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    I've actually managed to get in touch with a Singaporean ISP concerning a user's unconstructive edits and they assured me actions were taken. Some ISPs are more responsive than others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    I should have been more careful in phrasing that. Some of the LTE threads have produced good results--in general, smaller ISPs tend to be more helpful than large one, but those are the exception to the rule. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've put into effect the rangeblock. Any admin is welcome to reverse it if the collateral damage is severe. Black Kite 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • He's on a new range on which (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • A small portion of that range is blocked. Here. This will eventually fail, as the bellsouth range is MASSIVE (a /11) and bell south appears to assign IPs randomly within that range to users. But it might work for a bit. Protonk (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hopefully this won't be necessary for long--it looks like this block took out a good-sized chunk of Charleston, South Carolina. Blueboy96 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to block read access to a range? If you really want this resolved, the thing to do is to make it so that anyone in that /16 cannot even read Wikipedia, with an error message complete with a mailto: note to complain to the BellSouth abuse address. Given the actual technical acumen of the average user, BellSouth will flooded with reports that Google doesn't work. Bambifan101 will be booted within eight hours. In the meanwhile, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101 could use some attention: at least a block of Ableblood369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) while the gears at SPI grind away.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Blocked the account. Passes the WP:DUCK test. Also endorsed the SPI request for checkuser. Enigmamsg 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

destruciton of US history articles' pattern[edit]

Resolved: No issue: DR Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor split History of the United States (1991–present) to two articles 1990s in the United States and 2000s in the United States with no discussion and no justification to do so. This decade scheme puts these two articles at odds with the rest of the 'History of the United States ( - )' articles, which have cutoff points based on historically significant turns of events in US History--not decades, and differs from the naming scheme of the rest of such articles, differs from their category names, etc. Request these article and re-direct changes be properly reversed. Hmains (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue, not an admin issue. Have you talked to the editor about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So far, no answer from the offending editor. I will see if one is forthcoming. This is the about the same as what another editor did previously and was then reversed administratively. Because of the redirects and editing history involved, I believe only Administrators can fix this problem. Hmains (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments on myself and What I believe to be questionable actions by an admin.[edit]


I was given a warning for Biting a newcomer by User:Blueboy96. The Warning doesn't give any details of who I bit. I did try to ask him to clarify as the closeest thing to biting a new comer I found was [[39]] where I warned a new authoer about a possible conflict of interest. I did however explain myself at the same time with "Now, I'm just spitballing here and I might be wrong but you may have a conflict of interest in this subject. (assuming you are Marty Kopulsky) please read all the relevant policies to write a article about a person. If you have any questions drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do what I can" if this is what he's warning about It's complete bullshit. I would ask for comment on this warning from the community and if it is found to be issued frivously that the Admin be directed to strike it.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it might have been nice to give him more than an hour to respond to your question before you brought him to ANI - perhaps it was a misunderstanding, or perhaps you've interpreted something differently. Also, remember that you're entirely free to remove any messages, including warnings, from your talk-page at any time. ~ mazca talk 20:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I had to run an errand unexpectedly when this came down ... I was referring to Bebobabbity (talk · contribs), whose only offense seemed to be creating test articles. However, I come back to find out s/he's already blocked. Indef is entirely too harsh, I think--in fact, I was just about to buzz the blocking admin about it when this notice showed up. Blueboy96 20:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
An indefinite block would be harsh. However that editor created 3 articles on blatant hoaxes. It is disruptive and vandalism. Again how is it biting to wp:duck?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The first article was text copied from the Wikipedia blurb that comes up when you start an article, the second and third consisted of only a signature. WP:AGF would say we might consider the possibility that a new user was trying to figure out how to make a page. Frankly, without any content, even if the film/game involved don't exist, we really can't know if it was a deliberate hoax, vandalism, or simply a noob trying to write about something s/he saw on a chat board somewhere.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily fault HiaB for templating the editor, but I would have hoped that someone would have had the sense to drop the editor a more personal note before the block, saying "Hey, I see you're having some trouble here. Give me a clue what you're trying to do so I can walk you through it." We would have found out very quickly that way if it was a good faith attempt at an article or a hoaxer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
WOW ... 3 edits and then "indef" - that does seem rather harsh. I agree with Fabrictramp (and Blueboy), that we need to ease up on the biting. We should be helping editors become acclimated to our environment; rather than skipping over level 1 and level 2 warnings. Let's talk to folks first before we kick them to the curb. Everybody was new at one time. I guess it's a moot point to notify the user of this thread at this point, but... Back to the topic at hand though - I don't see any action by Blueboy here that warrants an ANI review. — Ched :  ?  20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've worked with Mark (LHvU) before, and he's a pretty reasonable guy. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he reduced it to time served or 24 hr. — Ched :  ?  20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Using {{uw-vandal3}} as a first warning is very unusual, isn't it? Even pretty obvious serial IP vandals don't get that treatment. I thought you were supposed to start with {{uw-vandal1}} if there was the slightest chance the edit(s) were good faith, and {{uw-vandal2}} if not (e.g. offensive comments added to an article). - Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This is correct. In this case I did elevate for what could be considered bordeline edits. I do understand what the issue is now. I appreciate the time people took to comment on this situation and I will adjust my behaviors accordingly. If you'd like feel free to mark as resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone please block User:Carmegenon.[edit]


I first became aware of Carmegenon, when he posted this on my talk page a few weeks ago. He's not really active, but a review of the few edits he makes, shows that apparently holds a grudge against me. His edit pattern leads me to believe this is User:Jimblack (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), whom I got blocked last year. I didn't really feel like taking action, since he seemed inactive, but today I received this lovely message. Can someone please block the nuisance?--Atlan (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a death threat. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked indef for personal attacks.  GARDEN  21:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ldsnh2 and New York Radical Feminists – ongoing pattern of disruptive editing.[edit]

Stale: User:Ldsnh2 ceased participation and no new edits since 7/29, hence "resolved". Situation stable, but hard to say if it rises to level of truly resolved. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute over the article New York Radical Feminists over what several editors (User:Iamcuriousblue (aka Peter Werner, that is, myself) and User:Shadowjams) feel are problems with original research and editing based on unverifiable claims of first-hand knowledge of the group in question on the part of another editor User:Ldsnh2 (see note for associated accounts). The reason I am coming here rather than seeking out request for discussion or otherwise starting the mediation process is that Ldsnh2 engages in ongoing edit warring and behavior that meets most, if not all, or the criteria for disruptive editing. The editor engages in an ongoing pattern of personal attack toward other editors by name on the editors user page (User:Ldsnh2) and on Talk:New_York_Radical_Feminists. The editor continually removes citations referring to Alice Echols Daring to be Bad, a widely-cited source about the history of NYRF, based on her assertion that the book is biased and inaccurate. However, the editor's only reference for their view that the book is inaccurate is claimed personal first-hand knowledge on the part of Ldsnh2.

Since I am trying to avoid further edit warring myself, I am refraining from further editing of the article for the time being, but am seeking outside intervention.

(Note: the editor also edits under the following IP accounts: User:, User:, User:, User:

(This has been previously reported as Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ldsnh2, without resolution.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Ldsnh2 is interesting. I'm pretty sure User:Shadowjams feels like he's in good company. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
this editor appears to lack critical wP:knowledge. he has repeatedly used an incorrect version of the {{cite}} which disigures the article ! User:Smith Jones 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page. Attacks against other editors are not allowed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed two sections from Talk:New York Radical Feminists for being violations of WP:TALK as inappropriate attack sections and have asked the editor for comment on another section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. You can block me or not. Wikipedia has no hope of gender equity from my experience with four individuals who took issue with a New York Radical Feminists article reviewed by many other Wikipedians between November 2007 and July 21, 2009. Any more work I do toward any attempts at gender equity here is a sinful waste of G-d's time. Ldsnh2 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not a soapbox. If you want advocacy, go somewhere else. We are focusing on neutrality, and that is based on verifiable sources. If you cannot accept that, then I'm sorry for you. You clearly can be very helpful here, but if you refuse to work in a civil manner with others, I am not going to allow you to continue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've restored Ldsnh2's removal of all their comments at Talk:New York Radical Feminists here (including using an IP address). Even if they aren't always useful, removing them all isn't productive. -- Ricky81682

(talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Report me to whoever, block me, ban me,, edit out things I write, edit back in things I delete, write assumptions about how you may think I may think or feel, question my integrity, expertise knowledge, research work, life experiences, whatever you want to do, whoever or whatever you are, just do it. I do not care. I am powerless over this being ganged up on by this group of men and in the bigger picture based on opinions of Wikipedia by a New York City librarian and her colleagues, whatever anyone does here on Wikipedia because of such things is not important. My or perhaps anyone's work here on gender equity issues--also because of what I've seen of unreferenced statements about living feminists that put them in a negative light and the lack of criteria for page numbers and quotation from sources in references for writings about secondary sources opinions or analysis or commentary (that is, not just simple facts like "who, what, where when" events, dates or places or the like)as required in other research work--is a sinful waste of G-d's time.Ldsnh2 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps your efforts should be directed toward helping fix such problems rather than engaging in tit-for-tat retaliatory edits, which does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of any article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What be a subservient grunt work "secretary" schlepping to the library to find references for the materials you and your men friends deem fit for the current NYRF article? No way! LOL! Ldsnh2 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of being a good Wikipedia editor is willingness to do "grunt work" and sweat the details, as I'm doing right now, fact-checking the NYRF article. But in any event, my point stands – you criticize other articles for having unreferenced, problematic statements (which is essentially an Other Stuff Exists argument) and rather than making a positive effort to make improvements, you use that as an excuse for retaliatory tit-for-tat game playing. Might I suggest you either make some positive effort to improve what you see as problems with Wikipedia or at least try and reach consensus with editors who you are warring with, or, barring that, make good on your oft-repeated statement that you're going to take your efforts elsewhere. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't get the idea that people, male or female, with knowledge, experience, and research skills and resources about a subject go through considerable public domain resources to share information with the Internet public--in my case every New York Radical Feminist newsletter and conference document as well as ancillary groups documents, as well as news articles and three books written by NYRFers and long distance phone calls to two NYRFers to verify dats--on Wikipedia. They then have their work OK'd from the start by Wikipedians and make edits to follow Wikipedian criteria. They then have their work on Wikipedia reviewed and OK'd for a year and half.

After this, they then do not care an iota about Wikipedia and have no interest in it or its further success when their work researching scores of resources is picked on and undone and replaced by a few quotes chiefly from one book. They move on and find other places to post their articles. They cannot delete their Wikipedia accounts but could if they were able to. To them, Wikipedia is at best a disappointment if not something to downgrade in discussions with their friends and colleagues. Period, end of story. My November 2007-July 21, 2009 article based only on listings of activities, dates and places, not personal recollections of any biased NYRF participant including myself, has been greatly revised also with more references and will be posted on under "radical feminism" by July 31.Ldsnh2 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

...and sadly, your actions have likely done more harm than good for your cause. Wikipedia is not the place to carry signs and claim sexism, because that's a load of crap around here. Best of luck to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
And I think, unfortunately, what you don't get is the concept of No Original Research and the fact that much of what you continue to insist on constitutes original research. For godsakes, your version of the article claimed personal emails as a source. If you have even the most cursory idea about Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, you'd know that personal emails as a reference, and any statement supported solely by this, is not remotely acceptable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
One other thing, you keep insisting that your earlier version of the article was "OK'd by Wikipedians". Quite simply, it wasn't, because there is no formal "OKing" of an article, other than perhaps the kind of evaluation of an article as a Good Article or Feature Article (and I know the NYRF article has not been a candidate for either of these). Just because an article has been around for a certain amount of time without anybody raising objections does not mean its "OK'd" in any sense. Many problematic edits stay around for years before anybody a) notices them, and b) takes action. This is especially true of articles on fairly obscure topics, like this one. The kind of thorough going-over and fact-checking this article is undergoing right now is probably the first detailed review this article has ever had. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I reread the main source of the New York Radical Feminists article "Daring to Be Bad" as part of research for my article and focused on the pages that deal with the split of the Stanton-Anthony Brigade from NYRF that are referred to in this article. There are recollections from the members of other brigades who took issue with leaders, Firestone and Koedt--Brownmiller--and other members of Stanton-Anthony--Crothers and Bikman (with whom I was personally acquainted and very much liked) who also provided their recollections of how Firestone and Koedt felt. However, no where on those pages are there any quotatons or other information provided directly by Firestone and Koedt. In those days women who left feminist groups often wrote a long piece about why If Echols had found and quoted such a document from either Firestone or Koedt in her pages about this change in NYRF, her book and its reference here would have credibility and validity.

Without such direct statements or writings from Firestone or Koedt whom I never did meet but respect and want respected, any writings about them in this or any other book and why they did this or that are just hearsay, gossip etc. and not valid information to be included anywhere including in Wikipedia. The constant use of this one book as a main resource with its based upon such sloppy research this being just one example but a glaring one in and of itself invalidates the current New York Radical Feminists article. The article should be delete