Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Guitarherochristopher evading block?[edit]

Resolved: IPs blocked for evading ban, MfD closed and all project pages deleted (I think) BencherliteTalk 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm really not sure, but this message on my talk page was enough to arouse suspicions, and,, and all seem to be taking an interest in Guitarherochristopher's Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Prodigy, a project with no other members. I'd rather not file an SPI based on circumstantial evidence alone, but someone here may be able to shed a bit more light on it. PC78 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be in the same state as GHC was... FWIW... And The Capitalization Of Inappropriate Words Is There Too [1]. –xenotalk 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocked. Project sent to MfD. You can file an SPI if you want in order to find sleepers, but they fit the DUCK test pretty well. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No one marked that project for deletion originally? Blah. Well, actually my fault since I'd asked here and then it kind of disappeared without reply and I was way too terrified to do it myself at the time. This all saddens me given the time I spent looking over the pages edited in his last few days as he was blindly adding templates and other things everywhere. Thanks for the MfD, xeno, and I can't recall if he created any categories either related or unrelated that could be speedy'd now since they sh/would have been empty for weeks. daTheisen(talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User: vandalising pag. This is not Encyclopaedia Dramatica.[edit]

Please block user from editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talkcontribs) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute to me (unless I missed something here). Full-protected 2 days. Please duke it out discuss civilly on the talk page. MuZemike 03:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree; it looks like Simon is a fan/friend of David's (note his name fourth on and wants to control the article. David doesn't really seem notable, and so deletion might be the best course of action. (Simon: it would also keep him from having a biography that he can't control, so isn't necessarily a bad thing for him.) --NE2 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Again with the besmirching of ED and the *chans. Some of us are very lovely people, you know. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by annon IPs against Nirvana888[edit]

Resolved: Both IP's were blocked by NW about 2 hours before this thread was started... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two annon IPs (but one user) have posted legal threats against Nirvana888 [2] [3] [4] [5]

This is due to a recent sockpuppet investigation -- Phoenix (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The second diff contains evidence of awareness of WP:NLT and a purposeful disregard of that policy. Recommend blocking as soon as possible. However, all the diffs are from a few days ago; perhaps a "strict final warning" would be most prudent, followed by a block if any further threats are made. GlassCobra 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment directed at User:Wknight94[edit]

This user was recently blocked for what seems like a case of wikistalking Wknight94, and reverting all of his edits using a edit summary that constitutes a personal attack. I believe I have seen this harassment before, and I'm wondering if this is an ongoing problem. The thing that should not be 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The theme of "deviant sexual" attractions and practices has been rather prominent lately. @Kate (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should give this issue more attention than absolutely needed. Tan | 39 17:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry all, it's General Tojo (talk · contribs). I mentioned that his infatuation with children might merit contacting the authorities - and apparently that hit a nerve. Anyone want to look into that, let me know and I'll be happy to provide evidence. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
General Tojo (talk · contribs) is still around, wow it been years, when is he going to stop. Secret account 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher evading block?[edit]

Resolved: IPs blocked for evading ban, MfD closed and all project pages deleted (I think) BencherliteTalk 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm really not sure, but this message on my talk page was enough to arouse suspicions, and,, and all seem to be taking an interest in Guitarherochristopher's Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Prodigy, a project with no other members. I'd rather not file an SPI based on circumstantial evidence alone, but someone here may be able to shed a bit more light on it. PC78 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be in the same state as GHC was... FWIW... And The Capitalization Of Inappropriate Words Is There Too [6]. –xenotalk 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocked. Project sent to MfD. You can file an SPI if you want in order to find sleepers, but they fit the DUCK test pretty well. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No one marked that project for deletion originally? Blah. Well, actually my fault since I'd asked here and then it kind of disappeared without reply and I was way too terrified to do it myself at the time. This all saddens me given the time I spent looking over the pages edited in his last few days as he was blindly adding templates and other things everywhere. Thanks for the MfD, xeno, and I can't recall if he created any categories either related or unrelated that could be speedy'd now since they sh/would have been empty for weeks. daTheisen(talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User: vandalising pag. This is not Encyclopaedia Dramatica.[edit]

Please block user from editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talkcontribs) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute to me (unless I missed something here). Full-protected 2 days. Please duke it out discuss civilly on the talk page. MuZemike 03:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree; it looks like Simon is a fan/friend of David's (note his name fourth on and wants to control the article. David doesn't really seem notable, and so deletion might be the best course of action. (Simon: it would also keep him from having a biography that he can't control, so isn't necessarily a bad thing for him.) --NE2 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Again with the besmirching of ED and the *chans. Some of us are very lovely people, you know. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by annon IPs against Nirvana888[edit]

Resolved: Both IP's were blocked by NW about 2 hours before this thread was started... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two annon IPs (but one user) have posted legal threats against Nirvana888 [7] [8] [9] [10]

This is due to a recent sockpuppet investigation -- Phoenix (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The second diff contains evidence of awareness of WP:NLT and a purposeful disregard of that policy. Recommend blocking as soon as possible. However, all the diffs are from a few days ago; perhaps a "strict final warning" would be most prudent, followed by a block if any further threats are made. GlassCobra 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


New IP user has four times now restored changes to Kim Ok-bin that were previously made by multiple socks of InkHeart, and has reiterated the same arguments made by that user in edit summaries. While on the one hand this could be construed as a content dispute, I don't think it's unreasonable under the circumstances to suspect that this is yet another block evasion by InkHeart. Can someone look into it please? PC78 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons. According to the policy in Korean naming there should be hyphen between the first and second name. Kim Okpin should be Kim Ok-pin. Ok-bin's martial arts status was placed at the very bottom of her Career paragraph which should be included at the top, before her filming career began. Critcism and other pursuits doesn't seem correctly used because the paragraph only talks about her criticsm statment that she said on television. There aren't any other pursuits for the title "and other pursuits" to fit. As for the filmography, her film status is very short. So why is there a chart and I have noticed in other articles as well that there aren't any charts. So why should this one be any different. That's just my two sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems rather telling that you have not addressed the more pressing issue of block evasion. I won't discuss content issues here because this isn't the place, except to say that I have already previously cited multiple guidelines which these changes contravene. PC78 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


someone has written "poo face" on the article please fix thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Which article? --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it was the Tico-Tico article which was vandalised by an IP. Vandalism reverted and warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Rotational just returned from a two week block for violating his editing restriction against edit warring over image positioning and heading levels, and has immediately returned to edit warring over the same issues. He has stated that he will revert on sight any changes made to his articles by Jeni, Rkitko or myself.[11] Can anything be done to prevent this promise of disruption? Hesperian 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere have I suggested that they are my articles - as usual, Hesperian, in order to bolster his flimsy case, is not above distorting the facts. Can anything be done about Hesperian's continuing harassment? Rotational (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverts were promised for any edits made to "the articles I start".[12] Does this imply ownership any less than my employment of a possessive pronoun? Or is this merely obfuscation of the key fact, which is that Rotational was placed under a formal editing restriction back in May, and six months later the edit warring continues unabated, and still nothing is done.

As for harassment, I doubt if I have ever edited an article created by Rotational; I'm unsure if I've ever reverted him on any article; and I certainly have never engaged in an edit war with him. My role in this sorry affair is solely to report violations. If Rotational doesn't like that, he might consider changing his behaviour. Hesperian 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The key fact is that you have chosen to target and harass me. Your role in this "sorry affair" has been to drum up support for your rather wobbly point of view, to orchestrate a kangaroo court editing restriction and to run whining to the ANI when I don't kowtow to you. Trouble-stirring and ramming your version of the MoS down other editors' throats are a major entertainment for you. Rotational (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Final warning given. Black Kite 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not distorting the facts if that's what you said: [13] suggests you don't understand the concept of ownership on WP (i.e. there is none) which is a real concern. Your continuing threats ([14]) are more of an issue than any 'harassment' right now.raseaCtalk to me 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
My "threats", as you term them, are a direct consequence of harassment - I don't see how you can assign them priorities. Is there a scale of values of WP issues that I am unaware of? The real issue here is that Hesperian would like us to regard the MoS as a holy document handed down by God himself with Hesperian as the chief interpreter. Instead the MoS is a "work in progress" and nitpicking arguments about the meaning of commas and priorities do nothing to improve WP. Rotational (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
We've been through all this many times before. Rotational thinks years of edit warring against clear consensus is okay, because he's bringing fresh new ideas; if we don't like his ideas, that's our fault not his: we are "totally unreceptive to new ideas".[15] And so the edit warring continues.

I remember it was eight against one at Talk:Walter Hood Fitch, but Rotational still reverted to his preferred version six times.[16] Why? Because he was right and we were wrong, of course. Because he was the only one of nine with any aesthetic sense. And somehow the whole thing became an example of Hesperian harassing Rotational—Hesperian, who was at that article a year before Rotational, and who made zero edits to the article during the edit war, was harassing Rotational by virtue of daring to disagree with him. And still the edit warring continues. Hesperian 11:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - we've been through your arrogance and rabble-rousing many times, except you don't see it that way. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time - if I'm truly such a threat to the calm and serenity of WP, then step back and let others take care of the so-called "disruption" (according to you there must be many who are converts to your preaching, so that there would be no shortage of volunteers). If you don't accept this suggestion, I for one will not faint with surprise. Your disagreeing with me is not harassment, but your refusal to get off my tail certainly is. Rotational (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently if I stop reporting Rotational for edit warring, then the edit warring will magically cease. Okay, I'll give it a go. I promise not to report Rotational for edit warring until the next time he edit wars. Hesperian 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
On your talk page I count five editors 'taking care' of your disruption (either through warnings, ANI or blocks) in the last month alone and you were blocked for half of it! You do a good job of introducing new pages to WP, don't ruin it by getting blocked for being a WP:DICK. raseaCtalk to me 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Do some more research - you'll find that a lot of warnings are given by editors new to the fray - like yourself - and probably manipulated by those who scream "disruption!!" and then remain in the background while others do the dirty work. Let me repeat - I can live with alterations or even warnings by casual passers-by - it's the chronic harassment by Hesperian and his buddies that gets to me. Rotational (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I warned you because you were disruptive and, like any other disruptive editor, you have a knack of making yourself stand out like a sore thumb. If another editor(s) is playing by the rules and it 'gets to you' then I think the problem lies with you, and not the others. raseaCtalk to me 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that Hesperian so much "plays by the rules" as "plays the rules". If the rules allow chronic harassment, then the rules are inadequate and should be changed. You and Hesperian use the catch-phrase "disruption" a lot, but what exactly am I disrupting other than Hesperian's complacency? As for "standing out" that is the last thing I want - I am here because Hesperian has turned my persecution into his personal crusade. I have repeatedly stated that I would like nothing better than to contribute without the Hesperians and Jenis of this world acting as my personal gadflies. Rotational (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Rotational, as someone whose only experience of you comes from this thread, I humbly offer the following advice: People are much more willing to listen to you when you are calm and considerate. Take a break, go unwind, then come back and state your case in a calm and methodical manner. You will find people much more amenable to your point of view. Once again, this is friendly advice, not criticism. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
He is still at it.[17] Jeni (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That was a good revert. Per WP:EL#External links section what Rotational did was just incorrect. If that is an example of the kind of contributions that Rotational is intent on making then perhaps they shouldn't be contributing. I also see on their user page: "I have been reduced to making trivial edits and deterred from making contributions of new articles by the chronic and wilful misinterpretation of the Manual of Style by a small gang of Pharisees posing as editors." This looks like someone with their own personal manual of style and willing to enforce it with edit wars. -- Atama 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
And I was naive enough to think that the "in use tag" meant something. Quite soon you're going to have to decide between whatever value my contributions have and Hesperian and Jeni's plaintive bleating and their perversion of the MoS. I'll be happy either way. Rotational (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"In use" doesn't mean that you are given free reign to go against Wikipedia guidelines in formatting articles to your personal whim. Intentionally going against style guidelines and engaging in edit wars to maintain such formatting is disruptive. -- Atama 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Enough of this. The edits [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] show somebody who doesn't care to work with others. WP:POINT violations are enough for me. He can come back when he learns to play well with others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alison and SirFozzie abusing privledged status[edit]

Resolved: Protecting user talk pages is not against policy. Also, this was reported by a blocked proxy — Oli OR Pyfan! 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please someone investigate user:Alison and user:SirFozzie. they are abusing privledged status by protecting talk pages against POLICY. i reccommend EXTREMEME action of revoking powers to HAPPEN so very soon now! i cant tell them of this because of the BAD PROTECTION so please forgive me! (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

*coff* - blocked proxy - *coff* - also, errm this - Allie 08:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If EXTREMEME becomes a new meme I will quit and become a serial socker. --NE2 08:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't make Alison use her EXTREMEME CheckUser on you. Brandon (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The EXTREMEME is OVER 9.. naw, never mind. SirFozzie (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Where's Baseball Bugs when you need him to shout "Plaxico"?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

←I took a screencap last night. You can see it here, FWIW. I've redacted Foz's personal info, though it's still NSFW :-O BTW, I'm a proud on-and-off /b/tard myself & can tell you that most people on there don't care for that 'Personal Army' nonsense - it's really only n00bz and the really, really bored that care about these things. I'll probably write up an essay on it at a later date, so people know how this stuff works - Allie 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Northbreed1: Personal attacks, edit warring, general refusal to conform to standard policies/guidelines[edit]

This user appears to have a significant history of edit warring against consensus and repeated personal attacks against contributors who disagree with him, to the point of embedding repeated personal attacks in edit summaries. This morning I removed various unsourced content from Veronika Zemanová (replicating the deletions made by at least two other editors), only to have the content restored with uncivil edit summaries and related talk page comments removed with personal attacks in the edit summaries. This appears to standard behavior for the editor, particularly when removing talk page warnings; note these examples in talk or edit summaries

  • HW is an "irrational fool" [25] [26]
  • Xihr attacked as "not being rational," "emotionally driven," not being helpful, etc [27]
  • Users who disagree with him are "not intelligent" (among other things) and should not contribute to Wikipedia [28]
  • Admin on commons who deleted one of his uploads as a copyvio is a "dip" [29]
  • Animate is "presumptuous" for placing a 3RR warning on Northbreed1's talk page [30]
  • "RUNT is an irrational "contributor" who seeks to be provocative, rather than helpful" (repeated) [31] [32]

Northbreed1 has also been caught uploading non-free images with inaccurate descriptions/inadequate licensing claims [33] [34] [35].

Given the user's failure to respond appropriately to talk page discussions by other editors, his general disregard for consensus, policy, and guidelines, and his uniform removal of talk page warnings from both editors and admins, accompanied by hostile and uncivil edit summaries, I think adinistrative intervention is required to prevent even greater disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. MuZemike 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
...and extended to a week by User:Jayron32 after some block evasion. MuZemike 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

help me[edit]

Resolved: DCEdwards advised of WP:UP#CMT, Tintor11 blocked. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

i am being harassed on my talk. can someone please save me from this devastation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintor11 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

the user has been asked to stop reverting your edits. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Tintor11 is the latest in a string of vandals (see User:Tintor9 and User:Tintor10 for example) who are harrasing User:Tintor2. I'm not sure why he hasn't been blocked yet. DCEdwards1966 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make it alright to revert those edits on their talk page. Report him/her to AIV if you want a block. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, it is alright. DCEdwards1966 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Notice how policy doesn't say: "feel free to ignore all policy in your interactions with vandals". WP:UP#CMT is a part of policy that is specifically aimed at interactions with vandals. Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Could we possibly not argue about this? It makes trolls happy when their ANI trolling works. Tintor11 will be blocked as soon as an admin sees him on WP:UAA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

La Salle Extension University[edit]

There's a brewing edit skirmish at that article, over a number of issues, between Dmadzelanedgov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who represents himself as a U.S. government employee in the Department of Education; a user calling himself LEU Truth Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), whose point of view is obvious from his name; Jokestress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who first edited the article long ago and has been dragged back into it; and myself to some extent as I did one reversion to Dmadzelanedgov's unexplained reversions today, and have had talk page discussions with the other three. This apparently has something to do with a political figure (connected with Obama) who is citing LSEU as part of his educational background, but I don't think LEU Truth Squad (who raised the issue) has actually come out and named the guy. In any case, while there has been talk on the talk pages, there is also frequent reversion going on, primarily over the validity of sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified all three users about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
So have I. I'm thinking of creating a second user. I'll call it "Redundancy Squad of Redundancy". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And I'll change mine to Speedy Gonzales ;) GiantSnowman 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not changing my name at all, because its so much cooler than yours. HalfShadow 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
From what I can gather, there's an off-wiki dispute over a Virginia healthcare executive claiming to have a Ph.D. from LSEU in 2000, but according to the Bear Guide, LSEU closed in 1982. According to ads and actions by the Federal Trade Commission, LSEU offered Associates and Bachelors degrees, but no ads found to date mention Masters or Doctorates. Unsourced information has been repeatedly added to the LSEU article that supports the claims of the person who says his doctorate came in 2000. Both User:Dmadzelanedgov and User:LEU Truth Squad are using problematic usernames. Someone also created User:LEU Truth Fairy Squad. User:Dmadzelanedgov's name (D. Madzelan at suggests the real name of a real government official, but there is reason to believe this editor is not that government official and may in fact be the Virginia healthcare executive. User:LEU Truth Squad claims to be a consortium of people trying to add the "truth" to the LSEU article. Both are WP:SPAs, both have been warned about usernames, and both appear to have a conflict of interest. Both keep trying to add citations that are not reliable, such as phone numbers or web pages that do not support the statements they wish to add. I recommend blocking those usernames if they are not changed, or if they continue to revert reliably-sourced information. As a veteran of the Pacific Western University WP:OFFICE action, I know that these distance learning articles often attract highly partisan SPAs. These users are bordering on disruption at this point. Jokestress (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: usernames involved in the same series of edits:
My guess is that a Checkuser would show that a number of these accounts are connected with User:Dmadzelanedgov, with the rest connected to the opposition. Jokestress (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of reconfiguring your list to allow easy reference to their activities, and separating by apparent supporters and critics. The IP's geolocate to Monterey, Virginia. LEU Truth Squad stated that that would be an expected location from a person claiming to have an LSEU Ph.D. issued in 2000, when LEU Truth Squad says the school closed in 1982. Also, LEU Truth Squad said he would rename his user ID, but I don't think he has done so yet.[36]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And I took the liberty of notifying the listed users that they're being discussed here in the Thirty-Eleventh Circle of Hell. GJC 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC) least for the ones Bugs didn't get on the first pass. Clearly I am not on today; I didn't realize Turkey Coma could be a chronic disease.GJC 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't bother notifying the others because they're just drive-bys, some of which have not edited for some time now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser won't likely be able to do anything with the ones from 2-3 years ago, and maybe not even the ones from this past summer as the data is not kept indefinitely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, GiantSnowman - thank you for the alert of this discussion.

First - because of the dust-up over the user name "LEU Truth Squad", a change of user name will be done as soon as possible. There have been intervening time-absorbing issues involving the holiday and other responsibilites since that was action was promised. Please be advised that no additional posts under the user name "LEU Truth Squad" will be entered and the change will be done as just stated as soon as possible (and the instructions on how to do it are read through).
Without being redundant in explaining the reason for the styling of the user name as it has appeared, it was to represent that three individuals who are very familiar with LaSalle Extension University who collaborate on responses (but only one accesses the site and enters text) had the motive and intention of providing verifiable information from the Illinois State Board of Education that the school never offered any degree above a Bachelors (notwithstanding LL.B [law degree] which is at a different strata than an academic degree in say history, math, or other subject.
Why? Witnessing first hand the struggle to locate information about LEU/LSEU that could be thoroughly researched pursuant to degrees offered (or not), to try and help anyone (such as potential employers like schools or legitimate universities interviewing to hire an academically qualified teacher, medical and industrial organizations hiring for various positions, etc) wanting to verify claims they are being presented with by a candidate claiming an advanced degree. The problem any such organizations face is that there are almost NO internet-based resources available to any such potential employer to research - other than a very few such as like Wikipedia which as you, Baseball Bugs, described as not reliable (because of the open-edit availability to anyone wishing to do that). There are many wonderful sites of information that present accurate information throughout Wikipedia and "our" thought was to add that very tiny bit of information regarding the degrees LEU/LSEU was allowed (and not) to convey by the ISBE to make the site more reliable in the depth of its description of LEU/LSEU.
Continuing - what if such a potential employer simply does not know (or think) to contact the entity that oversaw the school's degree programs and has actual transcripts? Sounds simple, background-check 101 right?, yet you would be surprised at the number of sophicated "vetting" organization for hire to potential employers that never bother to contact the State of Illinois Department of Education regarding LEU/LSEU ("we" know because "we" asked). In addition, apparently a Washington DC-based "vetting" service as well as a "Certified Recruiter" never bothered to check with the ISBE regarding the claimed Ph.D. in 2000 from LEU/LSEU being made by the Virginia-based health care executive mentioned elsewhere.
If you do an internet search for information about LEU/LSEU - the Wikipedia site is just about the only one that comes up that has any extended information about LEU/LSEU that attempts to provide definitive information about the school - so that situation which so limits attempts to research information about the school reinforced the decision to add the one bit of information we attempted to do about what degrees the school was and was not certified to convey by the ISBE.
C.V. fraud attempting to take advantage of hard-to-verify information because a LEU/LSEU is now closed is apparently a more widespread problem that perhaps many are aware (and although down for the moment, the site Ebmnet [37] is down) the site for years provided a "list of graduates" that (a) required no verification of actual graduation from LEU/LSEU to be listed thus providing a claimed list of graduates and (2) showed a number of "graduates" claiming degrees from after the school closed. (Note the other "lists" they offer such as "Directory of Haitian Churches", Directory of University of Montreal Graduates", and of course, the currently " is not accessible now pending internal review" for LaSalle Extension University. This site was never a "real" list of LEU/LSEU graduates (such as maintained and microfilm transcripts available through the ISBE) although no doubt some legitimate LEU/LSEU graduates were in the Ebmnet list mix).
So because "we" had once become involved in the impact a major employer was experiencing from the hiring of an unqualifed candidate (claiming an advanced degree from LEU/LSEU) we decided to add the information accumulated from that process and the ISBE for the benefit of ALL to the Wikipedia LEU/LSEU site as well as to any other such site that allowed for such information to be entered.

This now moves to the issue of requiring a "published source" before Wiki will recognize comment and/or citation of which Baseball Bugs and Jokestress has made "us" not only aware but stated in no uncertain terms that the entry of that information although backed by direct correspondence from the ISBE (considered "personal research") was not sufficient to be allowed to remain in the article.

If you check the History - you find "we" have not re-entered anything on the site basically since that alert was received.

Next - there is a problem with the Wikipedia "vetting" process of what can be recognized as "allowable" material from which to quote.

Bear in mind that no state agency such as the one that oversaw LEU/LSEU publishes lists of courses it has authorized a school to offer - leaving that job to the school in their promotional material - but the State Agency will respond to inquiry about what the school was authorized and was not authorized to convey.
The insistance therefore that the ISBE has to have published that LEU/LSEU was not authorized to offer Masters or Doctorate level degrees before it can be referred to or quoted from (documentation responding to inquiry) set up a standard that falls entirely beyond the purview of what a State Agency does and thereby rejects out-of-hand the highest level of authority available.
An example to illustrate the problem this arrangement causes - if LEU/LSEU entered an ad in a 1946 Popular Science wherein nothing about the type of certificates/degrees was even mentioned - WHATEVER they said in the ad would be accorded more validity from which to quote than a letter from the ISBE on State stationery specifically stating (1) the school could not have ever conveyed any Masters or Doctorate degrees because (2) they were not certified to do so by the State of Illinois.
This protocol of barring high-value resources because they have not "published" relative to an article's topic does, with all due respect to those dedicated volunteers forming needed protocols, deprive ANY Wikipedia site (potentially) from containing the most accurate information that is available but not allowed to be viewed by anyone attempting to research a topic through the service and most specifically in this instance, the highest level of authority available to verify what the school was authorized by the state to convey and what it wasn't.
Given that such a scenario (a State agency that does not publish and should not be expected to do so compared with commercial and other organizations) the Administrative Staff of Wikipedia should consider how to accommodate information provided by a State in writing to address such a topic as that of what LEU/LSEU was allowed to convey upon the completion of course work.
Perhaps even though there is no "heirachy" at Wikipedia, some arrangement can be found wherein correspondence from a legitimate and best source that is a non-publishing entity but which will provide printed correspondence in response to a topic such as being discussed here - and that stored correspondence held by an approved Wikipedia site could then become the "published source" sufficient for the "vetting" process required by Wiki for insertion into an article as a solution to the current vetting process involving a non-publishing but high-value entity such as the ISBE.

The Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools Department, will absolutely confirm that their records show the school actually closed in 1981, that they maintain the only certified transcripts issued by the school, and that no one could have earned any degree above a Bachelors because the school was never certified/authorized to convey a Masters or Doctorate level degree. All anyone has to do - is call and request written confirmation of this fact or write and request same. That is as close to a "published" document that can be expected from a state agency such as one that oversaw a school like LEU/LSEU and continues to oversee every school in the State of Illinois.

Just "for fun" - why not contact the State Board of Education where any of YOU live and inquire if they publish a list of degrees any of the schools they oversee for the general public to read (or if they leave that job to the school itself in their promotional materials) - and report your findings in this forum.
Sorry this is so long - but seemed appropriate for a full explanation of the issue, the "vetting" problem of a high-grade source that does not publish as a standard part of its function along the line currently required by Wiki, and a recommendation for a possible modification/arrangement by the Wikipedia Administrative Staff to effect a solution.
Regards to all - and "we" (usage soon to disappear pursuant to the pending user name change after this exchange has concluded just to be sure it can still be accessed under LEU Truth Squad login) hope this helps understand the issues that have been raised concerning entries by "LEU Truth Squad". (Recent edit this date and time to correct a few typos and hopefully improve structural reading clarity) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Article full-protected for one week--surprised it wasn't full-protected sooner, this has been going on for almost two months. Blueboy96 03:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... is this a candidate for mentioning Durova's WP:WallofText essay? Or just WP:TLDR? I seriously could not make it through 1/4 of the novel posted by LEU Truth Squad. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could take it as a correspondence school course. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, should the response to the discussion between Baseball Bugs and GiantShowman on this subject be receiving such derisive treatment ("Wall of Words", or "...take it as a correspondence school course", etc.) when it only contains 503 words more than THEIR textual exchange? - especially in view of the fact that there is not one word by those commenting so far in continued discussion on the points raised and possible solutions proposed?

If an Occam's Razor version is desired without the supporting detail provided in the initial response - then:
Wikipedia should review and revise it's "Published Source" vetting protocol for deciding what can and cannot be entered into an article because in many instances, the most authoritative "source" (such as the ISBE) will be barred from being referred to, quoted, or cited in support of a statement because it does not "publish" information as does a magazine or newspaper to conform with the narrow guidelines for being cited now in place.
Case in point - the state agency overseeing the academic credentialing of LaSalle Extension University did not "publish" the courses and degrees offered by LEU/LSEU then - nor does it publish that kind of information today - for any school it oversees. The Illinois State Board of Educations leaves the business of publishing courses and degrees offered to a school in its own promotional materials.
What a state agency such as the ISBE WILL do, is respond (on state and responding department letterhead) to an inquiry of what a school is and is not authorized to convey.
Without a protocol to recognize and archive such definitive (and "iron-clad") information from a high level source that does not routinely "publish" information such as the courses/degrees offered for every school it oversees - then Wikipedia's current vetting protocol deprives any article (such as the one for LaSalle Extension University) from containing the highest level of authoritative source available for its historical and/or descriptive narrative.
There now, 777 words +/- less than the initial discussion between Baseball Bugs and GiantSnowman :) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The entire point of using published references is so that other people can read them and review them, to ensure their accuracy. We cannot take information passed by "call their office" or "email them" as those are not verifiable sources without every reader of the page contacting the individual/office. It simply won't work. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving on - if left in its current form (and not allowed to continue to be raided by those seeking to hide information specific to what LEU/LSEU was authorized by the ISBE to convey), the site contains sufficient information so anyone wishing to further research that matter can do so. The user name of "LEU Truth Squad" will be changed to satisfy those who have considered it offensive (even though nothing but the truth was ever entered into the site's information) when this particular discussion concludes. LEU Truth Squad (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LEU Truth Squad, could you please stop creating all these bizarre redlinks. It's not an acceptable form of highlighting. Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds - the "Source" vetting protocol is understood but therein is the problem.

As a high informational value, non-publishing source, the function of the Illinois State Board of Education in overseeing LSEU was not to act as the school's advertising department by publishing what it certified the school to convey as certificates and diplomas. It left that function (as it does today regarding ANY school it oversees) to publish such information in its promotional and student recruitment materials.
To block quoting details about the governing agency's protocol for the school because it does not publish that information creates a situation, as an example, where if LSEU bought an ad in a 1947 Popular Mechanics claiming someone could earn a Ph.D. (which it was never authorized by the ISBE to do), that ad would be accepted as citable material because it was "published" but quoting from or citing a written statement from the ISBE stating the school could not and never did offer a Ph.D. would be rejected because that information was never published in some form (say again in a Popular Mechanics magazine just to keep a comparison equal).
Any Wiki reader of the site, therefore, would come away with entirely incorrect (or at least incomplete) information about LSEU because only the claim in an ad of being able to earn a Ph.D. could be cited whereas the denial that no Ph.D. was ever offered by LSEU issued by the higher authority, the ISBE, would not be allowed in the article's information because it never published (in a Popular Mechanics just to keep the example the same).
So is to reject a higher value source in favor of a lower value source based solely upon a "publishing" requirement ever going to result in Wiki articles being as accurate and complete as possible - surely everyone's wish - or should the current narrow "vetting" criterion of being a "published source" be reviewed and a way found at an Administrative level to receive and archive information from a high value source from which quoted or cited information can be entered?
Is there not a way to resolve this issue at an Administrative level? "Edit skirmishes" such as have been occurring at the LSEU site could be resolved quickly and simply if archived "original information" (direct written correspondence) from a high value source such as the ISBE that does not routinely "publish" the type of information being discussed was available - or can such an archiving arrangement not be accommodated because of Wiki's organizational structure? LEU Truth Squad (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads - sorry about the incorrect emphasis coding (resulted from a misunderstanding of Wiki coding from one of the sites that compared [[ ]] with HTML resulting in a color change.) Tried to take out all the [[ ]] from the previous entries to correct the mistake but didn't work. Will use HTML. LEU Truth Squad (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ford GT[edit]

TheBalance has been engaging in an edit war with me in the Ford GT article.

I made my first [38] edits to the article to give a more accurate representation of the car's capabilities. The single listed 1/4 mi figure in the article was by far the very best recorded by any magazine and a known ringer car. Ford delivered that specially prepped GT to compete with the Ferrari Enzo and Porsche Carrera GT. I also made a joke about page ownership modifying "Please do not modify this list. It WILL be reverted." to "Please do not modify this list. No room for fair representation only the most extreme times of obvious ringer models. It WILL be reverted."

TheBalance reverted my edit assuming bad faith and also moved "Please do not modify this list. It WILL be reverted." to the 1/4 mile section essentially declaring page ownership. [39]

I reverted that edit [40] and removed a copyright violation. I explained this edit on his talk page. [41]. With nothing to say he reverted my edit again. [42] This goes on and has turned to edit warring. I've warned him twice more on his talk page. [43], [44]. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the place to report edit warring. Is there a source noting that the 1/4 mile time was from a unique vehicle and not representative of the line? Surely there are other car enthusiasts who can weigh in on where consensus lies. Have you tried the car project discussion page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not famliar with this part of wikipedia so I don't really know where everything belongs, if someone wants to move it to its proper location I'd appreciate that.
There is no singular source to prove that's the best recorded magazine time, however anyone who regularily reads the major American car enthusiast mags (Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver and would know it is an extreme outlier and that the Ford GT would have to be modified in order to post those sorts of numbers. Since the FGT is supercharged all it takes is a smaller supercharger pulley which will increase the supercharger's capabilities adding 100+hp to the engine's output. During that comparison the fastest production cars in existance were the Ferrari Enzo, Porsche Carrera GT (and discontinued McLaren F1), cars which are many times more expensive, that's likely the reason Ford decided to send a ringer.
All I did was add three other properly sourced times which are more representative of the production car's actual capabilities. I don't see what needed to be discussed since I never removed anything besides copyrighted material and the hidden "Please do not modify this list. It WILL be reverted." comment which sounds a lot like page ownership. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
TheBalance just reverted my edit again [45] without bothering with an explanation. I'm pretty sure this third edit is in violation of the 3RR rule. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Well as suggested earlier I'm going ahead and posting this on the 3RR noticeboard. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I notified TheBalance about this thread. Mr. Sakaki, I would suggest that you let things cool off for a little bit and try to take things to the talk page. The article might be in a state that isn't perfect for the time being but some discussion with other editors, with the aim to build consensus, will take some time. --Adam in MO Talk 10:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay I'll step out of this dispute for now, but I already put this up on 3RR noticeboard. [46] Mr.Sakaki (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I blocked TheBalance for 24 hours, it's clear that he won't compromise, his last edit confirmed it. Secret account 13:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and replaced the copyrighted source with the free version[47], and removed the "There is no need for performance stats from multiple sources[48]. Please do not modify this list; It WILL be reverted." since that really does nothing more than create a POV supporting only the most unrealistic times and is a form of page ownership. You won't find that sort of nonsense on other super car pages. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked through MotorTrend's website for all Ford GT tests and found these, the problem with the FGT is its trap speeds vary widely and are very inconsistent because Ford kept sending cars in that are tweaked to perform better than the cars they sold to the public.
I added the two other times tested by MotorTrend.[52] Mr.Sakaki (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
From Car and Driver [53] 11.6@128 Mr.Sakaki (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Road and Track [54] 11.7 seconds @ 125.8mph (I had previously added this one)
It's hardly a coincidence that only the 1/4 time in that article is the very best time for the FGT, an extreme ringer car sent by Ford to compete with the fastest Ferrari and Porsche road cars ever built. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Granted right/Revoked right" cruft?[edit]

Is the "Granted right/Revoked right" stuff dangling at the bottom of Special:ListGroupRights cruft? Jason Quinn (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How it even got there is a better question.— dαlus Contribs 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it a bug in the media wiki software then? Should I report it at Media wiki? I was assuming that an admin can edit the page but maybe not. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is simple though obscured by the fact that the feature isn't used. It's possible for a user group to revoke a right rather than grant them. Those would be shown struck out like so, and the two notes at the bottom are the legend to that convention. It turns out we don't have groups that remove rights on enwp, so that's less obvious. :-) — Coren (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Listgrouprights-key is the page to edit to change this. Algebraist 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent massive use of RevDelete (oversight)[edit]

Some may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Recent use of RevisionDelete related to David Gerard (it's a bit off the beaten path, so posting here and some other places). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Ikip community banned from discussing Jack Merridew[edit]

Resolved: Giving everyone the opportunity to take a deep breath, take a step back, and decide if this kind of activity is something we really want to continue with. I am being WP:BOLD, but if someone who is uninvolved with this situation wants to go to the Revert part of Bold, Revert, Discuss, please go ahead SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm sick to death of this obsession. It is a cancer. Let us excise it.

Proposal: Ikip (talk · contribs) is banned from discussing Jack Merridew on the English Wikipedia.

  • Support. Hesperian 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • My question is Hesperian, why didn't you go to the clerks in the arbcom, as I have before with other concerns? Have you ever attempted to silence editors you disagreed with in arbcom before? Daedalus969 posted the above ANI notice, and he is a central figure in this ongoing arbcom, are you going to file a community ban for him next? Ikip (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Ikip (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Far more than half of the last 250 edits he has made are about or related to Jack. It's ridiculous. AniMate 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Animate, didn't you say I was hounding? "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Should I post an ANI community ban for this? Ikip (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If that's what you think is necessary. AniMate 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Close as moot this is the responsibility of the clerks to decide who can comment and who cannot in an ongoing Arbcom. Hesperian and Animate should know better. Ikip (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Horologium (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse ;) and the sig non-issue can wait. I'm having my morning tea, so I'm not here, yet, today. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • w00t epic lulz!!! Seriously, when the hell did this become Encyclopedia Dramatica? Please can you all just step away from the computer and doing something else for awhile? Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this was utterly improper. Hesperian 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Can we please just let this die? Or at least keep the insanity to 1-2 project pages? Protonk (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Will it die? Really? That would be great. But if it doesn't, it would be because some of you refuse to kill it. Hesperian 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • It just doesn't need to be inflamed. AN/I is the absolute worst venue for this non-discussion. My suggestion is that you file an RfC on Ikip, as there is more than ample fodder. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Gosh, what a great idea! Don't want drama? Start an RFD then. Something that bring everyone with an axe to grind together for a huge dramafest. And result in absolutely nothing. That'll fix it. That's a much better idea than just banning the drama. Now why didn't I think of that? Hesperian 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

..Ok.. maybe it's for the best that we stop this here, and take a breath for some sober reflection? SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Jack Merridew is community banned from following the edits of Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969[edit]

Resolved: Being Bold, this and the other section I am "resolving" does no one credit. Please take the chance to take a step back, take a deep breath and reflect if this is a way we really want to go. If someone UNINVOLVED wants to go the rest of the way in Bold/Revert/Discuss, go ahead, but consider if this discussion is really helpful
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969 on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969 by name or innuendo. No harassment of Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969 in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.

From the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions I didn't know we could decide on ANI what should be an arbcom's and clerk's decision....

  • Support Ikip (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way way way way way too broad. Hesperian 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


      • 'Opposal in big black letters. Counterproposal -- Ikip stops hounding Jack. If Ikip continues spending all of his time playing games (with his ever so handy log of diffs going back decades it seems, even before he was born, let alone on pages he ever edited) Ikip will then be put on double special secret probation. Bluto, at least, would approve. Or counter-counter-proposal Jack is restricted to one cogent remark a month, in exchange for which Ikip is restricted to only two ARS template edits a month. Or A nobody goes away for ever. Whichever. Fair is fair. (Wait. I didn't realize today was get your opponents day. There's a guy I really, really didn't like when i started editing here. If you give me a few hours, I can figure out his name. I'll come back. Can you promise me preemptive restrictions on him too?)Bali ultimate (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this section as well, trying to defuse tempers. See my resolved notice for more. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I have a report on user "BWCNY"[edit]

Resolved: Thenovabus blocked for NPA and CIVIL issues, BWCNY warned Toddst1 (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a report on this user: BWCNY He keeps he keeps vandalizing most pages on Wikipedia and keeps posting false information. Also he accused me of stuff

here's prrof for that: and he called me stupid and accused me of putting false information when I didn't,that user is rude

Also look at every of his edits:

look at his last edits: thats false info

look at every edit as an matter in fact: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenovabus (talkcontribs) 02:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenovabus (talkcontribs) 02:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user for calling you stupid. Toddst1 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot block needed for User:EmBOTellado[edit]

Ezarate acknowledged on 3 November 2009 that he was aware of the restrictions on editing by unapproved bots detailed at WP:BOTPOL#Approval, and apologized for a "mistake" in letting the bot edit again on 6 November 2009. None the less, User:EmBOTellado has continued to edit since then. I am denying the bot request, and I request that the bot account also be blocked to prevent further unauthorized editing. Thanks. Anomie 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot blocked. I was sure not to autoblock or prevent account creation. Chillum 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hoodatdat, Ownership and edit warring[edit]

Resolved: user blocked as a sock, I filed an SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2 to see if anything was missed.

In his very short and beginning career here, Hoodatdat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is showing a rather obvious tendency to edit war and attempt to own articles. I first encountered him over at Asian fetish, a controversial article, where he was removing sourced content without explanation. After 2 reversions, and a note on his talk page he claimed the statement was unbalanced [55]. Another editor restored it a third time and explained that if he felt it was unbalanced, he should provide sources to counter it [56]. His next response was to assert ownership over the article [57]. I warned him on his talk page about 3RR at this point as well as WP:OWN and WP:BRD.[58] his response was to yet again assert ownership over the article and violate 3RR. [59]. This behaviour is also mirrored at Continuation War, where he asserted ownership [60] and Dave Zirin, where he's engaged in a slow edit war. Its a disturbing amount of edit warring for someone who only has 14 article edits. While I Was writing this he asserted further ownership on my talk page with this message [61].--Crossmr (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the account as as sockpuppet. I've seen that pattern before with the David Zirin article. They are reverting back to revisions by other sockpuppet accounts Kingroodney (talk · contribs) and Enabling others (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we maybe run a CU to see if there are any sleepers?--Crossmr (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion, vandalism[edit]

User:Northbreed1, given a short-term block earlier today [62], has apparently reappeared as User:Beameup and is wholly or substantially blanking articles to which Northbreed1 made significant edits. [63] [64] [65]. If the editing and style of the edit summaries isn't enough to demonstrate socking, it's still a vandalism-only account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Beameup (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You're faster than I am. I tried to do the blanking warning and the ANI template in a single edit, but you finished ahead of me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocked User:Beameup indefinately per WP:DUCK. Extended the block of User:Northbreed1 an additional week for block evasion. --Jayron32 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The block isn't long enough to ensure this. One month should be enough. I've seen an account with the same accusation (User:Das Ansehnlisch) and he was banned for a month. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 12:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IP sock copyvio[edit]

Resolved: Edits reverted and IP blocked AniMate 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:, IP sock of indefinitely blocked User:Montaj13 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montaj13/Archive#Report date November 25 2009, 04:42 (UTC)), has once again added copyrighted material to an Aaron Spelling-related article here, despite many past warnings to his/her various socks and IP socks. Aargh.— TAnthonyTalk 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR and then some[edit]

Resolved: There are separate notice boards for all of the concerns raised below. ANI can't do anything they can't and won't knowingly without more attempted dispute resolution daTheisen(talk) 11:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadaman1960 (talk · contribs) has transgressed WP:3RR at Kevin Trudeau despite numerous editors trying to get this new, single-purpose user to stop editwarring. User is pushing a virulent PoV position in an article on a living person. Has also made some of these edits using an IP address or two, so WP:SOCK is at issue as well, perhaps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you offer diffs or at least some kind of "where" on the RR violation? Actually scratch then. Either deliberately or not, the user manually went through it all. Even if I assume all the -size edits... hmm. Okay, there are 4 instances where only changed or previous-changed content was placed back. 5 of "some" changes? They did mix it around pretty well. Not to say there isn't serious evidence of deliberate disruption-- or at least doing so without any explanation or edit summaries-- taking a look at this, being the comparison of all edits since this new user had at it, the net results of the edits are actually against the SPA editor. That's really the only thing working in their favor, and it's impossible to deny the pattern. I'd say any further inexplicable edits and that's it, since it'd have been after warnings/ANI so they'd have shown no interest in an improved attitude. The POV and BLP matters are just icing. You could ask for a CU on the IPs now but this looks like it'll probably end in self-destruction already. I'd ask if there were a prior version a revert to would be good, but since it's garbled somethings might get missed. daTheisen(talk) 10:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I move close this as I don't think this is an issue for this noticeboard. Several warning templates on their talk page is not trying to resolve a dispute. Note that 3RR or edit warring reports should be made at WP:AN3, and BLP and NPOV issues also have their own distinct noticeboards (see this pages' instructions and header for links to these boards). Nja247 10:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
No reason to argue with that. Same for socks. Just attempting to be detailed since the alleged violations were some odd "combination". daTheisen(talk) 11:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Can someone take a look at Gibraltar for some time we have had Spanish editors trying to make the article 'more Spanish' involving long discussions which are currently stalling in informal mediation;

Today we have a repeated attempt to include a long list of allegedly notable Spanish people under the heading who are most certainly NOT Gibraltarian people, as these are by definition British Citizens.

The editor responsible for this is user:Ecemaml who has previously been blocked for misbehaviour on Gibraltar related issues. User:Cremallera may be a sock of his - can someone check this.

This looks very much like an attempt to start an edit war. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved in trying to help mediate the disputes at Gibraltar. As I'm involved in the mediation and I've been an admin for less than a week I hesitate to use any tools but I've been watching over the situation. The only person who has violated 3RR at this point is User:Justin A Kuntz, but he informed me that he is taking a 2 day Wikibreak so I don't think there's any point in a block. Anyone who wants to help out and intervene, however, is more than welcome, as the heat on this article (and History of Gibraltar) seems to be rising. -- Atama 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Although you are doing a good job in trying to mediate in the Gibraltar article, it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself. Its very unproductive but frankly typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I've fully-protected the article both articles for one week while mediation is ongoing; it might take the heat out of the situation if editors can discuss things without needing to worry about what others are doing on the article. FWIW, I see no immediate reason to think that Cremallera and Ecemamlare are sock accounts, although an WP:SPI might be helpful to settle that. EyeSerenetalk 11:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Bad move. Loosmark (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Why? EyeSerenetalk 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Well what if some other serious editors who are not involved in this dispute want to make some good edits? Loosmark (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}... I hope you don't mind me asking, but you're not a new editor. Is this a serious objection to what you must be aware is standard procedure in hot content disputes? Your userpage notes that you retired a couple of days ago; I can't avoid the impression that either you're making some kind of point, the reason for which is lost on me, or I'm being trolled. EyeSerenetalk 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Trolled!? I simply wasn't aware it's a standard procedure. Loosmark (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, no worries :) I just thought it was a strange objection. I apologise for misconstruing your post. EyeSerenetalk 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. So now pointless personal attacks, Spanish bashing, attributing "orchestrated disruptive intentions" to other editors, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and vilifying the Spanish Government is considered fair play in the Administrators' noticeboard? Still can't believe it. PS: actually, protecting the articles isn't a bad move given the current climate, in my opinion of course.Cremallera (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with protecting the articles. The contentious edits refer to events 300 years ago so there is no urgency. --Gibnews (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Ecemaml, the man who seems to have shot Liberty Valance. Well, I see this is not the place to discuss on the content of the blocked article, but I'd like to make it clear some of the accusations I've received:

  • I've done an only semi-reversion (explaining why, dropping one of the persons in the list and including references to justify notability in those who didn't have an article yet). BTW, the edition summary in the removal of the information I had created was as explanatory and related to the Wikipedia policies as "ridiculous entry". No further information was provided in the talk page (I'm supposedly the disruptive editor).
  • Examples of those that are not deemed as notable are Diego de Astorga y Céspedes (just created).
  • There are solid explanations to my editions in the talk page. You can agree or not with them, but my editions are far from being arbitrary. To sum up, I argue that, as long as there is an only article for Gibraltar (that is, there is no article for the town of Gibraltar and other for the British territory of Gibraltar, much in the like of Taiwan and the Republic of China), it's valid to include in a section named "Notable people from Gibraltar" any notable person from Gibraltar from whatever period, either Roman, Visigoth, Vandal, Moor, Spanish or British. If a list on "Notable Gibraltarians" is wished, its place should be Gibraltarian people. Moreover, from the 13 people currently listed in the section, only 4 or 5 may qualify as Gibraltarian (the rest being British subjects accidentally born in Gibraltar as their parents were military garrisoned in Gibraltar, none of them known to have asked for "Gibraltarian nationality", quite sensible since they're are full British people.
  • An odd sign of what's going on can be seen here. It seems as if any person in the phone directory in Gibraltar is more notable than any Spanish person born in Gibraltar.

That's all, I'll wait until next December 3, although given the long quarrel in the talk page, the section we're talking about should carry an obvious {{NPOV}}.

On the other hand, may I ask you which further step I should take. Should I ask for a RFC? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is precedent elsewhere. Notable members of the British Empire, such as Kipling who were born in India are not described as being Indian, although when listing their birthplace one should correctly say that Kipling was born in Bombay. It follows that Kipling could be included in a list or category of notable people whose birth occurred in India (or even in Mumbai), but not in a list of famous Indians. This would suggest that notable people of any nationality who were born in Gibralter should go in the list or category of people born in Gibralter. To exclude notable persons who are or were not citizens of the current regime in Gibralter would be unreasonable and incorrect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've seen my point. The most weird issue is that in the current list most of the people listed cannot be described as Gibraltarians since that term applies only to what was/is the civilian population of the town and not to the members of the garrison and their families (which are obviously only British, even if they could apply, if they had wished, to the Gibraltarian status). That is, in its current status the list only comprises people (either Gibraltarian or not) born in the city since the 18th century, when it was transferred to Great Britain (now UK), but notable people born before are simply "banned". Nobody intend to list Spanish Gibraltar-born people as Gibraltarians, but just as Gibraltar-born notable guys (of course that notability may be discussed in a case-by-case basis, but it has been excluded since the beginning). --Ecemaml (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted reply to HotR after WP helpfully blanked it. EyeSerenetalk 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC):
That sounds eminently sensible to me. Perhaps splitting the section into "Notable Gibraltan citizens" and "Notable people born in Gibraltar" (or something similar) might also be worth considering, if it's felt necessary to make a clearer distinction? EyeSerenetalk 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal also sounds sensible to me. The issue here is that there is no an equivalence between periods in the history of Gibraltar and nationality (that is, although all the notable Gibraltar-born guys in the Spanish period happens to be Spaniards, notable Gibraltar-born guys in the British period may be, usually, either Gibraltarian or British), so that option might be sensible. Other alternative could be including an only list, alphabetically ordered, including the nationality of the notable guy (for instance: "X (1850-1900) - British military engineer", "Y (1900-1950) - Gibraltarian painter", "Z (1600-1650) - Spanish cardinal"). --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The very concept of "notable people" in itself could raise new issues, I'm afraid. Like this one, for instance.Cremallera (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed PROD (reason given "Not notable for English encyclopaedia"). I hold no brief for the Spanish, but there is no way this deletion would be non-controversial. Advise Gibnews to use AfD if he wishes to delete any more Spaniards from Gibralter (as none would be non-controversial) and to consider the content of WP:POINT before making any nominations, particularly of figures who were of any significance in the history of the Catholic Church - which is very much a subject for the English encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Good move; that article is in no way a PROD candidate and would certainly get kept, and most likely snow-kept, at AfD. There's also no such thing as "Not notable for English encyclopaedia" outside the normal GNG; Gibnews might like to look at El Señor Presidente, Mario Vargas Llosa and The General in His Labyrinth, to name but three FAs off the top of my head. EyeSerenetalk 17:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted the PROD template (which were not removed when Elen explained to Gibnews that his attempt to make Diego de Astorga removed was inappropriate), on the same grounds, in Juan Romero de Figueroa and Gonzalo Piña Ludueña (both, as Diego de Astorga y Céspedes, created by me). I don't know the inclusion of the PROD template is a disruptive action or not in itself. I simply want to let you know that the former, Juan Romero de Figueroa has been in wikipedia for more than a year (I created it in September 2008). The latter, [[Gonzalo Piña Ludueña], had a {{underconstruction}} template as I created it yesterday. In none of the occasions I was notified as the template requires. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with this. If Gibnews continues to feel the articles are without merit, he can try AfD - but it would be worthwhile reading Eye Serene's comment's above before he does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
These been created by Ecemaml to provoke a dispute by including obscure people from prior to 1704 were born in Gibraltar on the Gibraltar main page. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia about Gibraltarian people however, the list on the Gibraltar main article does not include all of them, just a handful of the more prominent ones.
Inclusion of obscure people like Gonzalo Piña Ludueña who does not (currently) merit an article in the .es wikipedia simply for the purpose of starting an edit war is something I think deserves looking at carefully. --Gibnews (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If you believe it is of no value, WP:AFD is thataway. Also, per your note on my talkpage - Gibralter is a bloody great rock. Attempts to argue that it did not exist before the Brits arrived is ludicrous. As there is not two articles, one on the current situation and one on the rest of history, or one on the current regime and one on the geographical location, it follows that the article ought to be about the whole history of the rock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point, the article IS about Gibraltar the whole history of the Rock, including periods of occupation by the moors and Spanish is in History of Gibraltar. However the section in the main article on 'notable people' is very restricted and creating nonsense articles to justify adding obscure people of no consequence in the history of the territory is only done to provoke a dispute. And that is why its mentioned on this noticeboard. --Gibnews (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you miss the point. I'll assume this is down to my phrasing it badly. The article Gibralter is about the bloody great rock. It's not about British-Ruled Gibralter. It includes information about the current regime, a summary of the history (for which there is a longer article), the geography, the climate etc. By that definition, you cannot define people from Gibralter only as citizens of the current regime. See also the notes above about Kipling - its anyone notable of any nationality who was born on the Rock. I also recommend that you stop being WP:POINTY about people born on the rock before the Brits arrived. Again see the notes above - if you think they are truly not notable, go to AfD. Otherwise, I strongly recommend you let the matter drop. Now I am going to the talk page to recommend that we put the pre British persons back into the article, perhaps using subheadings to distinguish some time periods. Given that I am a Brit and have (as far as I know) not a drop of Spanish blood, nor any political view on Gibralter, nor any reason to advance a pro-Spanish viewpoint, I would appreciate a cessation of the personal attacks. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I think you're missing the point, adding a whole bunch of obscure people to the Gibraltar article purely because they are Spanish is being pointy. The purpose in doing so was being pointy and to provoke a dispute, the next stage of which when the people are suggested to not be notable enough to be included in what is an overview article, will be to scream that the Brits are censoring the article. Why else do you think that the editor added a stack of redlinks, how many other articles think a goat herder is of sufficient merit to be included in an overview article, or perhaps the local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people. Notably there was nothing to even say many of the proposed additions were even born in Gibraltar.
The same editor who added 5 obscure people to the article, was edit warring the previous day to change the start of the second world war from 1939 to 1940, for an entirely specious reason. That is being pointy. The pointy edits are continuing see this diff [66] and this diff [67], the second is purely intended to be provocative.
To also make a point, this occurs during mediation at the start of which all of the editors involved agreed to an undertaking not to disrupt the article. They also agreed to discuss any changes in the talk page first. This isn't happening.
I'd also make the point, that on the British side, the editors involved made a offer to draw a line under any possible misunderstanding from the past and to work together in the future. That offer was flung back in their faces. There seems to be a tactic of disruption, edit warring, talk page posts to escalate tension, then turning round and expecting things to be discussed reasonably.
And whilst I am a Brit, I'm also half-Spanish my mother being one of the 3000 Spanish refugees who fled Franco's Spain to Britain. You suggest on the article talk page that there should a consensus discussion about who to add, the people suggested might be notable enough to justify a stub article, they're not notable enough to suggest inclusion in the overview article on Gibraltar. Now I would suggest that if you're planning to intervene, you stick around, because when the personal attacks accusing people of censorship and suppressing the truth start I would hope you'll intervene. For me, I've had a gutfull of being attacked as censoring the article because we respect NPOV and refuse to allow the article to be edited to favour a particular viewpoint.
The second reason I hope you stick around, is that I have a very strong suspicion that there is collusion off-wiki on these articles, because the actions of the editors involved is just too co-ordinated to be co-incidence. There is also an entry on the talk page that alludes to communication by email. I would really appreciate a neutral admin sticking around to ensure fair play. Not a personal attack but for me, writing was the "view of AN/I" on the talk page is questionable.
Purely for the record, Gibnews use of PROD was pointy and I don't support it. It doesn't help to adopt the same tactic of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. I do support locking the article, I would suggest it continues until ALL OF THOSE involved respect the undertaking they signed at the start of mediation, stop the personal attacks and work toward improving the article, using the talk page to discuss edits and adding consensus material to the article. Justin talk 13:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, my only accusation relating to WP:POINT was Gibnews's attempts to PROD the articles in order to get them out of the list. This is the very essence of point - it is disruptive because it fails to follow Wikipedia's own rules. Given that as it currently stands neither the short nor the long list contains any Spaniards, the concern that there is a deliberate effort to remove all evidence that Gibralter has ever had any connection with Spain has prima facie validity. A (well conducted) discussion on who belongs in the short list would not be pointy, but should not include "Spanish" or "from before the British arrived" as a category for exclusion. I am not sure that Gibnews would agree to this, but a fruitful discussion could be had by others with knowledge in the various areas, to allow us to compare say Penney with the Spanish Inquisitor - neither of whom I've ever heard of, but at least the Inquisition is something I have heard of, so that's probably influencing my decision at the moment. Personally, John Galliano is the only person on the list I'm familiar with instantly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Prior to 1704 Gibraltar was a small town of a few thousand people, it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to live and the Spanish monarchs had to compel people to live there. To be blunt it was the arse end of the universe. That there may be few Spaniards to go on that list might have something to do with that. Thats a more rational explanation than to assume bad faith and that they've been deliberately expunged.
A rational discussion on who should be included is perfectly possible but not I fear with the editor who made these changes. They were introduced purely for the reasons of being pointy. Gibnews can be stubborn when his back his up but he is amenable to discussion otherwise. And having Ecemaml tell him that Gibraltar doesn't exist was intended to do precisely that. As I've suggested, any discussion that concluded that some or all of those do not merit inclusion would result in accusations of suppression and censorship.
Stick around, you might find it interesting. May i suggest that the article remains locked until there is a consensus on the edits under mediation. Justin talk 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Waiting for more input from mediator I think. And it's very well known that Birmingham is the arse end of the universe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Not if you happen to be an engineer, then its heavy engineering Nirvana. Ciao. Justin talk 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at Spain – United Kingdom relations, history here and Talk:Spain – United Kingdom relations. The same bad tempered exchanges are breaking out there as on Gibraltar. Justin talk 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the point we're discussing, I'd like to say something:
  • With regard to the mediation process, it was always understood (at least by me) that it applied to a specific disagreement (how the capture and exodus of the Gibraltarian population after the Anglo-Dutch takeover in 1704 has to be described). For me, introducing five "notable" guys that happened to be Spaniards in a list already containing 13 people, was not intended to be controversial. Upon my only reversion I explained carefully my edition and provided references for the articles not created yet.
  • With regard to the five "notable" guys (described as "obscure"), I'll list them just to highlight why they're notable (more verbose explaination can be found in their articles):
  1. Simón Susarte: lead one of the attacks over Gibraltar during the first Spanish siege. He's notable for two matters: it's the only Gibraltar-born guy that lead an attack to the town and the only that did it over the top of the Rock. It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. However, as the section under discussion seems to list people that were notable "outside" Gibraltar, I have no problem (and I've said that above) if he's not included.