Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

The deletion log entries are as follows:

The editors involved include:

One of the variations is already protected from creation:

Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • This [[1]] too for a little background. Users were editing a disambiguation page and adding their soccer club info repeatedly.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note All three of the above editors have been notified of this thread, included the one who is currently blocked -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had nuked another variant (same regex):

Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:
I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • One more sock User talk:Millsy360 just found that one on the touchdown jesus article posting the same club crap on a disambig page [[2]] and vandalizing a user page [[3]]. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected Touchdown Jesus for a day, to prevent the socks from continuing there. JamieS93 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed - a whole bunch of accounts at the SPI case here - Allie 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • They're back...
User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Though the duration of the lock may be effective enough for now, it will not be as effective hereafter, as when ever the lock is then removed, anyone will be able to recreate the article. An indefinite lock is effective and should be done to prevent any future recreations such as this. If only I had the power to block those responsible for the recreations....--Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(section did not archive automatically, so timestamp added. Fram (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC))


Evidence of bribery for favorable user statements & related AfD[edit]

Resolved: Misunderstanding cleared up OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to make it short-- Starting with the trainwreck that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination), Brings me to involved party talk page and this post, End up seeing this text, with "request" carried out [4] [5].


The connotation is bribery, or at bare minimum a person favor done for a highly involved editor in exchange for 'Wikipedia Karma'? Still bribery. Alleged briber has used supposed large cash donations as a reason for the reversal of an indefinite blocking, to show a history of such ridiculous statements. Similar to a legal threat I figured this should be reported, with no ANIsearch results. That AfD has been tainted and is about 90% content to be ignored, it arguably (weak argument) outs editors of apparently-similar affiliations, and the opinion given from the "bribed" above was one of the few that actually helped the discussion. I know we can't just wipe an AfD and pretend it didn't happen, but a means forward would be nice. I'd personally close as non-admin no consensus since there isn't any forming whatsoever, but I deemed myself with a COI to the article in question after discovering past administrator abuses and these talk postings from persons related to and contributors to that article. With the WP:FANATIC style of edits people seemed scared off, and close as no consensus would allow an open future at least. daTheisen(talk) 05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the bribery at all. Could you lay it out plainly, or else strike that portion of the report? Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The observed pattern may represent canvassing, and that alone is serious enough to warrant scrutiny, even if there has been no bribery. Jehochman Talk 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
WTF? I don't see any evidence of bribery. I do see, as Jehochman notes, serious off-site canvassing and lots of SPA's. It may be possible that said professor has asked his students to defend his article, but there is absolutely no actual evidence of that. As an aside, once you weed out all of the obvious SPA and canvassed bullshit, I still see enough "keep" or "weak keep" votes from established Wikipedians to indicate this article will likely be kept. Which is a little bit of a shame, since it would make it appear as though the canvassing (and not the inherant notability of the subject) was what saved it. But c'est la vie. I don't see any unusual shenanigans going on here. Just the standard AFD shenanigans that we run into every day... --Jayron32 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure it's not a truly direct incident, but even 1% is enough to post anything legal. General pattern: Blocked user repeatedly asks for an unblock because of "40ooo" donated. Responding admins blow this off, of course. User is unblocked, and soon after is left a {{talkback}} post, to a message which informs them that they specifically gave a particular opinion in an AfD, discussed in talk here. Even if in jest, it's still a personal favor done for a subversive reason in a highly disputed AfD where any one statement from a neutral user could highly tip consensus. This is just part of the canvassing-- that comes from the bulk of users with few other posts, as tagged. Again.... unlikely as hell, but it was still a direct benefit to the person's cause (the article being about themselves). daTheisen(talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3 users total contacted with messages left. daTheisen(talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC) ...I think I'll just try to ignore that last comment fro Jayron32.
Which comment? --Jayron32 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think some things might be lost in translation here. Are you saying the user bribed the Wikimedia Foundation with the donations he claims to have made over the years? AniMate 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This section is a direct solicitation mentioning money offered to Wikipedia while advocating a certain stance. It's a user bribing another editor. Nothing to do with Wikipedia itself. I apologize for not making that clear. daTheisen(talk) 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You seem confused Datheisen. Where precisely is this editor being "bribed"? --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think what he's saying is that by broadcasting the fact that he's donated 40,000 dollars to the Foundation users feel they have to agree with him at AfDs? Is that right? AniMate 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Same user tried to worm out of an indefinite block issued over legal threats to the foundation the same way. (Unblock was proper though) daTheisen(talk) 06:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but I think you are reading too much into it. In all cases, the editor mentions (among many other things) that he has donated money to Wikipedia. However, I don't think you can even say it was an indirect solicitation for unblocks or AfD !votes in return for the donation, let alone direct solicitation. It just appears to be mentioned in the middle of a speech. Ultimately, the unblock was proper, and there's nothing to indicate the !vote was in return for the donation (other than !voter politely thanking the user for his donation during a coversation). I don't think there is anything ulterior going on here. Singularity42 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No argument that the unblock was fine (I went through all of it several times.. I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time deliberately). Policies on those unblocks are clear. It's just kind of depressing that a first action back is to bounce claimed foundation money around for favors to save his own article. The target leading to the block and the subject of vote-shopping are both comical in this case, just as a side. I really doubt any deliberate harm done by the AfD discussion poster and they don't hit the same canvassing MO... but I'm still rather disgusted in how talk like that was used to at least try to persuade someone, like he was entitled to his article because he donated. Can talk further of that or act on it, and you're free to close as resolved if desired. I'm glad my 1% shot at this actually being coordinated as anything was false. Couldn't... not report it, I'm sorry. Not the sort of thing to ever, ever jest about. daTheisen(talk) 06:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see bribery, just incredible quantities of arrogance and entitlement. AAs he alreadyt gave the money, it's more about wheedling, or inveigling based on attempts to foment guilt, but as neither a further donation, nor personal payout, are conditional upon sufficient keeps, it's not a bribe. the AfD looks like a snow close, if any admin wants to wrap this tragic travesty up neatly. ThuranX (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


"'Request' carried out"? Please please please check your diffs more carefully. He requested my support after I voted. Also it seems to me like your last diff doesn't even make any sense. It was text accidentally removed by User:Ohnoitsjamie (and my edit summary describes as much. more detail here). ~a (usertalkcontribs) 07:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't believe Datheisen really meant this to be a criticism of you, Arichnad. I think he is criticizing the actions of the other user and that user's "attempt" at persuading your !vote. You just happened to be the editor that user was trying to persuade. It's that user's actions that Datheisen was trying to raise here. Singularity42 (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I understand that point of view. And I would agree 100% with that point of view. But Datheisen's words say otherwise. Specifically "'request' carried out" and "favor done" are to what I'm referring. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 07:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Gah, I'm soooooo sorry. Singularity42 is correct on intention. You're just the person who happened to get the statement flaunted at. "request carried out" is the narrative to finish out a "how", and I screwed up on wording, plain and simple. I spend a ridiculous amount of time researching most matters but I'm not perfect. I said above that I doubted anything on your end whatsoever, and only left you a message about the ANI as a courtesy because you would recognize the subject. NOT because of suspicious.Use my talk page for any needed anger to vent, please. This can be done with I do hope. daTheisen(talk) 07:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, that's fine. It is no problem. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 07:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's OK with everyone, I'm going to mark this as resolved. As the AFD initiator, I've been following the "trainwreck"; as mentioned earlier here, Arichnad made one of the few cogent arguments in support of the article (while correctly noting the meatpuppetry and shameful COI). All I saw from Kils was his repeated mantra of "I donated lots of money to Wikipedia so I should have an article," which is more of a blatant misunderstanding of how things work around here than an offer of a bribe to anyone in particular. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Relating to this, may I call your attention to the userpage of User:Sylvia klein. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to work out what this meant since I got involved with this AfD. (I !voted Keep, but am not an SPA, a sock puppet or a meat puppet - or even a puppet on a string, and no-one has offered ME a bribe. No-one ever does...) The whole business is peculiar - is having an article THAT important? Peridon (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Marshal of the Soviet Union[edit]

User IP 201.6.44.137 has been bring up an arguement that was already settled several years ago as to whether Stalin was Political or Political Army. It was agreed already on the discussion page he was purely Political he is still insistant and persistant. Please can the Admins fix the page and protect it. Staygyro (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please use WP:RPP for protection requests. This board is not a venue for dispute resolution.  Sandstein  16:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this an issue? This IP made one edit to this article, and in fact has only ever made two edits on Wikipedia. You have made no attempt to communicate to the IP other than to say "Can you stop this? seriously." I fail to see any problem here other than yourself biting the newcomers. Looking through the history of the article, there is no insistent and persistent changes to the article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with copyright violation on new article[edit]

Resolved

In doing New Page Patrol, I found the article ArchiAfrika cut and paste the text from the web site relating to the subject. I tagged it as G12, but someone keeps removing the tag without addressing the crux of the copyright violation. Can someone please provide help on this? Thank you. Warrah (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted by Tanthalas39. TNXMan 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. :) Warrah (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident[edit]

Resolved: wrong forum

The article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has been locked down because a handful of the usual suspects, (one with a very prominent WP:COI) have been hell bent on shaping the article to reflect a very narrow POV. A lockdown of a current event article for this period of time seems excessive and unprecedented. I would ask that it be unprotected, and that 1RR be observed and enforced on it. WVBluefield (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please file a request at WP:RPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and hate-speech at Talk:Crucifixion[edit]

I have recently started a complaint that has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive581#Canvassing at Crucifixion. I am concerned that it has been archived automatically and will be overlooked. To the best of my understanding, it has not been addressed. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this now stale? What it is ongoing problem needing admin attention? Fences&Windows 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I removed some of the personal attacks, but as far as I can see all of these NPAs came from random dynamic IPs that in all the cases I looked at haven't edited since. As such, blocks on the IP addresses would appear to be pointless. Is there something else I've missed? Black Kite 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Stale only in the sense that no one really ever did anything about it. Continuing personal attacks against me. I've moved some of them to my talk, not all of them. I really am disappointed that I should have to be subjected to this. I've done nothing wrong, and am being vilified for my views about content. This is no way for any editor to be treated. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Is it possible to provide specific examples? Then your concerns can be looked at in better detail.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through this user's talk page history. Admins, any thoughts on this diff?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 19:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It is very alike to this diff.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you. For a start, please take another look at the archived part, where I provided a huge number of diffs, and some of them, actually, were from registered users, then go forward through those users' contribution histories. If you'd like, I can then round up more diffs. P.S. after the edit conflict: yes, thanks for that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this was what I was talking about. Hasn't edited for over 48 hours, and is a dynamic IP. The only remaining IP still talking (unless I've missed something), is the 24.x.x.x one which is being slightly brusque but hardly incivil. If it was actually continuing the personal attacks which the other ones were, I would block it. Black Kite 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
True. But is there anything that can be done about the likely sockpuppetry? It is pretty much the same comment from 2 different IPs.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I just now actually looked at those diffs. In fairness, I have to say that the later one was made by reverting my removal of the first. (And that was very mild, compared to the diffs that I reported earlier.) But the whole business arose from off-site instigation at what is basically a hate site. I've been wondering about sockery in other contexts (an IP says something awful, then another editor immediately comes on with crocodile tears after making attacks earlier, etc.), but I don't see how I could make a strong enough case for CU. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I object to you throwing around the words "hate site" in reference to SA. It's crude and brusque at times, but it's not a hate site. I demand you revert such references.
After all, if Tryptofish is right about the registered users, can they be blocked?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Or, at the very least, warned strongly. (Some have also been making nasty comments at other editors' talk pages.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, wait a minute, about that 24. IP, take a look at User talk:ShuttheHeckUp. Last comment, repudiating warning from admin, is from that IP address, but in the voice of a registered user. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please do something about this, because it appears that we've only been scratching the surfaces of the problem here.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! And this just now at my talk (including telling me to kill myself!). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This as well, possible relation to the registered user whose name appears in the edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at that. I semi'd your talkpage for a few days to head off any further stupidity. Black Kite 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I just noticed the semi, and I appreciate it a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
A day later: the user you see in that link appears to be following me from page to page, and has put the anti-hate speech header that was recently on the article talk page onto his user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend in future that you don't pick stuff like that up from the article and cart it back to your talkpage. It looks so much worse on an article talkpage, you're more likely to get something done about it. One of the IPs vandalised my talkpage and got offed by Materialscientist for its pains. I've thrown Yzak Jule off myself - so far he hasn't been back, though I don't know if he's been bothering the Fish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen, I'm unsure what you mean. Are you referring to where I moved the bogus accusations about me to my talk? My reasoning was that it had nothing to do with the article talk page, and my replying to it was necessary but also unrelated to the article talk page. This is getting awfully tough for me: I get criticized when I say that I do not object to leaving the bad stuff on the article talk page, and then (if I understand?) I get criticized for moving it off. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't criticising you (sorry if it sounded that way), more along the lines of not taking stray dogs home. That rubbish may have been aimed at you, but leaving it on the article talkpage and ignoring it may have been a better option than shifting it to your talk page where, after all, you didn't actually want some of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What I didn't want at my talk has been reverted. My experience has been that rubbish that stays at the article ends up getting repeated as though it were true. Anyway, the admins don't need to read this (so maybe I'll move this to my talk -- joke!). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You are quite correct Tryptofish, anon users and IPs frequently post slander that is repeated as if true, and administrators are untrained in dealing with this. What you need is a third party willing to delete talk page posts that add nothing to discussion of the article and malign you in attempt to discourage you from editing. Please feel free to drop a note at my talk page any time and I will evaluate posts you believe to be useless and injurious. I cannot promise to agree with you in any particular case. I might be a disappointment. But such posts breach the copyright license and the Foundation is duty bound to protect you, even if, as you do, you opt to exercise your right to publish anonymously. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Alastair, you might want to refactor that slightly. I agree that IPs in this case posted a great deal of uncivil nonsense. I don't think it's an issue about admin training. If anything had been said that actually constituted slander (as opposed to abuse) Tryptofish was free to highlight that. But what you're saying about copyright license is just....nonsense. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, both of you. I appreciate that both of you are sympathetic, and I trust that the admins, will, in due course, do what they believe best helps Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And, at this point, I'd just like to check back about where we stand. As Sky Attacker so very correctly said, we have yet to really scratch the surface of a significant problem here (not just for me personally, but for the good of the entire Wiki). So, I'll repeat Sky Attacker's question: can someone please do something about this? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what is to be done? The civility and WP:NPA issues on the talk page have now subsided. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. If the disruptive behavior has stopped, then there is no reason to hand out blocks. —Farix (t | c) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Farix, it hasn't stopped. It may be moving more to my talk page, but it hasn't stopped. And per above, there may be other issues including sockery. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the history of your talk page, that's already been dealt with with your talk page semi-protected. If it continues, you need to cite specific diffs rather then vaguely cry that someone needs to "do something". —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I need to ask this, and I realize it sounds kind of obnoxious, but please understand that I don't mean anything bad by it. Farix, you aren't an admin, are you? (If I'm wrong, please accept my apology for even asking!) If you aren't, please let the admins continue to look at what I think they are looking at. Again, sorry for the way that sounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Few administrators are going to act on anything until there is clear evidence. If you have an issue with an editor, you need to bring it along with the diffs. —Farix (t | c) 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, please see: [6], [7], and [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing, help with sourcing, and a joke? Why, that's the most uncivil thing I've ever seen. Certainly this nefarious user should be banned from Wikipedia forever for helping out other articles noticed under a user's contributions while checking to see if he was violating consensus again. Also, why is this on ANI?Yzak Jule (talk)
<Comment removed at request of Tryptofish>Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Elen, but no need to remove, just to clarify that you meant it in a light-hearted way, and that you weren't really making a joke at my expense. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a potential WP:STALKING case to me. Yzak Jule, I advice you to completely disengage from Tryptofish, that includes not following him around in his edit history. It doesn't do either of you any good. Tryptofish, if Yzak Jule keeps following you around, start a new complaint with the diffs. —Farix (t | c) 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Farix, those points are very well-taken, and I will do so. And to Alastair, below, I do understand that, overall, there are plenty of people being supportive of me, so thanks for that too. But please let me suggest to other editors that it is unhelpful to be making jokes (even if, as I suspect, they were meant as affectionate jibes) at my expense. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent advice from these people Trypt, if you ask me. Certainly I couldn't help better with what you've posted. If there's serious stuff, it can take forever to go through processes designed to screen out trivia like these last three diffs you've posted. Too many people cry "Wolf", and genuine pleas for assistance go unheeded. If there's serious stuff, I volunteer to be your first "informal" attempt at mediation. Don't hit people with clubs when a simple third party could clear it up. Relax, enjoy, there's plenty of people here being really supportive to you. Three cheers for them! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dec. 4: Continuing personal attacks and vandalism of my user page ("America hates you" etc.). I'm going to take it to page protection, just noting it here. The semi-protection of Talk:Crucifixion has expired and edit warring over vandalism by IPs has resumed (reverts by other editors, I'm trying to keep hands-off), so uninvolved admins may want to look at whether extending semi there might be a good idea. I notice that some of the editors who reverted vandalism there did not put the usual warnings on talk pages of the vandals, so admins may also want to go back and make sure that gets done (again, should not be me doing it). (Also, it might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 2#File:Sailor Mercury.jpg.) Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Three days semi-protection due to continuing disruption. Fences&Windows 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
[9]: continued following by user named and warned above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon[edit]

There has been a long term edit war between CarolMooreDC and Drsmoo on article Gilad Atzmon. They have been on various mediations and raised wikiquette alerts and suchlike but it goes on an on, the latest such complaint is at WP:WQA#User:Drsmoo (revised per comments).

I have suggested on the WQA that both editors should be banned from that article for some months and let other editors have a go at it. I think banning both would lead to least rancour between theeditors and hopefully let them both go off and do something more useful instead. Editor User:Malik Shabazz concurs with this view. Drsmoo agrees but CarolMooreDC is not happy with such a ban. Can this be done or is there a better way of dealing with a problem like this please? Dmcq (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact CarolMooreDC now says at the end of that WQA they agree with a voluntary block for two montrhs but wants something stuck in the article. your call. Dmcq (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As Dmcq noted above, I support banning the two editors from the article, either temporarily or permanently. I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. Full disclosure: I've made a handful of small edits to the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the article ban, I don't think any changes should be made to the article per any of our wishes before the ban though, or any sections deleted by admins not working on the article. If the other editors working on the page feel that a section should be removed and changed, then they should do that themselves after discussion.
Similarly, earlier this year there was a 6 month lock on the article. Immediately after the article was unlocked, CarolmooreDC proceeded to remove a whole section, and the edit war resumed exactly as it had been. Along with the constant personal attacks against me on noticeboards. With a 2 month ban, it will just be the exact same thing again.
I have no objection to both of us being permanently banned from the article, IPs included, to prevent any sock puppetry. I have confidence that the Wikipedia community will ensure that the article follows guidelines. Drsmoo (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully people will read the whole Wikiquette Alert I initiated to deal with issues with Drsmoo in a WP:Biography of Living Persons which had had an WP:OTRS. It still had some WP:RS, WP:OR and POV problems which I could not address without constant reverts by Drsmoo and constantly being followed everywhere I tried to get neutral opinions with false allegations, among others, that I was trying to turn the article into a "defense of his anti-semitism." An obvious personal attack inferring I am an antisemite. This latest, not perfect, attempt for an NPOV section without WP:OR disproves that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It was your Wikiquette alert that precipitated this. That you decided to completely impose your POV changes, re-lengthening the article you claimed you had shortened (which you shortened only technically, almost sarcastically, and that was about 3-4x longer than the Hipcorite and SlimVirgin edits) despite no one agreeing with them is another of the reasons this is where it is. You haven't waited for a single noticeboard to make a decision, or accepted any of them. I mean you were even working behind the scenes with other editors on your talk page, outside the article talk page, and badmouthing other editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=279500434&oldid=279498060 "Also, what to do about Rance? He's been rather sneaky about getting his own writings in there without his name being mentioned (going to fix that now) but not as bad as THF and Drsmoo" Why are you so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Drsmoo, you are bringing up inaccurately described or irrelevant issues from before the 5 month protection period. The only relevant issue from that time is an Admin's advice on April 6 that Drsmoo was being “unnecessarily confrontational” and, after further incidents, on April 9 against “derogatory views" against Atzmon or other editors. Obviously I should have come to Wikietiquette immediately after Drsmoo's first accusation against me once the article was unprotected. I see that Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility may recommend it more quickly than I originally had interpreted. I have learned my lesson. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And I should have reported you for incivility when you began attacking me over a year ago (October 2008) which you have continued until today http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=prev&oldid=247998967 "your questionable edits which delete sourced material and defend only with POV personal opinions" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=prev&oldid=247805478 "pushing your personal POV opinion" and on and on and on for over a year, even when you were censured for editing with "an appalling lack of good faith" you continued attacking me. This is the last time I'm going to trade back and forths with you, period. Please explain why you are so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Will you two please stop bringing your petty bickering to every forum in which your names are mentioned. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I was involved with this article a while back (6 months+?), my involvement originating with a WP:BLPN post. It was obvious then that a number of editors were using the article as a battleground, with persistent attempts to quote the subject's political statements (he's a musician, BTW) out of context, and generally developing a WP:COATRACK. Many of the subject's statements are somewhat inflammatory in this controversial area, but attempts to explain the subject's reasoning were always resisted and sidelined, in an attempt (occasionally explicitly stated) to show that the subject is anti-semitic, rather than merely intensely critical of Israel.

Drsmoo was one of a number of editors pursuing this position, whilst CaroleMooreDC was attempting a more balanced article. Without delving into the ins and outs of the dispute resolution of this interminable issue (who said what to whom), it's clear to me that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia for Drsmoo to be permanently banned from editing the article. At the same time, I'd suggest a two-month voluntary ban for CaroleMoore. I think both can be trusted to use the talk page appropriately, but that remains to be seen. Rd232 talk 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never once been warned of any bad behavior for any of my edits. Calling for me alone to be permanently banned from editing the article, solely because you disagree with my positions is disturbing; especially so, given that you haven't provided any reasons, and yourself state that my editing position is the same as that of many of the editors who have worked on the article (in fact the consensus.) The article has changed a great deal since you were editing it, and now uses solely quotes from high quality reliable news sources such as the Times of London and The Guardian, and no first person sources. After constant noticeboards, not a single one has found the sources and quotes used to be out of context. Drsmoo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but it's not the case that you have never been warned for bad behaviour. Tedder warned you on 16 October, and I warned you on 12 November; in both cases, for edit warring and potential 3RR on the Atzmon article. RolandR 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"solely because you disagree with my positions"... WP:AGF much? I stated my reasons above. To reiterate: I recall you clearly working towards making the article non-neutral (maximising criticism, often based on quotes without explanatory context; minimising elaboration of the subject's views), and that on occasion you explicitly stated your agenda, in terms of "exposing" the subject's anti-semitism, or some such. Rd232 talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment—it's certainly a problem when an editor makes over 100 non-minor edits to an article (or over 200 in Carol Moore's case) without adding new content, or adding very little new content. Even without an in-depth review of the case, it indicates that perhaps the article is better off without these edits. I support an indefinite article ban for Carol Moore, who has been edit-warring on the article for more than a year, and far longer than Drsmoo. As for Drsmoo, a temporary ban would probably suffice, as we haven't seen what his editing habits on the article would be like had Carol Moore not edited it, therefore I am in favor of giving him an extra chance in the future if he positively contributes to other articles on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think Drsmoo and Carol are equally to blame for treating the article like a WP:BATTLEGROUND and should be treated the same. As far as Drsmoo's contributions to other articles are concerned, 38% of his mainspace edits and 57% of his Talkpage edits are on this article. If not for his interest in Freddy Adu, Drsmoo would be considered a WP:SPA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if what you say is true (Ynhockey), not adding new content is a bizarre criterion for judging an editor's contributions to an article as useless. Rewriting, in an attempt to fix problems and find compromises, is at least as valuable as adding new content. Rd232 talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The fact that Carol feels a post like this is appropriate while this discussion is going on makes me wonder whether she understands the problem with her own behavior. I'm beginning to wonder whether a permanent Wikipedia ban might be more appropriate in her case. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly - that's a ludicrous over-reaction. She's talking about how dispute resolution works or not, in terms of her experience; and trying to do something about it. Rd232 talk 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Factual FYI. Since Malik Shabazz mentioned above that I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. I would just like to point out that he is discussing the Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft page set up by an admin after the article had been locked. And actually, with some help from Malik, Drsmoo and I did come to a "consensus," per this Talk Page section. Unfortunately no one knowledgeable of the issues and willing to opine was a sustained third party to our current talk page discussions on the unprotected article, which aggravated the situation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


IP used for reverts in Israeli-Palestinian disputes[edit]

Question regarding: 166.217.187.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

By the looks of things, this is an experienced user who's reverting things with an anti-Israeli perspective (they call it "consensus") without logging into their account. Reasons could be from laziness all the way up to being a topic banned or site banned editor undercutting their sanction. In any event, such conduct can only induce similar behavior from the other side of the conflict and could easily degenerate any discussion into an electric fence gaming where everyone's trying to figure out who's using an IP to get his favorite version into the article. Here's a sample of said IP fighting in such a manner with another IP and, just recently, this IP has made a revert on an article I'm discussing issues on that is very sensitive and could easily degenerate. Putting it succinctly, I'm concerned with said IP and was wondering if there's any suggestions/thoughts on the issue as how to handle such drive by possibly banned editors best. Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question is vague and unspecified. The answer (to your non-question "I .. was wondering if there's any suggestions/thoughts on the issue as how to ..." etc etc), so far, is: 1st: Please specify --illustrated with diffs; multiple ones if you want to point a 'trend'--. 2nd: no, there are no "suggestions/thoughts" at this level. PS You are not new on Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have notified the IP user about this discussion...GiantSnowman 00:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou is constantly opening complaints against others and almost being taken seriously, despite the fact when he's a legendarily WP:DE and POV editor himself. 86.159.67.125 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why people can never really trust Wikipedia.[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 31 hours for ban evasion, per WP:PLAXICO. -- Atama 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am posting this because I want other administrators, who are not so corrupt and morally bankrupt, to see this behavior for what it is: Poison to the reputation of Wikipedia.

Will someone please review the behavior of Gamaliel regarding the blocking of the account I just created, Technical_reasons. I posted anonymously to the talk page of this article [[10]], which User:Gamaliel then deleted and immediately banned the IP I had posted from. I then created an account in response to his concerns of anonymity and reposted my topic in the discussion page, which user:Gamaliel then called wp:van and removed. After contacting him on his talk page, he then proceeded to ban my account citing block evasion. An indef block with no coherent reasoning given.

When I posted on his talk page that I felt that he was misusing his admin privileges, the posting was immediately removed by newyorkbrad(talk) with no reason given. I reposted my concerns on Gamaliel's page and another admin, Craftyminion(talk) immediately removed it again, but this time with the potential threat "Don't do this..." Perhaps I should have listened to the voice of the Wikimafia because my account was quickly banned when I tried to follow the WP guidelines regarding my concerns. I assume the threat was in reference for trying to bring to light the unseemly abuse of Wikipedia and admin powers.

The threat from Crafty and bad faith behavior is in the edit history of the talk pages of Gamaliel(talk), Craftyminion(talk), newyorkbrad(talk).

142.104.160.216 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That account was blocked for block-evasion and being an attack-only account. But thanks for giving us your IP address. How are things in BC? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Bloody cold, I tell you what. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
What, no Plaxico, lol? Oops, forgot to sign. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Previous mischief was done with 142.104.215.217, so I think we already knew where the guy was coming from, but point made. WP:RBI is best here. -- Atama 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I'm in a Cabal. :D Crafty (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, you're also an admin.— dαlus Contribs 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
What a terrifying thought. >:) Crafty (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, "mischeif" to Atama and "vandalism" to Gamaliel is an editor posting on the talk page that he or she percieves a bias enforced by certain users with admin powers. If trying to establish NPOV when there are differing perspectives is "mischeif", then every editor should be blocked, no? Absurd.
Grave dancing in this case further shows the hubris that these admin have, the hubris which flies in the face of what Wikipedia stands for. Malfeasance of this sort cleary undermines the credibility of this project. It is clear that in spite of all the attempts to make Wikipedia fair and democratic, some users seek to attain and use their power in order to oppress those who disagree with them. Remember: If all else fails, just cry sock puppet. 24.69.139.253 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

142.104.215.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
142.104.160.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Technical_reasons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Bot welcomes, guestbooks, welcome template images[edit]

MisterWiki (talk · contribs) seems to be using a bot(?) to add welcome messages (last 500 changes are mostly welcomes). His custom welcome template (User:MisterWiki/Welcome) includes some odd images, and a plea to sign his guestbook. His current signature includes a link to his guestbook. He dismissed one complaint [11]. I'm not sure if any of this is serious enough to warrant notice here, or what our current recommendations are for 'guestbooks' and mass-welcoming (last I looked, we strongly discouraged both), but wasn't sure where else to turn. I have to leave for the day, else I would attempt to research further and communicate with the editor myself. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed these as well in my monitoring of newbie edits. I believe that every time it's been proposed, there has failed to be consensus for using a bot to welcome users. On a personal note, the welcome templates being used are pretty heavyweight and I do dislike them. Gigs (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I can remove my spam from the welcome template. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 21:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who welcomes Fartbigbum111 (talk · contribs · block log) after they added "FUK UR MUM" to Vegetable should think again about running an unauthorised bot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: That user is the only one that have been angry with the welcome itself. He have created 4 accounts (I thought) and I think he have to be blocked, because of sockpuppetry (I think). You can see on my talk page that I've received messages from many users thanking me about the warm welcomes. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Stopped the bot. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
So just so we're clear you admit to running an unauthorized bot?--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Per this diff [12] he did not have authorization to run the bot at all. He does seem to have claimed to stop it, but I don't see him showing any appreciation that what he's done is wrong. I might suggest a vacation to give him ample time to review the policies and ensure he understands them correctly before he continues editing.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, we haven't got better things to agonise over than welcome messages? – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If they're causing disruption, as obviously they were in this case, then yes you should be dealing with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There's more disruption here, apparently: [13]. I'm not sure what to make of the situation. Looks like some civility problems as well. Gigs (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Spamming people with pictures of your grandfather and cat is just... odd. Redirecting an editor's user page to their talk page without a reason is a big problem. I don't know if that was an accident or not, but MisterWiki really should stop. -- Atama 23:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The cat is pretty cool. :-) <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bot should be blocked, not just stopped by the editor. Running an unauthorized bot is not allowed. Sadly, the spam welcome is much nicer than the usual one that is such a blast of information as to be useless. I think the editor should be blocked, also, until he understand policy, then asked to redesign that bad, and painfully unwelcoming and unsightly welcome template that wikipedia editors put on new users' pages. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better that we force him out the door rather than put up with the good faith harm welcoming that he's doing (not that I don't agree with the usage of the unauthorized bot, though – to some, it's better than nothing). MuZemike 08:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Then it should be simple, if he runs it again, he will get a block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like some acknowledgment from him that he understands the various things wrong and the polices and guidelines he's run afoul of. So far I haven't seen that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Me too. Mass welcoming is a wasted effort; many people create accounts that are never used, so there's no point using the server space. The template guestbook link was rather myspace-y, the pictures are inappropriate, and the grammar is wrong (we ask questions, not tell them). The whole thing gives a rather poor impression. However, running an unauthorised bot is more of an issue, and will result in a block if it happens again. Full marks for effort and for trying to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place, MisterWiki, but run these ideas past someone with more experience before diving in next time :) EyeSerenetalk 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've stopped forever my welcome-bot. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit: I've requested a bot account and I'm waiting for consensus. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MisterWikiBot (2nd) --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sad about the things written above. If just I would step back in time. I've read the policies and I will never do it again, and I think I don't deserve this. Please, forget what happened. But admit, my welcome message is much better than the default ones :P. Cheers. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 18:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome message has problems, but it's not as ugly and overblown as the current one, which is huge and so crammed fulled of information that it's an assault on the senses rather than being welcoming in any way. Why don't you suggest improvements to the current welcome message, like paring it down, adding pictures, etc., as part of your contribution to welcoming folks to wikipedia? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, there was just one user that disliked my welcome message. Just see my guestbook, there's a message from a user my bot welcomed, and on my talk page [14] [15]. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
There was just one user that it bothered enough to get into a big argument about. That doesn't mean that everyone else liked it. Also, please stop using images in your signature, they violate our signature guidelines. You can step back in time in a way, you can create a new account and stop using this one completely. Be sure to review the relevant policy first at WP:SOCK#LEGIT, "a clean start under a new name". You must do this carefully, however, or you will find all your accounts blocked. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop myspacing and stop tooling about with your sig. Keep it simple, under 255 characters in wikicode and without images. –xenotalk 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio images moved to Commons[edit]

I'm not sure how it's happened, but File:Kimokbin2006.jpg and File:Kimokbin2009.jpg -- both of them listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 20 -- have been moved to Commons by File Upload Bot. Is there anything anyone here can do about it, or do I need to take it up over on Commons? PC78 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the Commons files for deletion as copyvios. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Much obliged. PC78 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done, both now deleted from Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible eyes needed on article[edit]

Just as a heads-up, I'm going to ask if we could get a few admins to keep their eyes on Eddie Fatu for a few hours; the subject of the article just passed away (in the past few minutes), and since he was a pro wrestler, I wouldn't be surprised to see his article targeted by vandals for a while. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected until the 11th by AlexiusHoratius. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, i'll monitor the page. Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 23:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for the 2009 White House gatecrash incident[edit]

The epic deletion battle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 White House gatecrash incident has been "withdrawn" by the nominator. I'm not sure if that is appropriate, since there were some pro-deletion arguments aside from the nominator. I also don't think the closing itself was done properly, as the formatting on the AFD is all weird and the AFD tags are stil on the article. Someone more knowledgeable about this than me should take a look at it. --Blargh29 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I saw that if the nominator withdraws the AFD, the AFD ends. From a practical standpoint, reopening seems ok because someone would probably resubmit the AFD if it is closed with no decision because of withdrawal. (If the nominator withdraws the AFD then it's suppose to close and another user can re-submit the AFD again.) Can anyone cite the exact rule? I suggested having all the rules in one place before but an administrator told me to fuck off. Later, I found that a Wikipedia trustee has exactly the same idea of creating a one stop rule book place. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If a nomination is withdrawn, it is closed iff nobody else has commented in favor of deletion. If someone had called for deletion and their reasoning does not heavily hinge on the nominator's statement, then it remains open. I don't recall where this is documented or even if it is, but that's standard practice. Many of Wikipedia's procedures are simply undocumented precedent. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You may be looking for WP:SK. Tim Song (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think in this particular case it was not appropriate to close--the nominator said he was basically testing notability and was unsure he himself wanted it deleted & was withdrawing because he had been told he shouldn't have nominated in that circumstance. First, I think he was well within policy to have nominated--I;ve done some myself where it seemed clear to me a community opinion was needed--refusing to hear such cases is relying on technicalities and against NOT BUREAUCRACY. Second, others had given relevant arguments for deletion & felt strongly enough that they would simply have renominated. Sarek did right to reopen it. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I knocking on the right door?[edit]

Resolved: users blocked

I don't know if I am or not, but one of you will know more than I do: check out this diff; I've seen a half a dozen or more of these weird "welcomes" (from different IPs) go by. I'm going through manually replacing them with a 'real' welcome, but what is going on? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you could pull up more diffs it might be p[ossible to find an older, wiser admin than myself to do a rangeblock. I'll try leaving a note for the one ip identified so far. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to have stopped; I don't see them go by on Recent Changes. Diffs: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Oops, sorry--those are my diffs for the corrections, but I hope it's good enough. (I'd redo it but I gotta powder my nose RIGHT NOW.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the anontalk spammer on open proxies, FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt that. Firstly, most open proxies are quickly blocked by WP. Second, the good mr. Alm always includes links to anontalk in his spam. Third, he uses a botnet, not proxies. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Firstly, I block most of the open proxies. Second he has tried all sorts of vandalbot edits without his links. Third, he has no botnet - he uses publicly open proxies. I have little doubt this is him. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That they are now blocked seems the most important point. Thanks to zzuzz for tracking this down and making the blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Edman1959[edit]

Resolved: User blocked.

Edman1959 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appears to be a vandalism-only account. —SlamDiego←T 02:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong forum. You want WP:AIV. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 02:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I thought that, for it to go to WP:AIV, the vandalism had to be “now”, but a double-check indicates that this is only in the case of unregistered users. —SlamDiego←T 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

98.234.169.63 = Fastily?[edit]

Pardon the digression, but is 98.234.169.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) actually the admin Fastily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in the discussion some distance up the page? Or is it an impostor? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be less drama inducing to ask him about it? That account has been editing for months ([23]), so I don't think it's an imposter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Asking the IP would be rather pointless. I was going to ask Fastily, but he hasn't edited under that ID since the 26th. It just seems weird for an IP to sign as a user, especially an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
He's been doing it for months [24], but I admit it's a bit odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether Fastily is doing that because he is deliberately or accidentally logged out at the time. The only issue I have is with the replacement of the IP signature with Fastily's signature. A better way would be to add a link in brackets after the IP signature. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deliberately logged out. I'm busy in real life right now so I'm attempting to take a Wikibreak which hasn't been all that successful thus far. I usually end up spending less time on-wiki editing as an IP without the tools so I do that. Please feel free to email me if you need me to confirm this. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Fastily, if you take up my suggestion above, we can mark this one as resolved. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Any others alternative identities you would like to admit to Fastily?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you are asking about IP addresses, WP:OUTING may apply. Fastily, I would really suggest you try to avoid editing that much while logged out. If your IP address changes (and three months seems about right), finding out what you've said becomes unnecessarily complicated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see some acknowledgment from Fastily's own logon confirming - not that IP address again saying, "Yes, it's me." The reason I brought this up in the first place is that the IP's comments didn't sound like an admin talking, they sounded pointy, like someone trying to fan the flames. We shouldn't have to send someone an e-mail. That also sounds fishy. If it's actually Fastily, he should log on once and post here, and confirm that that IP is him. Either that, or the IP should be blocked on suspicion of impersonation. Which, by the way, is what I was originally going to propose at AIV, but I thought it would be better to bring it here first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's really him; if I remember correctly he's been asked about it before and made a confirmation edit to prove it. Sure, it could theoretically have been him then and not him now (if the IP is dynamic), but seriously, I am pretty sure it's actually Fastily. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's reasonably clear to people in the editing area and is not being used to stack or manipulate, it's not a breach of WP:SOCK, and a non-issue. Orderinchaos 05:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Slade[edit]

Jimmy Slade has been adding {{NYC-transport-stub}} tags to all NYC Transportation related articles (see his contributions page and is not willing to stop, or even acknowledge or respond to comments. A few of many examples:

This even prompted a discussion on the Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway) page, in which the user demonstrated his confusion over what a WP:STUB is. We don't know if he ever read the explanations in that discussion, although he obviously did not heed them.

Several messages were left on his User talk:Jimmy Slade page by myself and User:Acps110 trying to explain stubs, and asking him to stop adding the tags, and requesting edit summaries, although the user has a tendency to remove the comment or blank [32] [33] the page without a response, and continues the activity.

He's been involved in a number of other controversies, such as marking user subpages as AFD (see his contribs from Dec 2-3) and this [34] talk page comment, since blanked. There are other controversies, namely reverts to edits on NYC Transit related pages, without explanations or edit summaries. The animation of the Wikipedia globe on his user page might also violate WP:USERPAGE, I'm not really sure.

(A bit of disclosure -- you may see user Sme3 on some talk pages. That was me, before a recent user name change).

I don't know what the appropriate action is. A temporary block? A topic-ban? A simple opportunity to explain himself? Could this rapid activity be the work of a bot? I'll leave it up to the experts/admins to decide. Me Three (talk to me) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Jimmy Slade and Acps110 of this thread. Mr. Slade has already removed the notification from his talk page. Me Three (talk to me) 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Me Three [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimmy_Slade&action=historysubmit&diff=329712734&oldid=329679439 notified] the editor in question. Just confirming this as the editor in question blanked their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the user is working off a bad understanding of English. The discussion on that talk page is almost incomprehensible, and I fear that he may be interpreting a stub as 'a smaller article of a whole' rather than 'a short article that needs expanding'. Probably an indef block until he acknowledges the problem would be appropriate, as he seems determined to ignore it otherwise. Sodam Yat (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As linked to above, he blanks a user subpage of mine and sends it to AFD [35] (should go to MFD, and certainly shouldn't have been blanked), I sent him a simple query on his talk page asking him what's up [36] and no reply (but he does blank it.. seems to love blanking). --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Support indef block until he starts talking, and the reversion of his edits as vandalism where they are deemed inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Done, user indef blocked. Someone more familiar with the situation than I am (other than a cursory examination of his/her inability to communicate) might want to explain on their user talk page what any circumstances of unblocking are. Tan | 39 19:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

────────── Just want to say that I didn't intend for this to turn into an indef block for him; I'm a bit torn on what should be done. I've been reading the conversation since this block on his talk page. He has had his share of valid edits (mostly minor cleanup on articles) -- he just needs to state, in his own words, that if he doesn't understand a template or policy clearly, such as WP:STUB or WP:AFD, he won't touch them. I really don't think the guy has any malicious intent. Me Three (talk to me) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and we should probably discuss with him whether or not he is willing to change. Unfortunately, we might have already scared him off, unless he opened a new account already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Really, there is a serious competence issue here - namely, one of language. As it turns out, editing an English-language encyclopedia takes a certain level of fluency in the English language; this editor almost certainly falls far short of this level. Tan | 39 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
He should also be warned about sockpuppetry. (If he begins to use sock puppets or anonoymous IPs with the same edit patterns, my opinion of him will change negatively.) I'm fine with the indef block but I think a topic ban is sufficient in my opinion. But he seriously needs to improve his fluency and understanding of the English language as well as learn WP:Wikiquette before he attempts to return here. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the indef block as well. He was out of control. There were other issues in addition to the current stub tagging too. I begged, pleaded, etc. with him many times on his talk page. He continually blanked his talk page instead of discussing. Additional diff evidence here in my user space. Acps110 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have become very uncomfortable with this user. Although I also don't believe he intends any harm, reaching a consensus with him is so difficult because of language and etiquette differences.

  • He blanks his talk page messages without comment (as stated above) and rarely with [satisfying] responses, leaving me to wonder if he agrees with myself or if he is dismissing my communication in a harsh, uncollaborative, unfriendly way.
  • He also routinely does not provide edit summaries, which is very disappointing for the WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. He made many edits to New York City Subway-related articles without edit summaries, including stations and lines/services. (sample: [37]) There are 423 New York City Subway stations, so any en masse changes to those articles raise eyebrows. In addition, many of those changes are aesthetically-driven as opposed to content-driven. [38] [39] That's almost as annoying to me as vandalism because he spends his time filling in spaces, adding/subtracting newlines, capitalizing where it doesn't matter (i.e. template links)—in other words, his edits are largely unnecessary as I see them.
  • Also in the same WikiProject, we agreed to apply the style guidelines regarding WP:ENDASH in articles and page titles. [40] (More accurately, I raised the issue and there was no reply, so I assume it was safe to do so.) Based on this, I took it upon myself to also apply WP:SLASH, an essentially similar guideline. But Jimmy Slade disagreed and reverted my moves. [41] [42] [43] I asked him why and his response: [44] [45] I asked for confirmation of my page moves on the WikiProject and asked Jimmy Slade for his opinion there. [46] [47] He declined. I didn't attempt to apply WP:SLASH since then because I felt there was a high probability that he will revert again.

I hate lack of constructive dialogue, non-transparency and edit wars such as this. Maybe it's my fault I have a higher level of English than himself, but I don't like to talk to him like a child because that's insulting to his intelligence and not in good faith. I stopped editing Wikipedia until I saw that something was done about this user. I had a similar situation years ago with other users that made my blood boil and I vowed never to go down that route again. Now that this user has been reprimanded, I feel better and will return to WP, but sorry that it had to come down to this. So I hope my concerns and others' can be addressed and resolved. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that they've been reprimanded, as they've been shown the door - rather permanently, as it seems at the moment. Tan | 39 04:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought indef blocks can be overturned or demoted. I guess that's not going to happen easily and for some time, then. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor returns as sock[edit]

This is an update on this discussion about [48] where Yongle the Great (talk · contribs) was indef blocked. He's returned several times, most recently (a few minutes ago) as Perpetual Happiness (talk · contribs) but also as 123.23.253.192 (talk · contribs), 123.23.251.85 (talk · contribs) and 123.23.254.31 (talk · contribs). He may also be Kungkang (talk · contribs) the creator of the article Zhu Benli, Prince of Han where he keeps removing the AfD tag. My continued efforts to get Kungkang to respond about copyvio and other problems have also been met with silence. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's only one way to handle a contributor who doesn't respond about copyvios and keeps creating them. You gave him a notice on 11 November, which included a block warning. On 2 December, he blatantly violated copyright again. I would start with a temporary block (I've got a notice template I use at User:Moonriddengirl/cblock) and escalate to indef if it persists. This is an issue, obviously, that we have to be adamant about. Of course, if he's a sock of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs), that's a whole different kettle of fish. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted AIV report[edit]

A couple of days I made an WP:AIV report about user Dorismann, who has been blocked two times already for the same kind of vandalism (diff here). Well, for some reason, non-admin user Icairns deleted the report a mere four hours after it was made, claiming it was a stale report (diff here). I don't know the specific rules on the subject, but four hours feels far too short a time to make a report stale, and in any case I don't think a non-administrator user should go about deleting AIV reports. --uKER (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New block evasion by User:InkHeart[edit]

192.197.54.136, a previously confirmed sockpuppet of indef blocked user InkHeart, has resumed editing on a number of articles favoured by this user in the past. Only a handfull of new edits, but these include the removal of some valid templates at Lee Dong-wook [49], and the restoration of prior contributions at Park Si-yeon to reintroduce some nonsensical material to the lead and other unconstructive changes [50]. Clear block evasion, and not the first I've reported for this user recently. PC78 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP claims to be used by the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, but I've softblocked it for while. Hope this helps; if the disruption keeps up, maybe we ought to think about article semiprotection instead (I was involved with them in their Colleen16 incarnation and seem to recall it's only a small set of articles). EyeSerenetalk 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. This is starting to get a little tiresome, but we'll see how it goes. PC78 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Three new reverts by 24.114.255.83 suggest they're at it again. This one hasn't previously been confirmed as a sock, but a quick look through the contributions of this IP shows edits to Lee Jun Ki, Nam Sang Mi, and a few other favourite articles of InkHeart. I'll be happy to file an SPI for this one if it's required, but the IP already has a colourful block log. PC78 (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked; Yoon So Yi, Lee Dong-wook and Park Si-yeon semiprotected for 1 month. EyeSerenetalk 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Nicebumtities[edit]

...any thoughts on this username? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's speeld rong. Crafty (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I never noticed :P... but alright, no-one seems to see any problems apart from the spelling. Fine. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh no doubt someone will have a problem with the name. En-wiki is notoriously hostile to titties. Nice bums are different matter. Crafty (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case why was it requested that I remove this image? --William S. Saturn

(talk) 08:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's the wrong sorta bum. Crafty (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks alright to me. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong noticeboard. You want WP:UAA. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. TNXMan 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations and personal attacks User talk:151.57.203.206[edit]

The editor repeatedly reverts to previous versions, re-adding text that has been removed for copyright violations, and ignores my requests not to re-add the same material without addressing the problem.
For a list of associated IP addresses see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 4 sections "History of rail transport in Turkey", and "Turkish State Railways" - They have already readded text to History of rail transport in Turkey that was removed after being posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 21
This has been going on for a week - I'm fed up of having my contributions described as "elementary school level sentences" whilst the same editor constantly reposts material that violates copyright.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend that you don't engage. The goal here is to prevent the disruption, which has currently been accomplished through semi-protection. The IP will have to log in to edit. Registered accounts can be blocked, and if other issues develop additional steps can be taken: full protection; range blocks. The needling is standard. Remain businesslike, remove blatant personal attacks (or ask somebody else to remove them for you, if you fear being misinterpreted), and the fire will die for lack of fuel. (See also this essay on meta and especially Dealing with pestering and misplaced criticism.) (If there are particularly virulent flare-ups, brief blocks may be sufficient to address them as part of WP:RBI. I've been there.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The 151.57.* IP is Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs), a longterm sockpuppeter. He's banned, but his dynamic IP socks are so persistent and the ranges so variable it's been hardly possible to keep him out in the long run. We usually let him edit as long as he behaves, and just do semiprotection whenever he starts warring again (which unfortunately happens at regular intervals). Sorry I can't be of more help. Please let me know if you experience any more problems with him. Fut.Perf. 13:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that makes sense - I've been having the same problems with them as 'everyone' else it seems.