Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594

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

Noticeboard archives


Disruptive edits, nationalistic POV pushing, removal of references and edit war[edit]

Massive POV pushing at protected article Romania. The story:

Background information: Transylvania had/has a mixed Romanian, Hungarian and German population and was part of Hungary before 1918. After World War I the territory became part of Romania after the Treaty of Trianon was signed in 1920.

A Romanian user, Criztu began to remove Hungary related edits -or edits made by Hungarian users- on January 25 2010 when he changed Kingdom of Hungary to Habsburg Empire but that was later corrected. (Transylvania was part of Hungary before it became part of the Habsburg Empire) At 20:40 user Criztu re-added the information in an incorrect way, but another user fixed it (see this link).However user Criztureverted this edit with a comment "much better order", although it was incorrect. Another user fixed it again, but it was reverted again by Criztu ("nopeee, this is chronologically better"). After user Qorilla specified the date (exactly how long was Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia ruled by the Romanian Prince Michael the Brave), but was reverted by user Criztu and he added unsourced information about the oppression of the Romanian people by Hungarians. (see link) On 2010 January 27 he made an edit with the following comment:"dear hungarian friends, i know u hate the formulation "Transylvania united with Romania" but the international law (Hungary adheres to it also) recognize Romania as a unitary state. so please" On 2010 January 27 Criztu, with the comment "slavs were nice people, we forgot to put them in the paragraph tho." added the following unencyclopedic text: "The Slavs also settled this beautiful land during this period", but his changes were reverted by another user, but Criztu made a revert too. On 2010 January 28 heremoved the information that Hungarians are a sizeable minority in Transylvania, although 1,434,377 Hungarians live in Transylvania, according to the Romanian census from 2002 (see article:Hungarians in Romania). On 2010 January 28 his edits were reverted by another user with the comment "to eliminate POV and ideological edits", however, Criztu reverted this edit too, but User:Man with one red shoe reverted him again and warned him to do not push his POV. On 2010 January 28 User:Rokarudi expanded the article, with the information that the defeated Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon, which outcome was that Transylvania became part of Romania. User:Criztu moved to the talkpage and requested sources to prove that Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon "dear hungarian person, who thinks it is a fact that Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty"..."Please provide a reliable source publishing "Hungary was forced to sign Treaty of Trianon" (See: [[Talk:Romania#Hungary forced to sign Trianon Treaty and other stuff]]) When I saw this I added two reliable, English third-party published secondary sources to prove this, (including Encyclopædia Britannica) but he immediately removed the reference and reformulated the article to hide this fact, so I reverted him and I asked him to prove his statements. Meanwhile, Criztu reverted my revert and marked it as "revisionistic POV" (Britannica!). User Criztu thinks, that according to the text of the treaty, which is a primary source "Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of Roumania all rights and title over the territories (including Transylvania) Transylvania)", so Hungary gave Transylvania to Romania, and he doesn't accepts the aspects of moder, neutral sources written by historians that as a defeated country, Hungary had to sign this treaty with this text. He pushes his POV and the "text of the treaty" (Although I told him this "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"), and he removes everything, what doesnt fit into it (reliable, modern, published english sourcesfrom historians). The discussion is useless. See the "efforts" of the discussion: 0 effect.

Sources which prove that Hungary was forced -but according to Criztu revisionist POV pushers- to sign the Treaty of Trianon:

"Although two million Magyars lived in Transylvania, Hungary was forced to sign the treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920" From: Spencer Tucker,Laura Matysek Wood,Justin D. Murphy, The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. 1999. p. 691. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

"[Hungary] was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon" (June 4Chisholm, Hugh (1922). The Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica Co.. p. 418. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

I am requesting administrator intervention to resolve this problem.--B@xter9 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify people if you are reporting them here. Second, walls of text are very likely to be ignored (and personally, I'm not bothering). Third, content dispute stuff isn't appropriate here. Follow dispute resolution, and this isn't the next step. Fourth, I think this is moot as User:Anonimu has at least acknowledged the concern here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please inform people corectly: I was making edits to Romania article, and 2 Hungarian editors reverted my edits with following reasons "i don't like your changes" and "you wrote this beautiful land". I told them they have to give me a valid reasons for reverting my edits. Instead of reaching a consensus in [Talk:Romania] page, User:Rokarudi started reformulating the text of the article in what i consider a POV. I have detailed for them in the Discussion page how his forumlations like "Hungary ceded Transylvania to Romania" or "Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty" can be considered POV, and i propsed that we use the formulations that are also used in Trianon Treaty and Hungary articles : "Hungary signed Trianon Treaty" and "Hungary renounced claims over teritories of defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire" which is the formulation of the treaty itself. [[[User:Baxter9]] pops-up out of the blue and adds citations to User:Rokarudi stating "i am not interested in this discussion". I have messaged him in protest, and expressed my doubt about his interest in reaching a consensus, since he didn't bother clearing whether Hungary was forced to sign a treaty or how did Hungary ceded Transylvania, in the Trianon Treaty and Hungary respective articles, while ROmania article does not discuss history of Hungary. And here he is, presenting the situation in what i consider a distorted way. Criztu (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


This user reverted me at WLOT-LP. I tried to ask them why they reverted my edit ([1]), as I see nothing wrong with it, but they reverted my leaving a message ([2]) and reverted WLOT-LP again. Since they won't answer me, can someone help? (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously advertising that the t.v. station is for sale, and have a link to the site where you can but it. That is Spam and advertising, which is prohibited. AndrewrpTally-ho! 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Andrew seems to have responded to you on your talk page. Wikipedia is not for advertising, please. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I answered at Andrewrp's talk, since they messaged me. Read the article- it's talking about an ownership battle. That isn't my site. That's also violating WP:AGF to say I'm "obviously" doing something. (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It is spam, as the pdf offers contact info to sell the station. Please see THIS
User did not respond to my messages, says he quits wikipedia. I believe this incident is resolved. And to any admin that may be reading this, let me point out that this was never or was never intended to be an edit war. I would not have broken 3RR if he continued. AndrewrpTally-ho! 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
From what I've read so far I think your actions were blatantly wrong. I think you attacked this IP too quickly. The IP then contacted you on the talk page to find out why you reverted it and instead of calmly explaining your reasoning and cordially suggesting the conversation be continued on the talk page so that the discussion is in the open you reverted that. I think a new user who didn't know much about wikipedia would view that as actively adversarial. I don't blame the IP's frustration with you. As for the merits of the IP's edit; the argument for removal due to Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam seems questionable. If a radio station is trying to sell itself then this information is important for the article to include. The reference the IP used seems fine to me. Its a primary source, but just because it includes some contact information doesn't invalidate it. If you could have found a secondary source to replace it and tried to include it instead then I would have seen your point. But if there is only a primary source to provide this info, I think its inclusion is more important than the more secondary concerns that the reference has contact information of the station. I guess what I'm mainly saying is that this wasn't a clear cut advertising issue and that you should have conducted the conversation on the articles talk page so that all could see. I think the desire to talk about it on the IP's talk page can seem like a strange type of control issue.Chhe (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"If a radio station is trying to sell itself then this information is important for the article to include." Absolutely not per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Without independent sources, this is highly promotional and inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image BLP?[edit]

Resolved: Image in question deleted, user account that uploaded it has been indefinitely blocked and may appeal on their talk page if they so choose, no need for further admin action.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dougweller asked me to take a look at File:Sex Tourists Thailand.jpg to see if I believed it constituted a WP:BLP concern. I do, both in title and in its usage. While the individuals are not named, they are clearly visible and recognizable by anyone who knows them. The uploader claims to have permission from the two gentlemen (Talk:Sex tourism#BLP concerns), but this is not verified, and there's no mention of permission from the lady. (He says the same here, also indicating the picture was taken specifically for this article...three and a half years before it was uploaded, according to metadata.) Moving this image to a neutral title will not resolve the matter, given the purpose for use. Since images are not my major area I bring it here for additional review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Deleted: G10. The uploader's other contributions hardly add to their credibility. CIreland (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There is
  1. No need for an image of what someone who is a sex tourist looks like in this article.
  2. No evidence that the people in the image are indeed sex tourists
  3. No evidence that they are in Thailand. The proliferation of Heinz tomato ketchup bottles and common North American sugar and salt sachets seems to suggest they are not.
So this image shouldn't be here. And that's even before the potential personal attack/BLP indicators. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (EC) I would be listing it for Deletion, Not only is there a BLP issue (which doesn't even demonstrate the subject title it is trying to cover as it's just looks like tourists drinking at a bar) but also seems not to be the uploaders own work according to the information they have given in the summary. Bidgee (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Endorse the deletion, and was just about to advocate for it here. There's absolutely no way for us to know that we have the permission of everyone in the article to use that photo, that they were in fact engaging in "sex tourism," or indeed that they were even in Thailand. Inherent BLP problems make deleting an easy call I think. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I support/endorse the deletion of that image as well. Pcap ping 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I endorse this deletion also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Add to this, the same uploader previously did this and several other rather dubious edits. Fut.Perf. 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, that kind of seals it, doesn't it? :/ Thanks for the swift feedback (and handling, CIreland :)). I almost speedied (and probably would have if I had noticed that he claimed it was taken especially for the article, when it was taken in 2006, before posting it here), but I've not handled much by way of BLP images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the user in question, I recently left them a message on their talk page after reviewing (and reverting) their edits. They were given feedback last year in regards to their behaviour, and it has recently continued (with no intervening edits). They appear to be a low-grade vandalism-only account, except that they have the appearance of acting in good faith. I say appearance because they made this edit, which does not look like the typing of someone alive during World War II, in addition to the use of the "imho" edit summary here. The rest of their edits vary between unhelpful and vandalism. Could an admin please take a look? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Orr Cohen (talk · contribs) Having reviewed all the contibutions of this user, I have indefinately blocked the account as vandalism only. WP:AGF only goes so far. This is simply a troll. Please review his contributions yourself if you have concerns about my action, I'm sure you'll agree with it when you do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I was late leaving the house for worldwide cinema broadcast of a Terry Pratchett play (Nation) from the National Theatre, London, & really shouldn't have been looking at my computer at all!. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible link spamming[edit]

Since the word "wiki" is often mistakenly equated to Wikipedia, I suspect this job ad might lead to a spam attack that would earn someone money if it's not detected in time. Please be on the look out for anyone with a name that resembles one of the bidders or try to pry more details from the project creator by making a bid to get more information. See for more information. - (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported the ad for abuse. I'm not willing to add my personal details to the website, so I'm unable to post on the project board. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin possibly take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM and maybe have a quiet word with Hutch48. He has taken this nomination very personally and is being rather intimidating to other contributors and potential contributors [3] . There is more but AfD is only short - it's probably easier to read it in its entirity than by diff, but he has also made his comments about other contributors on another editors talk pages [4], and he does have a very recent history of being totally offended whenever someone makes any comments to one of his articles [5][6] note edit summary (Magioladitis added an orphan tag to JWASM) [7] (response to Orange Dog querying notability of a different cyberwidget) [8] editor opined that article should not actually be about how to create compiler code.

NB - although I have not ventured to offer an opinion in the AfD, as I don't want any more comments about my technical knowledge, I have notified Hutch48 of this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your complaint. To save retyping my response to the actions of the compainant, please refer to the discussion page related to the deletion of the JWASM page. I have asked that editors properly comply with the rules of Wikipedia as stated in the direct URL that I have cited.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see. Hutch48 continues to argue that I "broke the rules" by PRODding an article about some compiler code that had no sources verifying notability (indeed, at the time did not even make any claim to notability, just to usefulness) and appeared to me to be completely non notable under Wikipedia definition, Magioladitis "broke the rules" by tagging the article as an orphan, and OrangeDog "broke the rules" by listing the article for deletion. While he is entitled to his opinion, I do not feel he is entitled to continue to intimidate other editors away from AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have someone with some serious WP:OWN issues. It should be pointed out that a lot of times when an editor can't prove the notability of their subject, they take to attacking other editors. All I see are walls of texts, none of which establish notability. More so, looking at his contributions, I'm more concerned about how Hutch48 (talk · contribs) is continuously harassing OrangeDog (talk · contribs). --Smashvilletalk 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the facts speak for themselves so I'll try not to get into any arguments here. I would however appreciate a retraction and apology from those who have accused me of bad faith editing. As for the MASM article, I left my comments on the talk page and editors may act on them as they wish. OrangeDog (τε) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hutch48 does have some serious ownership problems, specifically in the belief that people who don't "have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type". Similar language along these lines has continued at the AfD. -- Atama 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Hutch48 has taken his bat home. I would guess this incident can be closed and the Afd left to run its course. (And I never signed this post!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) )

Oh very interesting [9] Hutch48 appears to be the admin of's forum (no outing, he put the url and his real name on his userpage and he uses a similar username to his Wikipedia one at this forum), and according to him, Wikipedia is now scheduled to go down the tubes because we trashed his article. Unfortunately for him, even the code nerds aren't taking his complaints too seriously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Although all of the admins are apparently driving around in Lamborghinis with their Wiki-riches. Hmm...apparently my check has been lost in the mail. --Smashvilletalk 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that always the way :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Wikipedia admins and editors for sticking to the established rules in a fair and unbiased manner. In the last decade, Steve Hutchesson (Hutch48) has rarely shown any "social" or diplomatic skills, in such conflicting situations on the internet, outside of ad hominem and other forms of bullying. As for OrangeDog expecting an apology, just be thankful that an entire USENET slander campaign hasn't been waged against you and Wikipedia as a result. Thanks and please keep sticking to your guns. As for the JWASM page itself, I wish to request a delay in any approval of its deletion. I would like a chance to review and bring it up to Wikipedia standards over the next week. It's a very useful tool, perhaps even the unofficial successor to MASM itself, and I wouldn't like to see the corresponding page lost as a result of the shortsightedness of one Steve Hutchesson. Thanks much. SpooK (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Afd is currently pretty cut and dried, so I'd start by throwing out some good notability refs rather than fiddling with the text. Post 'em in the Afd if you have 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This has now progressed to pretty blunt personal attacks. -- Bfigura (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, come on, it's right there at the top of my user page. I'm more concerned about his characterizing requests for sources as "a pile of FUCKING GRAFFITI". —Korath (Talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, he already mentioned as much. But given his tone and other comments, looking at your user page wasn't my first instinct. -- Bfigura (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems probable to me that JWAsm is notable, even if the current people involved are too busy being conflicted to look up sources :-P . Even if the page does get deleted, I'd definitely do it without prejudice, and it would help if we point out to Spook that it's possible to ask for the original text of the article, if he wants to make a new and improved version. (We should also take some time to explain how and where to look for reliable sources :-)).

If you know that I'm an eventualist, I suppose it's redundant to mention that I'm dismayed by all this "the article needs to be perfect RIGHT NOW" attidude I see displayed these days. It leads to lots of preventable conflict, as well as much redundant effort.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of the problem has been Hutch48's terrible attitude, where all he keeps doing is insisting (often sometimes with swear words) that everyone else is incompetent and breaking the rules. And Doktorspin's continuous wikilawyering that the rules somehow don't apply in this case hasn't improved the atmosphere any. All it needs is one source - say Sourceforge recommending it as the alternative to MASM, or some nerdy but noted in field online journo saying this is going to have an impact. The information is going to be in places like that - but Hutch48 recommending the forum where he spent 48 hours trashing Wikipedia isn't helping his cause at all.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As I indicated, in dealing with Steve Hutchesson, don't expect such situations to do anything but degrade... rapidly. In his mind, if you don't agree with him, you are either wrong or misinformed, but never justified. The exception being if you have something of value for him. You'll notice that on his forum, japheth (the current developer of JWASM) is calling Hutch's general decision to no longer edit Wikipedia articles as a "positive outcome." Historically, such "back talk" would generally result in humiliation/slander/retaliation and/or banning. However, JWASM being the most probable successor to MASM, well, we can see the need for one to bite their tongue if the future of their "legacy" was dependent on that person's efforts. My entire point in mentioning this is that you have recent and direct proof that Steve Hutchesson will not respect you, Wikipedia or its rules, so you have very few choices on how to deal with him... usually dwindling down to writing him off as a troll and banning him, for most people. So far, your (admin's/editor's) choice to be as diplomatic as you are about the situation has been admirable, professional and much appreciated.
Now, to put a more positive spin on this situation, and as a party not invested in the success/development of JWASM, I am willing to write a review of JWASM and post it on something like ASMCommunity or Slashdot. It will be a non-trivial and unbiased, although technically oriented, review of JWASM... what it is for, what it can do, recommendations/advantages/disadvantages vs MASM and other assemblers, etc. Overall, I know this situation must seem somewhat rather silly, especially when certain "others" cannot make the distinction between an encyclopedia which requires significant verifiable resources and a technical manual, but it is rather important to the assembly language community; and potentially important to other software developers that could benefit from the knowledge of this tool's existence.
I have come to the conclusion that whether or not the JWASM page is deleted in its current incarnation is of no consequence, as it is clearly outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. I believe a page similar to NASM or GAS with relevant links to resources, including a link to the review I write, should be sufficient for notability/relevance and other guidelines. That being said, I hope the my explanation/proposal is sufficient enough to keep the revised/new JWASM page safe from deletion. Thanks for your patience, understanding and any further advisement/direction that you may give regarding this situation.
--SpooK (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That would I think be helpful. If the page is not kept, one that covers WASM and JWASM is likely to replace it, as WASM has the necessary notability, and the two make a progression. Whatever happens, a critical technical review posted to an appropriate community would be useful for others to reference - with this kind of subject, the necessary references are going to be tucked away in unusual sites that are viewed by their community as reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
+1 Informative. ;-)
Thanks for the feedback, Elen. I've submitted a review/story to Slashdot. I'll attempt to get the "others" involved by referencing it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, and hopefully they participate positively and get this thing going in the right direction.
(And another +4 Conciliatory : I know that score doesn't exist on Slashdot, but on Wikipedia, people are willing to go a long way for you if you are willing to work towards consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to wallop Spin with a trout, please feel free. He really isn't helping attempts to resolve this amicably. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I pity the admin who's going to read that 128K Afd... Pcap ping 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is getting ridiculous. Can someone do something about this (RE: Hutch's comments at the AfD today)? OrangeDog (τε) 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are trying to go head to head with someone that simply will not concede. Give him an inch, and he'll take a mile. Another part of the problem is that the entire situation is not so "cut n' dried" so to speak. If the rules and guidelines were facts and not opinions/suggestions on how to best operate given a multitude of situations, and thus not subject to multiple and varying interpretation, AfD's would not be required. As a prime example, WP:NOTINHERITED makes concessions in certain situations and therefore is not absolute. To perhaps the benefit of your position, I think what Hutch48 doesn't realize is that his latest arguments are further justifying why JWASM should be apart of the Open Watcom Assembler page and not a separate/independent page. In the end, and unless you ban/block him, Hutch48 will have, at least, the "last word" in the discussion... you can be assured of that. In my history in dealing with him, your best bet is to go ahead and let him finish on his rants. If you've made valid points for the AfD to conclude as a deletion, no further amount of indirection is going to nullify them or reinforce his position. Now, to be fair, I do personally find your "Then bother to read a dictionary and find out what inherited means." statement to him rather rude and antagonizing. Never mind that someone of his age and understanding is probably well aware of the dictionary meaning(s) of inherited. However, you are trying to argue the dictionary value of "inherited" (a near absolute) and use it to reinforce the non-absolute terms of WP:NOTINHERITED. In short, it's a non sequitur and your near ad hominem does nothing to reinforce your position or your latest plea about him here. SpooK (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind if he spends 160+kb ranting, what I object to is repeated accusations of bad faith or disruption on my part. I concede that my final comment was a little rude, but it directly mirrors the previous response he gave me. It will also probably be the last time I respond to his comments. I though it was a suitable response to highlight his repeated assertion that JWASM is notable because its license is notable or because its owner is notable. I thought I'd better post here again as Hutch said that he would no longer participate[10], but has continued to do so. OrangeDog (τε) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, its best to continue to let him look like the aggressor. I honestly can't say that JWASM is notable enough to warrant its own page based on the premise that the source code base that JWASM has been essentially "forked" from is, in itself, from a notable tool. Again, this favors more a merge than it does a keep or delete scenario. I also agree that this situation has gotten way out of hand. However, and less I am mistaken, the AfD closure and review process are not far off... thankfully there will be an end to it :P SpooK (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about this discussion until now. The horse has bolted, but it should not go uncommented on. A simple Google search will show that SpooK has had a running feud with Hutch48 for several years. One cannot take any of his comments about Hutch48 as anything but pure personal bias. This thread originally from alt.lang.asm is merely a taster to show the two going hammer and tongs. Not a pretty spectacle on either side. Programmers tend to get personal because they put a lot of themselves in their intellectual work, but this should not concern us here and SpooK's comments are of no value here. This is years of mutual disrespect. -- spincontrol 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: indef'ed Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

StuckWithMeFan113 (talk · contribs) has received over 3 dozen warnings over the last couple of months related to non-free image uploads (lack of licensing info, lack of fair use rationales, etc). He has not responded to any of these and merely continued the behavior, receiving a final warning from User:TreasuryTag on January 1. The behavior has still not stopped; he continues even today to upload non-free images without any license info or rationales, and has even taken to falsely uploading them as {{PD-self}} in order to avoid WP:NFCC (see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19] for examples). Since TreasuryTag's final warning was not followed up on, I believe a block is in order. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, he may be a sockpuppet of User:Stuckwithmefan112. That user account also had similar warnings and was blocked twice by User:feyday then indefinite for ignoring image upload warnings. I agree with your block decision. The block should be indefinite in my opinion. Minimac94 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Obvious sock, endorse indefinite block. I will do it myself unless anyone has any objections (or it hasn't been done already). SGGH ping! 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked for one week. Do we stretch to an indef block as per the previous account? SGGH ping! 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Upgraded to indef. He'll be back. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a legal threat[edit]


Please note that I am going to vandalise your website, and you may not legally block me for doing so. Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the user without warning. he came straight here, stated his intention to vandalise and knowledge of policy, then proceded to threaten to rape an established contributor. However, given that I gave no warning I would appreciate a review of this block. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Support People with those attitudes don't deserve warning, and I was thinking of filing an abuse report with his ISP. Rodhullandemu 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely a good block. I was in the process of doing the same. you beat me to it. Resolute 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
31 hours seems light, considering the threat of personal violence made at User talk:Moonriddengirl. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I see ZScout ramped it up to 72 hours. Blueboy96 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
He made an abusive unblock request, which I rolled back. I also shut off his talk page. Any available checkusers may want to have a look--something tells me this isn't a new user. Blueboy96 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I also suspect it may be a proxy. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Endorse - They seem to know what they're doing I concur most likely not new. No warning was needed IMHO. Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a seasoned troll who will be on a new IP in five minutes. Please RBI. I got fined £1,000,000,000,000 earlier[20]. See my talk page for more history. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't stop us checking out the IPs for proxies and shutting them down as appropriate. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
They are not proxies, but he uses both BT and Tiscali - two of the largest dynamic ranges in the UK. If you want more of his IPs there's a link on my talk page (as well as my block log) to some more. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical idiocy. Perfect block. Agree with Blood Red Sandman. SGGH ping! 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you send me $100, I will be more than happy to assume all risk and consequence should that fine not be paid. ;) Resolute 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


I've just indeffed Simonpettersen (talk · contribs) for uploading this file after a final warning not to upload copyright images to Wikipedia. This editor has a long history of uploading copyrighted images without an appropriate licence or fair use rationale. Suggest that any unblock is conditional upon a ban from uploading images to Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Suspect that any other images he's uploaded should be deleted as well, given his disregard for copyright. Blueboy96 20:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedist / Ulises Heureaux[edit]

Encyclopedist was unbanned by an admin, Alison, under his account Ulises. Said account was blocked again in January 2010 because of abusive alternate accounts, even though he didn't do anything in a while. So what do you do now, start a wheel war? Loopknow (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please clarify your question? Both Encyclopedist (talk · contribs) and Ulises Heureaux (talk · contribs) are currently blocked indefinitely. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, it's our old friend Grawp. Blocked indef. Blueboy96 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Would anyone mind giving this page a look-over? I think I've reverted it to the cleanest version, but the page was a mess when I came across it, so I'm unsure. HalfShadow 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)



Could an admin block this account User talk:J.delanoy is an imbecilic motherfucker, I have reported it to UAA but seems to be heavily backlogged. BigDunc 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Willking1979. BigDunc 11:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Something that blatant could probably be taken to WP:AIV, where it might get faster results. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
J.delanoy seems to have a fan here, has the IP been traced and blocked yet? raseaCtalk to me 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I was about to ask the same question. J.Delanoy himself is a checkuser, and it would certainly be ethically justified for him to use his skills in isolating that character if he wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's actually better suited for WP:UAA. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Whichever one gets faster results is the one to use. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme moving an article just before nominating for deletion[edit]

Just recently, User:JBsupreme moved Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients to List of Internet Relay Chat clients [21] without an edit summary and I couldn't see a reason for that. Especially because it obviously is a comparison article and he said on the talk page that he'd nominate it for deletion "next week" [22]. Therefore, I requested the move to be reverted [23]. I also notified JBsupreme on the user talk page about that [24]. Now, JBsupreme nominated the moved article for deletion: [25]. This initial version of the AfD lists one previous 2007 AfD about a totally different article located here and not the recent one to the old title of the article here. To illustrate that the old AfD isn't about the same article content, one can take a look at the version the 2007 AfD was about here. I have the strong suspicion that this move right before AfD'ing the article was intended and that JBsupreme intentionally didn't link the most recent AfD about the article which resulted in speedy keep to game the system. I didn't attempt to resolve this dispute with JBsupreme directly, because he didn't reply to my message about the requested move and my involvement in the recent Arbcom case about JBsupreme and others, where he refused to comment. I'm not sure the current state of the AfD is how it should be and would ask an (uninvolved?) administrator to fix the issue. Also, JBsupreme not using edit summaries when making that nomination for deletion wasn't appropriate, he was told to use them just a few hours before making it [26]. --thommey (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The allegation that I didn't respond is false; I posted a response to you on the article talk page nearly 3 hours before you posted here. If you will look right above on the talk page of that article, there has been an ongoing discussion regarding the indiscriminate nature of this list (or "comparison", if you will). I see that the article has been moved back to "Comparison of" rather than "List of", which is fine, but the rationale for deletion still stands. Thank you for the note in any case, I hope this draws more eyes to the problem with these type of indiscriminate lists which are using Wikipedia as a directory service for non-notable software applications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't even disagree with removing some clients from Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients - deleting the article is a different thing. And this thread is neither about restricting the list nor about the AfD itself. It's really only about your behaviour. Moving the article to hide the previous AfD on your AfD and not using edit summaries is clearly gaming the system. You've been told to use edit summaries before (your edit summaries have also been a topic of previous AN/I threads), and I'm still waiting for your reason for an obviously pointless and wrong move a few days before nominating the article for deletion. Unless you provide one, I can't see any other reason than the gaming, no matter how hard I try. --thommey (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that it was a wrong move, which is why I moved it in the first place. If someone wants to institute mandatory edit summaries into MediaWiki I'm fine with that. JBsupreme (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It is already mandatory to use edit summaries when proposing or nominating for deletion. It is also required to link to prior AfDs. JB, you;'re experienced enough to know about this. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re [27] which is a veiled personal attack in itself: Please stop making those attacks without evidence. And I wrote "maybe" because I acknowledge there is a chance I'm mistaken and not seeing everything, but actually it's pretty obvious now. --thommey (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "maybe" is a veiled personal attack. Do not add it back. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack evading block[edit]

Resolved: He's out for a week. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for abusing sockpuppets, is evading his block by editing as an IP ( (talk · contribs)). He has also made what may be considered a legal threat.[28] Could an admin please block this IP. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1w. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A series of range blocks requested[edit]

I have been dealing with an unregistered vandal for the past two months and due to his increased activity over the past week, I have been able to narrow down the ranges IP addresses he uses amongst those available to users of SBC Global. A full description of the vandal (and the dozen or so IPs used so far) can be seen here. I am requesting that the following ranges of IP addresses to be blocked until SBC Global/AT&T responds to the abuse request:

  • ( -
  • ( -
  • ( -
  • ( -
  • ( -

This is much more effective than protecting the pages that are most often hit, because there have always been beneficial edits to these pages by unregistered users in the past. This one individual for some reason has been repeatedly removing references from these pages and does so even after he has been reverted on the same IP a few moments beforehand. These are as narrow I can make the ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was originally posted over at WP:AN but I got no response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
If there's a pattern to the edits, it may be more appropriate to use an edit filter, depending on what that pattern is. Do you have some diffs so I might be able to take a look? (You didn't mention any particular IPs so I don't exactly know what to look for.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The only common pattern are the articles hit and the references removed from them constantly. All of the IPs used can be seen here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I remember working on this filter now that I look at the description... It was being handled by filter 286 but it was causing performance problems and there were no hits, so I deactivated it. I will re-enable it and see if I can't resolve the performance problems. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) After working with it for a bit I got it to a reasonable point for now. It's currently running log only while I verify it, so a few things might still get through. The best course of action for now is, if you see another thing that should have been hit by the filter, leave me a message on my talk page so I can investigate it. Administrators: I leave it up to you if you want to mark this resolved or if you want to go through with the range block. I am sufficiently satisfied that this will keep this particular pattern of abuse at bay for now, but... well... WP:BEANS. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't we just semi protect the articles concerned? Spartaz Humbug! 05:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather not have all these pages semiprotected. There are a bunch of useful contributions from IPs that I don't want to lose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't we just implement flagged revisions already? JBsupreme (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please institute these five range blocks? The vandal had come back again today and if these ranges were blocked, then he would not have been able to remove the references again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for this? If it happened before 15:54 Eastern 30 Jan then it was because the filter was not yet set to disallow as I was waiting for a final verification on the filter before activating it (it is set to disallow now). If it happened afterwards, I would like to see the diff so I know what needs to be adapted in the filter to catch it. I'm not sure blocking nearly 10000 IPs for such a minor issue is a good idea, especially when it's something that can be handled by a filter. Some things take time to perfect, and there's no real "damage" here (such as oversight issues, etc.). But this is my personal opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats of violence[edit]

Resolved: Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Should pages such as this be deleted as threats of violence? Or should the account be blocked because of that plus the dumb edit to Beeblerox's userpage? ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obvious troll, I think. Blocked indef, userpage speedied. Blueboy96 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Word of advice, don't bother talking to the "Colonel Sanders vandal," it's a complete waste of time. I'm going to re-block with talk page and email revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Peter Symonds already got it. He'll be back in a week or so, make the same idiotic edits, and get blocked again in about five minutes... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Breeblebrox, you might wanna mulligan on that estimate; he hit thrice yesterday. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Chill needs to chill[edit]

Resolved: Joe Chill will chill out tonight. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It all ends in good company.

He keeps calling another user a dick, a troll or a combination thereof. See [29]. Pcap ping 23:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lulu always assumes bad faith to me in software AfD and I'm sick of it. Being civil to him got me nowhere. If someone can get Lulu to stop, I'll stop. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You know what, Joe Chill and I have had our differences in the past. In fact, we still do. But it is pretty obvious that the person he is interacting with is indeed trolling. Sad. JBsupreme (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The subject line of this ANI is probably a true enough statement. WP:CIVIL is a good idea, definitely. But I don't see anything actionable or that needs wider involvement, just from a few snippy comments on my user talk page. I appreciate the concern shown by Pcap, but I have thick skin, and no harm was done. LotLE×talk 23:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop skipping over your uncivil comments. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to stick some template urging civility onto my talk page, I acknowledge that some of my comments were also on the snippy side. So please, some uninvolved party, slap a template on my user talk, and on Joe Chill's, then we'll hold hands and sing songs together. Ever mellow, LotLE×talk 23:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Like "I assume Joe Chill's boilerplate failure to find (by not looking for) sources is some sort of automated response, since it never varies based on AfD topic.", "Sorry, Joe Chill, I simply do not believe you have looked for sources prior to most of those rapid and boilerplate !votes.", "Always voting delete to every topic, with no discussion of the nature of the software, nor any indication whatsoever that you have looked for sources, and always using exactly the same boilerplate phrase, looks a lot more like WP:POINT or WP:SOAPBOX than it does like good faith.", "Have you considered looking in Google searches, or in a library, rather than only under rocks in your backyard?!", "If you would state relevant evidence on AfD discussions, rather than snotty pokes at editors who find notability of topics you nominate, it would be a lot easier to imagine good faith on your part." (I didn't say anything bad in AfD except my opinions which are different than his), "Your behavior is unseemly and unhelpful. Just saying "ignore notability" is not a useful AfD approach.", and "It's just so cute, Joe Chill, how you follow me around on AfD, claiming that every indication of notability of a topic magically doesn't count, no matter how prominent... and that the only criteria should be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which prompts deletion of all software articles." (on an article that I nominated). Pcap, remember when he called you one of the rabid software deletionists? Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of templates either. Here's an idea. Reduce the drama, drop the name calling, drop the unnecessary personal attacks, and let everyone go about their business. Joe Chill has his own interpretation of notability (as we all do) and I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he performs due diligence before nominating something for deletion or commenting in a deletion debate. Fair ??? JBsupreme (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
If Lulu assumes bad faith at me again in software AfDs, I'm bringing it to ANI including the uncivil comments that I quoted above. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw. According to WP:CIVIL, ANI is the appropriate place for:

  • Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page. For death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins.

Somehow I think that Joe Chill calling me a "dick" or me accusing him of WP:POINT are... well, not exactly death threats. Even sarcasm--of which I am guilty--is, well, not exactly violence, y'know. Happy joy joy. LotLE×talk 00:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it also says: "When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." YMMV. Pcap ping 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you honestly see no problem with his comments? Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah... I guess it's true that Joe revealed my birth name, "Dr. Richard (Dick) Troll". :-). LotLE×talk 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I guess you know now that Joe is sensitive to accusations of bad faith and lack of due diligence, even if you have no problems with name calling. Now that you've both let all the poisons hatch out [30], perhaps we can lower the DEFCON level and resume a more civil dialogue at (software) AfDs... Pcap ping 01:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had interactions with Mr Chill on several occasions, mostly unpleasant. For instance when I have complained on his talk page about particularly bad "cant find sources" deletion nominations. The entries are routinely dismissed as "stupid question" etc, and I'm a dick. He is also doing some fine work, but some sort of cool down would be appreciated - Power.corrupts (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never called you a dick. I called them stupid questions because the answers to all of them were that we have different opinions on notability, but you never accepted that answer so you kept on posting on my talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be in full support of any block of Joe Chill at this current time. Despite the work he has done on Wikipedia, he has also shown evidence of losing his cool time after time (this is not the first time this user has fired WP:NPA-violating comments at other users. Take the "mostly unpleasant" interactions that Power.corrupts claims to have had with this user as a further example of this sort of thing happening in the past). Joe Chill has, at times, been a great contributor, but when one repeatedly calls another editor along the lines of "Dickish bad-faith asumming troll," that user has taken things way too far.--TrustMeTHROW! 01:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The only other user that I said personal attacks to was Michig after he called me a troll, reverted my edits, and told me to leave Wikipedia. All of the admins in ANI sided with Michig despite all of my diffs. Any other times, they weren't personal attacks but people for some reason thought that they were. I never said anything bad to Power Corrupts. All that I said to Power as that his questions were stupid. The reason for that was that all of the questions where variations of the first one which I already answered. Why is that people always get mad at me and never users like Michig and Lulu who start it by being uncivil? The first thing that starts disputes between me and other others is that they can't accept the fact that I have different opinions on notability. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to pour a nice glass of scotch, I invite you all to join me. JBsupreme (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Best to end it this way. Pcap ping 02:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Department of Homeland Security copyright infringement of wikipedia material[edit]

In the pdf produced by the Indiana Department of Homeland Security for racial profiling, the vocabulary section on page 3/4 is copied from wikipedia, yet there is no attribution to Wikipedia or even a mention of it(wikipedia)...

The purpose of the pdf is "To research positions related to the topic of racial profiling post September 11, 2001 with a primary focus on citizens of Middle Eastern descent, and to give an informative speech."

It uses 7 terms from Wikipedia: Racial Profiling, USA PATRIOT Act, Bigotry, Internment, Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, The War on Terrorism.

The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)#Indiana Department of Homeland Security Racial Profiling pdf.Smallman12q (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Would WP:OTRS be able to help you out here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No, not really. Any contributor can contact them about this, though only a substantial contributor of content can take real action. The steps to take are at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I did the right thing with this SPI case?[edit]

I filed an SPI case both concerning Nintendofan5000 and Bambifan101 who are both blocked for sock puppetry in terms of similarities with edits and both usernames containing the word "fan" and a number at the end.

Look at the SPI case for more information. Thanks. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are also a sockpuppet and I claim my five pounds. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this user might be worth a look as a sock of Pickbothmanlol as requested in the SPI case that he just submitted. Renny The Bat (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the joke is on you. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Both blocked as sockpuppets. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
So wait, a sockpuppet reported another sockpuppet? Thanks guys! JBsupreme (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to happen a lot around here. I guess we should be thankful they don't make them smarter. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
As well as Plaxico-ing himself, this puppeteer also has a habit of impersonating and joe jobbing other people with their SPIs[31] I assume it's probably User:Pickbothmanlol, but you never know. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?[edit]

I just saw this at UAA. Is this a logged-out bot? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the toolserver IPs, so yes, it's someone's bot logged out. Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh... I sure hope nobody blocks that IP! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange series of edits: socks?[edit]

If you look at the history of The Stolen Earth, there are a series of very strange edits from very strange accounts, which look like they may be socks designed to harass Sceptre (talk · contribs)? ╟─TreasuryTagdraftsman─╢ 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they are sockpuppets but I'm not sure, I'll leave this to Checkuser if possible. Minimac94 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that they have been blocked by Versageek. For future reference, I believe that WP:SPI is the place to report suspected sockpuppetry. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I know, but I wasn't sure who they were socks of :P ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You had a clear reason for believing they may be socks of each other. That's enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have previously expressed concerns about the behaviour of Off2riorob at the Wikiquette alert board and feel that attention from administrators may be warranted as the user continues to respond with hostility to honest criticism, for example by accusing me without evidence of sockpuppetry and stalking. (I am not "Nikolay S. Boriso", nor am I User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, as Off2riorob implies; neither have I sought out confrontation with this user.)

In my Wikiquette alert (linked above), I noted that the user seemed to be continuing a disturbing history of edit warring and confrontational behaviour that had resulted in eight blocks in the span of several months. My concerns were seconded by Jusdafax, who had recently been on the receiving end of similarly confrontational behaviour. Looie496 closed the alert as resolved after "Off2riorob has acknowledged overreacting, and apologized for any offense."

In response to a question from User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris at BLP/N, regarding an ongoing incident in which a user characterised prominent climatologists as criminals, Off2riorob responded:

"That comment is a million miles away from Libel, you should respect other users comments even if you disagree with them, using weakly claimed libel to remove another users comment is disruptive to the editing environment, if you really think that something libelous has been posted, take it to ANI and see if you get any support to remove it, you should only touch another editors comments in very serious situation, otherwise, leave them alone"

WP:BLP makes quite clear that potential violations should be removed immediately, so I made the following comment:

"I agree completely with Short Brigade Harvester Boris: there's no question as to the target of this attack, and as such it clearly violates WP:BLP. I will remove the comment myself if necessary. I also share Boris's concerns that this board has become somewhat of a low-traffic corner of Wikipedia where at least one editor with a disturbing block history and ongoing behaviour issues regularly imposes (or attempts to impose) decisions."

I did not name the editor specifically, and I feel in any case that my concerns about the current state of BLP/N are sincere and well-founded, as evidenced by the behaviour I've observed and by what I view as a strange interpretation of WP:BLP (that potential violations must be reported to and discussed on ANI before removal), but Off2riorob immediately responded, accusing me of attacking him or her out of desire for retribution. Off2riorob placed a civility warning on my talk page. After I responded on the user's talk page, the apparent sockpuppetry and stalking accusations were made. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It was completely clear that it was me he was talking about, if you don't want a civility warning you should not talk about other editors on discussion boards like that, I stand by my comments as correct.This report is also empty of any offense and is basically another attack on me. I would also like to point out that I have not mentioned any sockpuppetry. Off2riorob (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
How do you explain the diffthen? -- Why do you refer to the editor using another name? FormerIP (talk):50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, that is nothing to do with anybody it has somehow got pasted in from an email address I was working with, and relates to this article Nikolay_Sergeyevich_Borisov it has nothing to do with anything related to this. Off2riorob (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. You can see how it might have been misunderstood, though? --FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I only just saw it when you posted the link, I can see the point now, but I assure you it is nothing more than a coincidence. Off2riorob (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What rules are you alleging were violated? -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm having the same problem as well! Sir Floyd (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All this is entirely too weird. How about everybody just drop it? Besides, it's Saturday night and we should be doing something more fun. Which I think I will go and do about right... now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • ?? SBHB, while normally I feel you're on-target about most of what you say, this one's kinda making the little needle on my "????"-O-Meter go to about ....welll, maybe not eleven, but at least six. This looks to me like KCACO feels as though his concerns have been dismissed in the past, so I'd rather not do anything likely to incite the same reaction here. (Besides, it's now Sunday morning, so "fun" comes off the menu, to be replaced by any mild misery of your choice.) Now--to the original issue: KCACO, your interpretation of BLP is definitely closer to the mark; the comment in question, characterizing the climatologists as criminals, should absolutely be removed, unless it's sourced to the gills. O2RRob, you've been here long enough to know that--and ESPECIALLY w.r.t. the recent BLP-related kerfuffle, I'd think it behooves everyone to be extra-, EXTRA-careful with BLP questions. It may not meet the narrow legal definition of "libel" but it's definitely got no place in the article unless it's rigorously sourced--you can't just go around calling ppl "criminals" unless they're currently wearing prison jumpsuits. Finally: I'm withholding judgement on O2RRob's behaviour; however, I will say this much: O2RRob, I've seen several comments at AN/I and AN w.r.t this kind of behavior from you; while you can always dismiss one or two reports as random crankery, once we get to this point it might be time to consider taking some of these criticisms on-board. Just my own opinion, anyhow. GJC 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out to you that the comment was not in the article but was expressed as a comment on the talkpage. My comment regarding the removal of content on the talkpage of the climate change article was in respect to the wider issue at that board and connected boards, it has become almost common practice there for editors to remove other editors posts for one reason or another and one editor has recently been restricted for that, what can I say about the criminal comment, I don't see it as desperately in need of removal and it wasn't removed and as yet it is still there. Actually I had replied about the issue just previously more privately to Boris on his talkpage here , you may want to look at that to get the whole picture. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the comment was on a talk page and was clearly not meant as an accusation of criminal behaviour, but as a general insult. Why exactly would that be so clearly violative of BLP that it needs to be removed? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rrius and Sir Floyd ask what violations were committed. WP:OUTING, for one. Off2riorob addressed me by name, and it wasn't my username. It's difficult for me to accept, given this user's past behaviour, that this was some sort of mistake. Furthermore, the name Off2riorob used was quite similar to the username of SBHB, who just happened to be involved in the same discussion. I've said my last on this particular episode, but it may be useful to keep a closer eye on this user's behaviour. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This report was groundless and so are your claims of outing completely without detail. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Your "for one" appears to have been a misunderstanding, so is there now any rule you feel was broken? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Should anything be done about this post? Debresser (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, he's done a fairly good job of making himself look like a frothing lunatic without any help from us. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC).
I've removed the rant - I can't see how it was helpful on that talk page. Emotions on that article are high enough as it is. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I also though that would be the right thing to do, but wanted an outside editor to assess the situation perhaps more objectively. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could also take a look at the "Prelude" section of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. I had raised concerns about the inclusion of quotations from an Israeli report in a section entitled "Prelude" in the past, in part because I am aware of an ultranationalist revisionist view of the massacre that justifies it as self-defense. This logic is spelled out by a user on the talk page, who insists on this text because "the" Arabs were plotting something and thus the dead were guilty by virtue of their being Arabs. I have argued that cutting out this or that piece of the report and recontextualizing it as a "Prelude" to imply something is inappropriate.
Debresser is one of the users who had insisted on that text in the past. The rant Debresser brought here appears to have been triggered by IP's outrage at mention of Hamas and "kill the Jews" in the Prelude section: Debresser's own preferred text. I still believe the text is inappropriate, and that it serves to muddy the waters of a clear-cut massacre of unarmed Muslims at prayer by artificially introducing anti-Jewish sentiment and anti-Jewish militancy into the narrative. Any takers? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Help building SPI case[edit]

I'm starting to see a rash of recreations that I think are pointing me towards socking by a banned editor (probably MSoldi), but there are some things I can't see that I need to be sure. Could someone tell me

  1. Who created the three previous versions of Tyler Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?
  2. Who created the previous versions of Autumn Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?
  3. Who created the previous versions of Degree Girl: OMG! Jams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

Thanks.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Checking this out. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's a connection between 2 of the 3 articles. Hope that helps. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, once you throw in Autumn Goodbye (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's 3 for 3, tying Msoldi into 2 of them and Luka89 for all 3. Now figuring out exactly what the connection is is the puzzle.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag war by User:History2007[edit]

History2007 (an interesting username) has been repeatedly removing the very long-standing {{long}} tag on Catholic Church. Diffs follow. It is a snake-pit of an article; but removing the incentives to do something about its obvious and agreed problems does not help.

Would somebody have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the tag had been there before and removed by other users. The article has been emotionally charged for months, with Pmanderson as a participant, but I had not been a participant in said disputes before. The placement of the tag by Pmanderson was called a surrogate tag by others in any case. So it does have a long history. No remedy was suggested, except keeping it there, as on talk page. The practice of placing surrogate tags when other disputes run into quicksand must not be encouraged. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • History2007 is about as disinterested as a political protest, as his comments show.
  • But the article has a {{POV}} tag, so what does History2007 suppose this to be a surrogate for? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The assumption that a tag is for some other nefarious purpose than its proper function - especially after repeated assertions (one here) that the {{long}} tag is because the article is very long - is either a manifestation of telepathy, or unwarranted bad manners. Which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have ventured to reverse one more of History2007's edits. He has now removed the infobox, possibly because its description includes the word large. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

SchoolcrafT - please stop this guy[edit]

Resolved: 48 hour block by user:Blueboy96

SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A while ago, Todd Schoolcraft created an article about a scenic route in West Virginia - Mountain Parkway Byway. More recently, a member of the taskgroup for that area User:Bmpowell edited the article for content and I did a copyedit. Ever since then, SchoolcrafT has edit warred over every single edit, and the article has been on full protection twice. He has repeatedly tried to move it to various different names Northern Webster County Mountain Byway and Backway and Northern Webster Co. Mountain Byway and Backway and has been trying to create another copy of the article, that doesn't contain our edits. His first try was The Mountain PArkway, deleted by MuffledThud. His latest is Mountain Parkway (Norther Webster Co.) redirected to Mountain Parkway (Northern Webster Co.), which is currently tagged for speedy as a copy/paste duplicate of an existing article.which Blueboy96 just got, ta.

This is not some mountain man who "don't do this new-fangled interweb wickypeedy thang, boy", this guy has (according to his userpage) a BsC in Information systems. After lengthy attempts to explain, I have concluded that he's not doing this because he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues at play with this editor as well. He uploaded several images to Shooting Range that he claimed he owned, but were obviously screenshots. I spiked them all per F9, but now he claims they aren't. Those by themselves weren't enough to block, but per this discussion, I'm giving him a 48-hour time-out. Blueboy96 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboy. He did the same at Mountain Parkway Byway, uploaded a load of photos which he claimed to have taken...until someone pointed out that he'd need a time machine to have done it. And he uploaded a pile of voice clips which he claimed to have made, then admitted they were someone else's voice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and for some reason, he keeps trying to either archive the entire talk page of the article [32], delete the talkpage, at one point he copypasted the talkpage to his userspace, at one point he insisted that we all use a subpage of the talkpage for discussion of the article (we all said no), he's created the article SchoolcraftT/Mountain Parkway, which he then redirected to a subpage of his userpage, which he then redirected to Mountain Parkway (Northern Webster Co.).

He's a menace. Please do something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Block[edit]

Could someone have a look at this bad block on Domer, he has asked Elonka to provide diffs to show the reason for his probation, I too have asked and also One Night in Hackney has asked. Now he has been blocked for alleged harassment when all he was doing was to ask a reasonable request for clarification per WP:ADMIN. I am unable to follow this thread this evening as I must go to work but some eyes would be appreciated. BigDunc 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears the block came after Domer said he would start an RfC on Elonka, which Domer said he was seeking answers before he took this step as is required. BigDunc 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This seems like another issue that could've been avoided with WP:JDI. People tend to continue answering a stubborn user and then call them disruptive when they continue to respond. This doesn't jive with harassment in my mind. Harassment is when you do your part and stop responding, and the user continues posting to try to get a reaction. That's not what happened here, as far as I can see. Letting Domer have the last word would've quelled this, I think. Equazcion (talk) 20:28, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at his talkpage, you'll see that didn't work -- I stopped responding, but then even after his block was up, he made a beeline to my talkpage to continue the demands, with the support of his ally BigDunc. Anyway, if any other admins care to review the situation though, here are related threads:
In a nutshell: Domer48 was placed on ArbCom Enforcement probation in November 2009, requiring him to adhere to 1RR on all articles in the Troubles topic area. He violated this once in December, and again about a week ago, both of which incidents resulted in a 1-week block. During the most recent one, Domer started wikilawyering up a storm, insisting that the original probation was invalid, and demanding diffs to prove that he was edit-warring. Dozens of diffs have been provided, by multiple admins (see above threads), but no matter what's provided, he keeps saying it's not enough. He has been strongly encouraged to pursue this through a more proper venue, such as filing a thread at WP:AE and requesting that the probation be reviewed, but instead, he's just been camping on my talkpage and repeating over and over that he wants diffs. Considering his long block log already, the latest block seems appropriate to me. I invite other uninvolved admins to review the situation and offer their own opinions. --Elonka 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the posts on your talk page appear to be from BigDunc, not Domer. Regardless, that thread grew largely due to your willingness to participate in it. The user was then blocked for "harassing" you. Once you give an answer you feel is satisfactory and you don't want to be bothered anymore, I think you should stop responding. Users shouldn't be blocked because they were continuing an exchange with a willing participant, IMO. I've seen this kind of situation before and I find it illogical how much it's an accepted consequence of stubborn behavior around here. Equazcion (talk) 20:49, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

One runs out of options quickly when a user will not get the point. A good idea in such a situation can be to draw outside scrutiny to the situation. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Domer48 should be unblocked, as he wasn't vandalizing Elonka's userpage. Having said that, he should discontinue contacting Elonka at her talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Following a request by Domer48 by email I have reviewed the above matter briefly. The emplacement of the probation by Elonka and their subsequent involvement in enforcing it is a matter for dispute resolution and I have no opinion to give. I am, however, concerned that continued efforts by Domer48 to seek an explanation they find satisfactory is construed as "harassment", and the comment that since failing to receive a response they consider valid they were contemplating opening an RfC is a "threat". I am seriously perturbed that actions and comments that define the steps necessary in attempting dispute resolution have been conflated into a blockable offence. Given that Domer48 may have been upset at the probation and the earlier block under its auspices it might be suggested the language used by the editor could be incivil, but this is not the case either. The only action by Domer48 that appears to justify the second block (for 2 weeks) is persistence in returning to the issue and arguing the rationales provided are unsound - but surely that is an aspect of dispute resolution; seeking specific responses where provided answers are considered unsatisfactory? - which is something that has divided opinion in relation to content discussions.
My view is that Domer48's block for "harassment" should be lifted and that they should be permitted to continue editing while they proceed to the next level of dispute resolution (compiling and filing a RfC). Since they are using that process it should be understood that Domer48 has no reason to continue contacting Elonka over this matter, and I would expect Domer48 undertake not to do so. I also think that admins need to recognise that their actions will, from time to time, be strongly disputed and as long as no obvious violation of policy is committed that they need to allow aggrieved parties to exhaust all avenues of DR without resort to sanctions, especially in the first instance but also as a third party. It is part of the remit of sysops involved in enacting probations, restrictions and sanctions - the incidental aptitude for being a lightning rod.
In conclusion I feel this is a bad block, in that it represents actions deemed appropriate per Dispute Resolution as being "harassment" and "threat"s and should be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Upon further review, I note that the current block is not in response to the proposed filing of an RfC. However, my general points relating to terming DR processes (the questioning of rationales and dissatisfaction with the answers previously provided) as harassment stands. I have struck as much of my earlier comment as possible without diminishing the focus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur with LessHeard vanU, though rather than an RfC, a better option (and probably much less disruptive and drama-prone) would be a thread at WP:AE to request for the probation itself to be reviewed. If there's a strong consensus that the probation was inappropriate, then an RfC might be the next step, to question whether the admin acted improperly in implementing it in the first place. But to follow the proper course of WP:DR, AE should be the next step. --Elonka 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
So folks, does this mean D48 is to be unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If Domer48 is willing to give assurances that if unblocked, he will resume constructive article work, and pursue normal methods of dispute resolution such as a thread at WP:AE about his probation, I would have no objection to an unblock. The proper procedure would be for Domer48 to go to WP:AE and request a review of the probation, with the {{Sanction appeal}} template. --Elonka 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me there is consensus to lift the bad block, so are any admins going to do this? As for preconditions there shouldn't be any. BigDunc 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe, the blocking Administrator must do the unblocking. Thus avoid any potential wheel-warring. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That is the recommended procedure, and I am waiting to talk with LessHeard vanU before I lift the block. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ioeth and I have agreed to review the matter tomorrow, in light of some intervening incidents - and D48 has concurred. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


PIPony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Would some administrator take a look at User:PIPony22's contribution history? They seem to have mostly spent their time marking various userpages with sockpuppet templates referring to themselves, but they also just created the inappropriate page Wikipedia:Don't edit with a iPad, which seems to indicate that they aren't here to be constructive. Thanks in advance. Gavia immer (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the edits by this user make any sense to me, and some are outright disruptive. I am indefinitely blocking the user as a disruption-only account until a good explanation for any of this is forthcoming.  Sandstein  22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the three userpages he made (two as U2 and a third as G3; the latter is the userpage of a fallow account from late '06). I'm also nuking the category he made; I think this is XXV or PBML. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
According to e-mail correspondence I am now receiving, this may be a very young person who also has a behavioral disorder. Under these circumstances, I am leaving the block in place per WP:THERAPY, and will try to get this point across to my correspondent.  Sandstein  23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to tool on untrusted host in protected template (Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons)[edit]

{{resolved|Link has been removed. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}} From Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons#New server:

Please revert. This is a rip of Magnus' tool on an untrusted host run by a user blocked from editing on both this wiki and on Commons. multichill (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The original changes were made by MSGJ (talk · contribs) on the request of MisterWiki (