Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76

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

Noticeboard archives



I blocked this editor earlier this evening for a "heinous" personal attack. Thought I should report it here before I turn in. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's actually kind of vague as to whether it's an attack, as it doesn't say "I will" but rather "I would", but it's really the same as what got User:Amorrow banned indef, and I strongly support that, so this can stay, too, IMO. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Death threats posted even in jest are subject to indef block per word of Jimbo.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't want to give the wrong impression. I don't think the block is questionable at all and death threats are a blocking offense. I was just making a small comment. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful for a couple of people to keep an eye on Battle of the Wilderness and its talk page, which this person uses to make, uh, announcements: [1]. (He's also declared war on the article George Washington.) FreplySpang (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not really like these noticedboards because things are so easily taken out of content, but this is a subject that I am familiar with. I do not know the user, but I would like you to reconsider you actions. The Battle of the Wilderness was special, even for the American Civil War. It is notable for the horrible casualties suffered. As a historian, it is easy to get lost in that special and extraordinarily violent and gory little world. It is certainly more real than so-called "reality-based" TV. I encourage you to read this product of that afternoon picnic: William Chester Minor. AWM -- 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have chosen to take the rest of my lecture over to Talk:Battle of the Wilderness. I consider this to be a silly boy/girl misunderstanding thing, but the whole "Dohfast1" account is so light and fluffy as to not merit further consideration. AWM -- 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs) An admitted sock puppet of Amorrow/Andysocky/Fplay/Emact, continuing his harrassment of Ann Heneghan. I have blocked for a month. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

He also used (talk · contribs) for the same purpose. I only banned it for a day (didn't read this page first...) but it can be extended as needed. - Nunh-huh 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
looks like we got another USer: 18:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
And probably (talk · contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
PatentAtty (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Geni: It is conventional to spell that "User", not "USer". But hey! Talk about the pot callnig the kettle blakc (deliberate typo for humour value). Anyway, I am working on a comprehensive "rap sheet" of myself for you all at . Come and get me. Toro, toro! Olé. -- 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

jiang and nlu not capable of being admins[edit]

jiang apparently has been makin biased reverts and edits especially regarding taiwan-china relation issue such as taiwanese independence. he also post images on his talk page provoking racism and hate toward certain ethnic group. Nlu has been blocking and warning users without proofs and didn't follow NPOV The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freestyle.king (talk • contribs) .

Can you give specific examples? Chick Bowen 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Freestyle.king seems to be in a content dispute with jiang and made some personal attacks, for which he was appropriately warned. Nlu then blocked him when he continued to make said attacks, and now he has an issue with being blocked. In my view, just any other troll. NSLE (T+C) at 05:42 UTC (2006-02-20)

in response to chick bowen, check out jiang's "talk page" and tell me if it is racist or not??? and in response to NLSE, don't make comment if you don't understand the situation here. i didn't even sign on that day when Nlu blocked me so therefore i didn't edit nothin. you kno what i mean???--Freestyle.king 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He's continued. I'm going to block again. --Nlu (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Supported. NSLE (T+C) at 06:41 UTC (2006-02-20) 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To explain the situation further -- in addition to the content dispute over such articles as Taiwanese American, Freestyle.king had a major problem with images of a man that Jiang has on his user page and his user talk page, as the man wears a sign that heavily attacks the Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian (whom Freestyle.king apparently supports). Jiang explained to him that he did not agree with the man's message. Freestyle.king was not satisfied and launched personal attacks. (Incidentally, I do not agree with the removal of an anti-Jiang image that he placed on his user talk page by another admin, but I understand the reasoning.) Freestyle.king was clearly not willing to listen to reason and continued personal attacks, and that's why I blocked him. It's a shame, as he appeared capable of productive edits, but with all the personal attacks blocking is needed, I think. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC) what kind of personal attackz did i make?? can you give specific examplez?? the only personal attack i made is on my own talk page which NPOV doesnt apply. plus the image contains the content taiwanese=shame which is totally unacceptable on a public talk page no matter what the rule is, it is an anti-taiwanese message--Freestyle.king 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll let your contribution summary speak for itself. Others can make that judgment. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Improper Admin Behavior by User:Arminius[edit]

Greetings fellow WikiPedians,

In an effort to help improve WikiPedia I'd like make an informal complaint regarding admin Arminius and the following events.
According to a message posted by admin Arminius entitled "UGH" (04:39, 21 February 2006) (diff)
on admin User:InShaneee's talk page in response to two posts I made questioning about sockpuppetry
and User:InShaneee's warnings under the heading Flemming Rose 04:32, 21 February 2006 of User:'s talk page,
User:Arminius was editing as User: when he made the following edits:

with the first edits being posts attempting to add unsourced info to Flemming Rose's page stating that "He is Jewish." or nameless sources claim "He is Jewish" and the last two being personal attacks.

In such a case as this what recourse might someone like myself have?

Thank you,

Scott Stevenson Netscott 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (talk)

I'll block the IP address but I cannot see why you automatically think they are the same person? Anyways, Ip address is blocked for 3RR and uncivility. Sasquatch t|c 08:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Sasquatch but the block's already in place... I'm sure it would be simple enough to correlate Arminius' login IP address with but if you follow what I've posted., it's already clear. Netscott 08:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if he unblocks then he shall be in deep trouble for block warring and unblocking himself when the IP clearly violated policy. Admins should not unblock themselves period. Sasquatch t|c 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry? Are you saying that the IP was unblocked by Arminius? Netscott 08:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Look here and you will find it has once. But we'll say. I've clearly stated that no one is to unblock in caps. If anyone does, report it on ANI again. Sasquatch t|c 08:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BUSTED! You just MADE MY DAY!!! Thank you again Sasquatch! Netscott 08:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't jump to conclusions here. Again, InShaneee and I have both stated that we're not sure that they are the same person. Do not make assumptions as assumptions are dangerous. Sasquatch t|c 09:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand the hesitation of fellow admins ... but Arminius' unblocking of IP counter to InShaneee's block is all the proof I need. Cheers again! Netscott 09:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think perhaps at this juncture it would be good to give Netscott (and myself) some time to calm down as it is obvious from above that passions are quite inflamed. I also think this would be appropriate to add in order to give his version some balance[2]. Otherwise I would be happy to have some sort of dialogue at a later date but do not have time now for anything extensive at the moment. Thanks Arm 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree, I'm calm and have been throughout. Not quite sure how to 'escalate' this complaint of improper admin behavior vis-a-vis the utilization by Arminius of the IP for personal attacks (and improper highly POV and unsourced edits) as well as Arminius' improper unblocking of said IP address but perhaps I need to move this over to the RfA section. Netscott 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Eat At Joes[edit]

User:Eat At Joes is the latest in a VERY long line of sockpuppets originated by Alex "DickWitham" Cain (see [3] for details). He is once again removing sockpuppet tags from his previous accounts' user pages, and vandalizing talk pages to remove comments left by other users. - Chadbryant 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • sigh* I DO so wish Mr. Bryant would stop engaging in such immature and childish behavior. I would ask that you see his contribution page for his recent antics; there is also an entry on him above this one, listed in the index of this page. I would also like to note that using someone's name on here (of which he has no basis, btw) is a violation of Wikipeida policy that Mr. Bryant continues to violate. He is doing exactly what he accuses me of, readding personal insults like "obese" and "a sicko" in describing other users after I have removed those comments. This is stupid; please ignore the idiot behind the curtain and move on with more important business, thank you. --Eat At Joes 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You have acknowledged both your real name and your use of dozens of sockpuppets ([4]). Those in the know are not fooled. - Chadbryant 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No one has acknowledged anything. "Those in the know" refers only to yourself, <removed personal attack - User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)>. --Eat At Joes 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This user is now attempting to start an edit war on Patricia Ann Priest, where he is using both this account and an "anonymous" account from a public terminal administered by Georgia College & State University to perform style-violating reverts (the correct "1960s" to "1960's"). He has been asked to consult WP:MOSDATE, yet refuses to acknowledge it or cease this behaviour. - Chadbryant 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please leave your paranoia and persecution complex at the door, thanks. No one is "attempting to start an edit war" with you. I merely pointed out your hypocricy in noting how the correct version was due to the article the entry pointed to while the changes pointed to the same article. As for where the edits originate, that is none of yours or anyone else's concern. Regarding the matter of acknowledging or consulting, I have comments at the top of my talk page which state that comments from you will either be deleted or reverted. Perhaps you should read a bit yourself before making snap decisions. You are hearby asked to cease and decist posting/trolling my talk page, and bothering me with this worthless, pointless, idiotic bullcrap.--Eat At Joes 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You have been asked to consult WP:MOSDATE. Please read it before you edit Patricia Ann Priest again. - Chadbryant 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
And you have been told my reasons for doing what I did above. You have also been told that you will not be allowed to post anything to my talk page. I did not make this decision lightly -- I took into account your extensive past and current behavior, as well as your behavior from Usenet, and realized that I did not want a person such as yourself leaving remarks on my talk page, be they whatever. You have been asked to stop leaving comments to me. Please do so before you edit again. --Eat At Joes 02:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully my compromise will leave everyone feeling decent enough to move on. C'mon fellas, moving forward, let's play nice. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Briefs vandal[edit]

Jefferylebowski_in_briefs (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Dude_in_Briefs (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
The_Briefs_Dude (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Briefs_Dude (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Check their contributions. This is a new vandal to watch out for! If WP:CVU are reading this, it's important! --Sunfazer (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Chad Michael Murray[edit]

Vandal placed a phone number on the page. No idea if it's really the guy's phone number. I've reverted the revision. I know that admins can delete specific edits from the history. Whether the number is his or not, IMHO it should not be left visible. However, being a reletively new admin, I have no idea how to go about removing specific edits from a page's history. Could someone with the time please take care of this? - TexasAndroid 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The personal info is gone. You can remove specific edits by deleting the page, then at Special:Undelete, checking the boxes only for the revisions you want to restore. (Notes: I accidentally had to do this twice, the first time I restored some older copyvio revisions by mistake. Check for older deleted revisions before you delete!) --bainer (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I resored another 89 revisions that were not related to the incident. Now the only deleted version is the one that contained the offending digits. – ClockworkSoul 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for block[edit] (talk · contribs · block log) is significantly trolling. Interestingly, his first edit was on User talk:, saying "i didnt vandalise". User (talk · contribs · block log) is a known vandal.

Also interestingly, the second I post on his talk page, I get vandalised by (talk · contribs · block log), who is also a known vandal.

Could someone block him/them please?!

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Martyman! The Minister of War (Peace) 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Shane bellinger[edit]

User:Shane bellinger seems to have uploaded a series of images that aren't used in any articles, but are hotlinked from his website. Looking at his contributions shows at least a dozen or so like this. Most have questionable copyright status and a couple are already up for deletion, but I feel like this could be much better served by having an admin just knock off the lot and give him a stiff warning. WP:NOT a free webhost and this is a pretty blatant violation of that. Night Gyr 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his userpage and website, I'd guess he's not very old, and his intentions are good. I'll make some suggestions when I've woken up a bit more. --ajn (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted half a dozen of what looked to be his own drawings, and left what I hope will be interpreted as a friendly message on his talk page. There are a bunch of other images which are things like wavy flags and rainbow <hr/> subsitutes, and those are all flagged as having dubious copyright and will no doubt be deleted eventually. --ajn (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Janizary vote recruitment from userbox template[edit]

Janizary (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) recently embarked on a vote-stacking campaign to astro-turf the DRV on Template:User fsm, which was speedily deleted as per Jimbo's statement against belief-oriented userboxes. Janizary used the "What links here" functionality from the fsm template to send our vote-stacking messages to the talk pages of people who still had the fsm userbox template transcluded. The use of the What links here functionality was one of the reasons proposed as to why template userboxes should be done away with. That one of the pro-userbox people is offering up such irrefutable evidence that What links here functionality can be and is abused is ironic in the extreme. The exact beginning text of the recruitment message was, "I'm calling out a posse." Clearly this is a plain attempt at disruption. Some sort of disciplinary action is necessary. Note that this campaign has already produced a clear majority of "Undelete" votes in the DRV process, yet I believe the end result should remain "Keep deleted", because we should not allow process to be disrupted in this kind of manor, and if we do allow the template to be kept it will just be used in future attempts at vote-stacking. Here is a full list of diffs of the campaign effort from Janizary: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

The full text of the vote-stacking message was:

I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm. Janizary **date/time**

Cyde Weys 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I agree that it's tacky, but it happens a lot, and I don't think there's anything more to be done about it than scolding the user. I recently caught a user who is normally believed to be a "generally good user" doing the same thing in regards to an rfc. The user responded with "well, since I only contacted people who were involved with the disagreement it's different than vote stacking." Or words to that effect. While this is something of a social more here, it is only sporadically discouraged, and then only when somebody wants to prove that they are in the right because the other person couldn't possibly be (or why would they need to stack votes, right?). My 2c. ... aa:talk 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing to be done but scold the user? This is the most damaging and disruptive thing to Wikipedia that I can possibly think of. Wikipedia is not a bunch of factions who identify themselves by userboxes and recruit each other in the dozens to astroturf any sort of decision they disagree with. In that way lies absolute madness. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, you really need to slow your roll. I mean, Christ boy, the functionality of these user categories and userboxes can be done by other means, just by linking to an article you make yourself available on a list, which, if grepped through, can be used to collect all the users who are interested in the subject. Removing the boxes won't remove your paranoid fear of people rounding up people to modify articles, the userboxes and categories do make it much easier and entirely more pleasent for everyone involved. What I did was a specific targetted collecting of the people who were directly effected by this unjustified speedy delete of a userbox. Only the people who used it were informed of the attempt to undelete the template, since they were never given a chance to defend it, as they should have been. Janizary 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The key difference, Janizary, is that merely knowing someone is interested in an article doesn't allow you to try to POV push - because if there's a POV to push on that article, there's almost certainly an opposing one of some sort... and some of those watching the article are going to be of an opinion disagreeing with you. This does not apply to these userboxes that expressly take a stance. Michael Ralston 06:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Can someone put a stop to this guy? All of his edits are vandalism, and given his impersonation of me on User_talk:TruthCrusader, I'm starting to suspect that it's his sock instead of one being run by the infamous "DickWitham" troll. - Chadbryant 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

{{indefblockeduser}}. No evidence he was doing anything positive at all in the month he's been here. Essjay TalkContact 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Already returned as User:StephenSignorelli - can I request that someone look into what IP's this guy is coming from? $10 US says it's somewhere near the Czech Republic, which pretty much narrows it down as to who is behind it. - Chadbryant 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. Essjay TalkContact 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
And his latest work is as User:PyterTaravitch. - Chadbryant 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Curps nailed 'em. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That he did - as well as another sock, User:Lord Of Darkness. Clearly the work of one particular individual who is *not* the infamous "DickWitham" troll. - Chadbryant 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased Mediator[edit]

There is a mediation on the page Neoconservatism. On Talk:Neoconservatism, the mediator just posted this:

  • I'm well aware of your constant use of this resource to push your far left anti conservative don't challenge me.--MONGO 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully request an unbiased mediator.--Cberlet 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You will need to ask this from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks.--Cberlet 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
MONGO is neither a mediator, nor assigned to the case as a deputy mediator. He should not be representing himself as the mediator assigned to the case; as of this moment, no mediator has been assigned to that case because it was just accepted yesterday.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay TalkContact 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to have done so. In the talk page from which Cberlet quoted, MONGO said, "I am also not here to mediate."[39] Chick Bowen 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm just making it clear that he is not a mediator; I didn't intend my note to imply that he had or had not represented himself as one, and I apologize if it appeared to do so. Essjay TalkContact 04:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You didn't, I was also just clarifying. Chick Bowen 04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I never did say I was a mediator. I have no interest in being a mediator. Show me where i stated I was a mediator...I simply contested that CBerlet wanted to use references from biased sources such as "" and that he appears to be stating that he wants to argue with talk page edits such as this--MONGO 04:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, I didn't mean to imply that you had said that you were, I just wanted to clarify that you aren't, given that at least one participant thought you were. Essjay TalkContact 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
My comment was to all concerned, not explicitly you. CBerlet made an erroneous assumption, but I assume good faith that he did so innocently.--MONGO 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents[edit]

After going through Cfd and reaching, what I thought, anyway, was "no consensus," the category was speedied by User:MarkSweep. The reason given for the speedy was WP:SNOW, which isn't even a Wikipedia policy, much less a speedy criterion, and it certainly isn't a reason to delete a category that has reached no consensus in Cfd. Maybe I'm simply missing something, and I do not want to rush to judgment. Can someone explain what happened here? - Jersyko·talk 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedaic category, very obviously since it is overly-specific and would have only one member, and is an attack to boot. Thus the deletion makes sense, although I would've cited WP:IAR if I were him—the guideline that says if something is obvious, you don't have to slavishly adhere to process. But if you want to have the decision reviewed, the place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If it goes to deletion review, here's what I'll say: the debate appears to have been improperly closed. The Keep arguments were not well-reasoned, and seem to in many cases be from meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets. The closing admin should have used discretion on these matters, and while it's understandable that he didn't, the consensus was clearly the one implemented by User:MarkSweep. -- SCZenz 04:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
But the category went through Cfd with no consensus with several keep votes by regular users (User:Adrian and myslef spring to mind just off the cuff . . .). Actually, it had two members: Whittington AND Alexander Hamilton, which is EXACTLY why I think the category is useful!! Nevermind, I suppose this isn't really worth the fuss. I agree that perhaps a delete consensus was appropriate, even if no sock/meatpuppets were involved. - Jersyko·talk 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just BJAODN it and go to bed? I admit getting a laugh out of it, but it's really not a serious category, nor is it likely to be useful. (Neat trivia, and perhaps something to be mentioned in the appropriate biographical articles—but not worthy of a category.) And I'll speedy myself any creation of or variation on Category:Standing Vice Presidents who have shot people or Category:Firearms used by standing Vice Presidents to shoot people. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I also voted for it, quite seriously. This is not the worst outcome; at least this way we are not stuck with that awful wording. I am concerned, however, that MarkSweep (who clearly has strong feelings on the subject) should have used his admin powers to settle what was in effect a content dispute. I recall him as a fairly good editor of articles; perhaps he should go back to that for a while. Septentrionalis 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The CfD was obviously closed incorrectly (I counted 70% support for deletion from registered users who had made at least 10 edits prior to voting). Instead of going through DRV with a predictable outcome and another CfD, etc., I decided to put it out of its misery quickly. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
And he deleted it again; whatever happened to the principle "if it really needs to be done, someone else will do it"? Septentrionalis 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Mark, if there was no consensus to delete, why did you take it upon yourself to speedy it? ... aa:talk 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Because there was a clear consensus to delete. Even you yourself said that you don't like this category. It's a classic case of WP:SNOW. It doesn't even have to go through DRV. The outcome is predicatble: either it will be deleted by DRV; or it will be relisted, and there is a very good chance (>70%) that a second CfD will yield an outcome with >66% favoring deletion. And that's saying nothing about the inherent merits of this category, of which there are none. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Er.. I'm sorry? Where was the harm in the category existing for the duration of the DRV debate? Why not allow the (obviously more cool-headed) people who monitor that handle it? You don't get to decide issues before the community. You are not Jimbo Wales. You are not more important then me, Xoloz or any other editor here.
I think you're in desperate need of a wiki-break before you drive off anymore editors with your unilateral actions lately. —Locke Coletc 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The DRV debate was unnecessary to begin with, per WP:SNOW. Just acknowledge, per discussion above, that the closing was done in error, and move on. The presence of the category is harmful because it will convey the idea that this and similar categories are welcome on Wikipedia. The community already had decided that this category should go. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. Stop citing WP:SNOW, it is neither policy nor guideline. It is an essay, and not one endorsed by the community at large. And if you want to bring up meaningless essays, go read WP:PI before you drive off any more editors over your unilaterism. —Locke Coletc 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, there was more than sufficient consensus for deletion. Enough so that the outcome of DRV and any future CfD would have been predictable. There is no need to go through all these steps. I had indeed considered bringing this to DRV myself, but it occurred to me that the net result would have been the same. WP:SNOW is a convenient way to refer you to a more detailed explanation of what I've just said. Second, if Xoloz (talk · contribs) thinks he needs a break, that's entirely up to him. The fact that he has continued to edit after blanking his talk page suggests that he has more to say. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's predictable, then you should have allowed the process to complete rather than simply assuming for the rest of us how it would have turned out. It is not your place to decide things for the community. And my reference to WP:SNOW before was the fact that you're citing it like it's some kind of policy in your administrative actions; it is not an excuse to ignore process. The community did not spend time voting on policies and discussing guidelines to have you come along and decide you have a better way. Use your sysop bit with care. —Locke Coletc 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The community has already decided. Have you read the CfD discussion? It's really quite simple; ask yourself 3 questions: What is the community consensus? What is good for Wikipedia? What is the common sense thing to do? In this case, it's the same answer to all 3 questions: delete the category and move on. In such a situation, let's not waste everyone's time. Every subsequent debate will see fewer participants and it will be corrspondingly harder to gauge consensus. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of taking it upon one's self. There are some core policies that cannot be voted away, however many people stack up and scream "CONSENSUS!" We cannot vote away our neutral point-of-view, we cannot vote away our anti-copyvio policy, and we cannot vote away our status as an encyclopaedia. Now, I'm not saying that this is what actually occurred here, but — in theory, in theory! — if "consensus" is that we no longer need to pay attention to what is and is not encyclopaedic, then admins have a responsibility to ignore that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If the category survives deletion, how many articles would it hold? Any less than say 6, at mimimum, is a waste and speaks for itself that the category creation isn't warranted. Are there six (to use my own example) such article candidates ready for inclusion? If so, does anyone care actually care and want these articles categorised in this way? Will this lead on to further bizarreness, such as Category:People who've never watched Sesame Street. Ignore obvious trolls. Voting and unvoting about obvious trash contributions isn't helping to progress anyone's encyclopedia. -- Longhair 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


This was recreated, so I have taken it to deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:People_shot_by_standing_Vice_Presidents. I am sorely tempted to just delete it as blatantly non-encyclopedaic for the reasons I gave above, but wheel warring is a Bad Thing. -- SCZenz 06:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep appears to have deleted it again; I noticed just as I was about to delete it and close the DRV debate. It should have been deleted in the first place; there was an obvious consensus to do so. TexasAndroid made a newbie mistake; we've all made those and I think no less of him for it. There's no need to run through a process twice to get the same result. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The category has now been deleted after closure of the deletion review. That's fine, that's how things are supposed to work: people disagreed with the closing admin's judgment at the CfD, it was submitted for review, and the closure was overturned. The only problem was MarkSweep's gratuitious and pointless speedying of the category (and then his wheel-warring to keep it deleted), which very predictably antagonized several users while accomplishing absolutely nothing. Process is not all-important, but egregiously trampling on process in order to accomplish nothing at all is quite simply bad for Wikipedia. I hope that we have not lost Xoloz, a very good editor, because of MarkSweep's poor judgment. Babajobu 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
My speedying this category was intended precisely to avoid a gratuituous and pointless DRV debate. Xoloz seems to have made a tactical retreat, if you check his contributions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The DRV debate was actually pretty painless, as DRVs generally are. People debate, and then we get an answer. The only pain was caused by the speedy deletion and the subsequent wheel warring, which pissed people off. Babajobu 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, another conflict of this nature? Seems we need to start getting a consensus on the consensus. But then we'd also need a consensus on that consensus. Where will it end? --Shadow Puppet 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't need consensus that there is a consensus. In fact, the admin closed it as "no consensus", and then it was speedied by another admin; then undeleted by another admin who thought we might as well just let the deletion review take it's course; then immediately deleted again by the same admin who had originally speedied it. Accept for the wheel warring, the poorly closed AfD, the pre-empted deletion review, and the users who left the project because of all this, I'd say we admins really handled the whole thing quite wisely and effectively! a A cookie for us! Babajobu 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Guys guys guys, please. I'm just trying to help, I'm not condemning anyone to the scaffold or anything. If my comment is unhelpful or misled in some way, just say so and move on. Please don't be so defensive and don't smack me if you can avoid it. Also: I'm hoping the heavy sarcasm was obvious in that "consensus" statement I made. --Shadow Puppet 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like there was consensus to delete and the common sense approach was to delete it. Let's not waste more time arguing about process. Johntex\talk 15:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it looks plain to me too. Just wondering why someone thought otherwise. But I'll shut up. --Shadow Puppet 15:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It was only plain to delete when you went through the Keep votes and tossed out 40% of them as invalid votes. I did not do this. This is the "Newbie mistake" that Mackensen mentions above. I should have vetted the votes. Without invalidating some of the Keep votes, the tally was 45 to 25 or so, short of the 2-1 ratio generally used as the threshhold on CFD. - TexasAndroid 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
TexanAndroid, your mistake was understandable, and could easily and painlessly rectified by deletion review, which comes in handly in precisely those sorts of situations. This mess was not of your making. Had MarkSweep not wheel warred over the deletion, and instead just allowed the deletion review to take its normal course, this thread would not exist, Xoloz would still be at the project, et cetera. Babajobu 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In other words, we're to be angry at MarkSweep for doing the right thing which was upheld scant hours later. The right response here, I would think, would be to commend MarkSweep for recognizing that the closing admin had made a mistake. We don't need to deletion review for obvious-and-quickly-rectified mistakes. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Being angry won't accomplish anything, but I'm not interested in "commending" someone for wheelwarring over something trivial that would have resolved itself the next day, anyway. Especially as numerous other experienced editors had asked him to please just let the deletion review take its normal course. Would have accomplished the same thing, would have pissed fewer people off, and wouldn't have required wheel warring. Sounds like that would have been the way to go, commendations aside. Babajobu 18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
One other thing, TA ... *fD are not "votes", and the tally is only as relevant as you want it to be. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I entirely agree with that Fuddle...of course fDs are not votes, but Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators still says that our duty is to determine consensus at AfD, rather than to simply review the discussion and determine the correct outcome. So if, say, 70% of good-faith, reasoned recommendations from experienced editors suggest that an article be kept, and the closing admin decides, "to hell with them, I know better than all keep voters, and I'm closing it as a delete", then the closing admin should be prepared to have their little heinie pwned at deletion review for not correctly discharging their responsibility (provided, of course, that they don't just choose to wheel war over the deletion rather than waiting for the outcome of review). A well-vetted tally is a good barometer of consensus, and the closing admin shouldn't disregard it. Babajobu 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've never yet had a close overturned on me, and I don't count votes, on principle. We have to weigh "votes" based on the validity of their arguments (one "keep because of x, y, z" is worth innumerable "nn d"s). I basically read the discussion, and if it looks like a delete, it's delete, if it looks like a keep, it's keep, and if I'm not sure, it's no consensus. I recently closed a discussion where a terrible article about a school was nominated because "it's terrible and unverifiable", and got a buncha people saying delete because "needs cleanup, unverifiable". Someone came along and cleaned it up and verified it ... but delete votes, if one happens to swing that way, still overwhelmingly outnumbered the keeps (nobody commented after the cleanup was done). How do you think I closed? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, well if someone has done a significant clean-up or provided citations for previously unverified info, then consensus that was forming around an older version is no longer as relevant as newer comments. The guidelines for administrators actually say this explicitly. And I do weigh the strength of arguments when a vote is on the border between a no consensus and a keep or delete closure. But when a clear consensus has formed around the present version of an article, and when consensus is not trumped by an issue such as copyvio, then I don't think it's our place to decide consensus is wrong. No one has entrusted us with that authority; no one has stated that they think our judgment is good enough to outweigh the judgment of a large majority of established users. In our role as closers of AfDs, the community has said we're capable of performing the fairly menial administrative function of determining whether consensus exists; they've not expressed any special faith in our judgment as to whether articles should be kept or deleted. That's my understanding, anyway. Babajobu 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "our judgement as to whether articles should be kept or deleted". The whole point of AfD is that, sometimes, the judgement of a single admin is not enough (that's why we're not speedying everything in sight, and the userbox brigade can shut up at this point ... yes, I see those smirks). My point isn't that it's up to an admin to decide, on the article's merits, whether to keep or delete ... it's that AfD is not a vote. It's perfectly appropriate to ignore a bunch of incredibly stupid reasons to delete an article and go with one or two good reasons to keep (and vice versa). One of the things admins do is weigh arguments. We're not returning officers, we don't just do a head-count and say, no, that's 65%, we must keep, oooh, 67%, that's a deleter. If we can't be trusted to read an AfD and make the right decision based on the discussion (not the tally) then we shouldn't be closing them. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, I of course agree with you that AfD is not a vote. That's why the name was changed from VfD to AfD. But the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators still state that the criterion for closure is whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved. It doesn't say that the closing admin should act as a judge, and weigh the merits of the two sides to determine who has the stronger argument. In practice, we all do weigh the merits of the arguments and disregard the sillier ones, especially in cases in which we think existence of consensus is borderline. But ultimately, according to the guidelines we have been given, and presuming we think those guidelines should be taken seriously, we're still just functionaries determining consensus. We're not judges. Or, at least, we're more the former than the latter. Or, perhaps, the style of different closing admins varies depending on whether they consider themselves more the former or the latter. But I agree with you that simple vote counting only in order to determine whether the vote hits a particular sacred percentage is a very poor way to close. Babajobu 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shadow Puppet - just to clarify, I was not making my comment to you specifically. I was just making a general comment in favor of the deletion and a desire to move on as quickly as possible. Johntex\talk 15:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Awsome. If everyone gets so upset over my teeny input, I guess, Newby or not, my words do have some power (NOTE: sarcasm). --Shadow Puppet 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


This user has been removing evidence and reformatting this page ridiculously for the past 2 hours. Example here:[40] where I did not remove content, but fixed format and linked to specific sections. Example here:[41] of evidence removal. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Happyjoe pschemp | talk 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Essjay for fixing this. All taken care of...go back to your naps. pschemp | talk 06:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images with bogus copyright attributions, even after multiple warnings, to a variety of articles. I've blocked him for 1 week pursuant to WP:COPY#If you find a copyright infringement. I recommend that his edits be monitored when he returns - if he continues the way he has done, I see no alternative to a permament block. -- ChrisO 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review God of War block[edit]

I've blocked God_of_War (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely for trolling. This is intended to be a temporary block, with the exact duration to be determined here. Related accusations of trolling have been made elsewhere. God of War has now announced that he will not be bound by the outcome of an MfD.[42] That makes it rather obvious that he's not acting in good faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see him as trolling. I see him as trying to express his view, and thinking that he has the right to have this material on his main userpage instead of a subpage, even if the subpage is deleted. I'm not convinced a block is warranted. -- SCZenz 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the block, God of War spends too much time in namespaces not directly related to the encyclopedia, but has some good contributions as well. Recommend unblocking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose we unblock him, but make it clear that if this material is deleted it will not be acceptable to move a long non-Wikipedia-related essay to his main user page either. -- SCZenz 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
God of War has promised to follow the MFD result. I have therefore lifted the block now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It might also be good if you let someone else block any further "freedom fighters" as you're perceived as being "the enemy". Best not to add fuel to the fire, and there are plenty of admins around. - brenneman{T}{L} 14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that comments like that serve to expand that perception, Aaron. We have no freedom fighters on Wikipedia, and no opressors either—people who see themselves as fighting a war simply aren't going to achieve their aims. I think the most productive thing that users who see MarkSweep as "the enemy" can do is, well, stop seeing him that way. MarkSweep saw what he thought was trolling, responded, asked for administrative consensus, and accepted a reversal when the consensus didn't agree with him—exactly what any admin should do. -- SCZenz 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There may not be any 'freedom fighters', but I apparantly am seen as a crusher of dissent who must be opposed ([43]). I hadn't realized I held so much power, and me not even an admin. :-) -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Nlu[edit]

Nlu's talkpage is taking a heavy amount of vandalism using the summary (-------- >Nlu is a FAGGOT and so is Nescio – They are butt buddies< --------). The vandal is using open proxies to edit. I strongly encourage any admin who sees vandalism with that summary to block the offender as a proxy and list the IP here; I will go through and scan each of them to be sure and then tag them accordingly. Alternatively, block for 24 hours and list the proxy here, and I will scan and reblock. Essjay TalkContact 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Similar activity at Faggot. Essjay TalkContact 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, same group. They've apparently moved there since Faggot was sprotected. is an open proxy on port 80. Essjay TalkContact 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Returning vandal at Craigpod[edit]

Nonsense article created by Gumbatron (talk · contribs), speedy notice removed several times by (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), all from a shared network often used for vandalism. More than enough warning given. Gazpacho 10:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Both IPs are registered to Research Machines PLC, a company that provides internet services and software for schools in the UK. Most likely more school vandals. Essjay TalkContact 10:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Those school vandals were also vandalizing random articles and should have been blocked temporarily. Any articles they vandalized need to be cleaned up. Gazpacho 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Non stop vandalism of random pages, inserting little phrases, etc. The IP's talk page is a sea of red "This is your last warning" signs - someone want to follow through on those numerous threats ;) The IP's contribution page Smitz 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's bound to be a shared IP address. Secretlondon 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Your definately correct, I forgot to mention that it's a school in warwickshire, UK. Would it be so wrong to block the entire IP block, but allow logged in users to edit, forcing any real editors from that IP block to register an account? Smitz 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPA in substantial use[edit]

Please review this series of diffs Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Restored comments dubiously deleted per RPA and warned the user about it. android79 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks#Suggested name change. The "R" in RPA is so often misapplied that I feel it ought to be changed to "Refactor". android79 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Copyvio Image[edit]

Hello, Image:Harrywhittington shot.jpg has been uploaded to illustrate the Harry Whittington and Dick Cheney hunting incident articles. The photo is from an online newspaper and the photo is copyrighted by Reuters. Is use of this picture permitted on these two articles? Johntex\talk 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. You should remove them from the articles and follow the instructions here to list the images for deletion. --Aaron 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone already removed them from those two articles and tagged it with {{no license}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have previously removed the picture from the articles, but the uploader put it back. I have completed the tagging process as instructed by Aasron. Thanks to you both. Johntex\talk 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Now, it looks like it was speedy deleted for being a blatant copyvio. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
General rule of thumb: if an image is from a news agency, and the article is tagged as a current event, the image is a copyvio: we're competing directly with the agency as a news source, so the image cannot qualify for fair use. --Carnildo 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Banned User Anotherblogger (talk · contribs) using sockpuppet ScottMiller (talk · contribs)[edit]

He's continuing his link spam of There's a checkuser on him here: [44] which is pretty indicative that we have sockpuppetry, aside from the fact that he's continuing the activities of Anotherblogger. Fieari 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) spam campaign[edit]

Buriednews (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Merrysoul (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) have been running a short-lived spam campaign to link to "", some sort of Drudge Report lookalike. I've blocked both indefinitely, but the block on Buriednews did not affect Merrysoul, AFAICT, so be aware that this spammer may be running other usernames. android79 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It's too bad there isn't a way to block links to certain domains, sort of a wiki-wide blacklist... that would be a great way to discourage truly disruptive linkspammers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought there was a spam blacklist...? I don't know the details, though, and I may be totally wrong. In other words, this comment is useless. :-) android79 01:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There is a spam blacklist on Meta, that applies to all the wikimedia projects: m:Spam blacklist Mairi 01:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • but be careful with adding sites to that; if urls already in articles are added to the blacklist, further edits to the article will be rejected. dab () 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user bsuinfosys[edit]

I have blocked Bsuinfosys (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for persistent whitewashing of Breyer State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), removing everything which alludes to its unaccredited status and questionable past. Previous block was 24h, on return he came straight back and did the same thing again, so this time it's indefinite. Feel free to reduce if you think that's over harsh, but the fact that the username includes BSU and there are no edits whatsoever to any other article does rather indicate that this is somebody associated with BSU. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a serial issue. Looking at his edits, he's gone for a while, then comes back to the same article, and just that article. I'd say give him a long span; perhaps he'll lose interest. (BTW, I'm not an admin, so I hope I'm not out of line). --Shadow Puppet 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestions are welcome from anyone, admins or not. :-) android79 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Naked Short Selling/User:Tommytoyz[edit]

The Naked Short Selling page has been a source of repeated troubles in recent weeks -- edit wars that have included vandalism requiring freezing of the page, personal attacks, and a POV fork resolved by deletion of the duplicative page. Much of this was the work of User:Tommytoyz, who continues to engage in disruptive edits and confrontational tactics aimed at intimidating other editors and skewing the POV of the page. Attempt to resolve by third party intervention unsuccessful. Today, after being warned by two other editors concerning his personal attacks, excessive reverts, and edits bordering on vandalism, he resumed his disruptive reverts as if nothing had happened. Please block this user. --Tomstoner 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and posting of personal data by User:[edit]

See edits at All your base are belong to us. --Captaindan 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fort Drum proxy blocked indefinitely[edit]

I have blocked = (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely as an open proxy. The IP was previously blocked for 24 hours by Markalexander100 for linkspamming, and has no legitimate contribs. This address belongs to U.S. Army MEDDAC, Fort Drum, New York, [45] and appears to be a misconfigured dedicated web proxy. I have personally verified that the proxy is indeed open to the public and can be used to access Wikipedia. (Yes, this means I just portscanned a U.S. Army computer. I'm feeling a bit nervous now.) I have not yet notified the administration for the site. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You portscanned a U.S. Army computer? Uh-oh, you'd better watch out before... Ilmari Karonen (talk) Woops, too late. --Deathphoenix 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have now sent an e-mail notice to the webmaster of and requested that it be forwarded to the person or department responsible for the proxy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wyss' repeated deletions of other User comments on Talk: Adolf Hitler[edit]

As of this moment, Wyss has deleted my comments three times on Talk:Adolf Hitler and has also deleted the comments of another user, User:CPMcE. The first time round she claimed it was a server error, but after that she began to deliberately remove my comments blanking them out with personal attack removed. This is NOT the first time Wyss has unilaterally removed comments from Talk pages, specifically mine. I will find those links later. For now I think Wyss should be blocked or at least prevented from making further deletions on Talk pages.

Here are the edits in question:

  1. 1st deletion of my comments
  2. 1st deletion of User:CPMcE's comments
  3. Wyss' excuse: Note, there were server problems and some comments got deleted accidently. Wyss 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. 2nd deletion of my comments after her excuse.
  5. 3rd deletion of my comments

-- Simonides 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think someone can likely correlate the server problems with the times of those diffs. I was pressing save, getting an error message, backing up the browser to return to the edit window, pressing save again, sometimes twice, and this happened maybe three times. I had no idea comments were being deleted. IMHO user:Simonides is attempting to use this as leverage in a little spat we're having about the intro to Adolf Hitler. I'll be away from the article for at least half a day now anyway but if someone wants to help either there or on my talk page... please!!! :) Wyss 03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As with all of Wyss' arguments (evident on the Talk page in question) this is highly disingenuous. Every editor gets an 'Edit Conflict' message when one message is about to be saved over another, particularly if server errors occur between edits - both I and User:CPMcE were editing at the same time and neither of us 'accidentally' deleted others' messages. It is clear that Wyss is using the occasional server glitches to her advantage and will not tolerate any claims of error and wrongdoing (as demonstrated by the above links and her Talk page). -- Simonides 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the edit conflict message, it was the multilingual server problem message, white background, green letters. It got so bad I stopped editing for around ten minutes, couldn't even see my talk page or watchlist. Wyss 04:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss' other Talk page deletions[edit]

On her Talk page, here, Wyss began by making false or conjectural charges against me and trying to shift the blame of her violation on to my edits (as she does above too.) Sadly for her, the admins did not quite see things the same way. In retaliation she prevented me from countering her false claims on her Talk page and characterized all my edits as 'personal attacks', a by now routine modus operandi she uses with several users regardless of her own lack of civility.

Some of the edits that she deleted, including replies to other editors addressing me:

And from Talk:Adolf Hitler, once again

-- Simonides 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Readers will note that every one of those is either a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA which I removed according to WP policy or harassment on my own talk page which I removed with comment in the edit summary. Wyss 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While some of the comments above may have been at heated moments, others were made in good faith and written as dispassionately as possible; some were not even addressed to Wyss. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Simonides' other accusations are rather hollow, the true problem is that I, along with several other editors, don't agree with Simonides about some word choices in the article intro. Wyss 04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

These are two separate issues. Other users I disagree with aren't deleting my comments. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Wyss has requested a stop to the mutual disrespect here and I have replied here. If there is any progress I shall remove this incident. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only add that, for reasons best left to the imagination at this point, Simonides has conflated two separate episodes here, the first involving his taunts and personal attacks which I duly removed (and which he was warned about by an admin), the second being a server overload problem which I explained above. I request that this incident report remain here, by the way. Wyss 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • For any reader still interested, here is an independent discussion of the server problem during that same period, by other editors of the same article involved (AH), noting they themselves were having problems with accidently deleting each others' comments. Should I even bother asking why Simonides has yet to concede there were server issues and that I didn't deliberately or even negligently delete user comments? Wyss 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not quite accurate. While I assume good faith and accept that server problems were to blame, it's not true to say that "they were accidentally deleting each other's comments". None of my edits deleted any other editors comments, and apparently Simonides never "accidentally" deleted anyone elses comments. Only Wyss and Str1977 seemed to have the problem. Perhaps this was due to them being geographically close? Camillus (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wyss has been repeatedly spreading false accusations against me and other users she is in a Pov disput with. I'm still waiting for her to support her claims, which appear to be complete fabrications intended to distract and distrupt honest editing and good faith discussions. Giovanni33 10:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More deletions, defamation[edit]

Once again Wyss has begun to delete comments at will after preventing other users from defending themselves, after defaming them.

I have no opinion on Wyss' accusation that Giovanni33 is using sockpuppets; a check revealed that he may have used one sockpuppet, but although she twice repeated that he was using others, and a second check proved her accusations to be unsubstantiated, Wyss continued the defamation through innuendo at the section linked above:

Although a sock check run by Fred Bauder failed to turn up related IPs for these latter two, User:Giovanni33 had already been caught socking with User:Freethinker99 and User:BelindaGong through the identification of related IPs so it can be reasonably assumed that this user found a way to log on through other IP addresses (this is not so hard to do). - Wyss 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

She used this reasoning to remove her block for the violation of 3RR over here. It is clear from that violation that she did not revert Giovanni at any point, did not revert vandalism, and reverted two different users who according to checks are not the same user, according to Fred Bauder:

This is a continuation of Wyss' attempts to game the system and create an unpleasant atmosphere for editors who do not share her POV. -- Simonides 08:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered a user RfC? From a very cursory look at this it seems Wyss has some issues with, for example, describing Hitler as a dictator, which indicates that her viewpoint may be some way off the balance of informed opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels[edit]

There has been an anonymous user User: claiming to be Raymond Samuels repeatedly blanking and reverting the article on Raymond Samuels. I have placed them on a 24 hour block but they seem to have issues with the information portrayed on the article. I would appreciate it if some other editors could look over the situation. --Martyman-(talk) 10:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I also note there have been legal threats made. [54] --Martyman-(talk) 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have switched to this IP: Have warned but will bear watching. --Malthusian (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Am reporting this IP to WP:AIV, has continued to blank and make legal threats. --Malthusian (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
There have been more legal threats made [55]. --Martyman-(talk) 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie has semi-protected the page and has made an attempt to rewrite the article to remove the contriversial bits. --Martyman-(talk) 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for us to contact the ISP and get legal retaliation on this person? As I am aware, he is conducting a coordinated act of sabotage, which under both US communications law (we can get extradition), and Canadian law as I am aware (we have used the same justification for preparing a case against the Wikipedia is Communism vandal), and we can promptly shut down this user. I am encouraged by this because from what it seems from this dnstools page that the IP used ( is "directly allocated" and "non-portable" and the user alleges himself he can get his ISP to change whenever he wants, so we can quickly get the ISP to deny access to this user. This would be a good way to evade his "change IP" tactics. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to update: the vandal is now spamming random pages, circumventing the semi-protection of Raymond Samuels and Talk:Raymond Samuels, and is now posting a link to a blog which contains, among others, the email address of someone supposedly involved. See Special:Contributions/ --Malthusian (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:JJstroker uploading problem images[edit]

Over the past month, JJstroker (talk · contribs) has uploaded several hundred images in the past month, often with false copyright information. For example, Image:JFKagee2.jpg was tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} on the grounds that images from "a public learning institution generally free from copyright", while Image:USAloseyP1.jpg was tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} on the grounds that the source website didn't have a copyright statement. In among the dozens of image-tagging notifications on his page are comments indicating that he does not understand and is not aware he doesn't understand copyright, including this gem:

"Copyright "violation" for This is ridiculous and I would appreciate if you noobie editors would stop wasting my time. Why dont you try uploading pictures for a change? The photo is from a premeire which is always press release. The copyright is fine. Please remove the copyright violation."

Could someone look into this? --Carnildo 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly the user has also created copyright-infringing articles as well [56]. Jkelly 23:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have now warned them on their talk page. If they continue to upload material that is incorrectly tagged or copyrighted text, they should be blocked from editing. --Martyman-(talk) 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like good-faith ignorance to me. Perhaps just kindly request that he stop uploading pictures until he finishes his law degree? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
He's uploaded four more problem images:
  • Image:Alvahbessie2.jpg, Image:3c14608t.jpg - From the Library of Congress, claimed as "work of the federal government" which is almost never true for LoC images, source link is dead.
  • Image:Sdickstein22.jpg - Claimed as PD-USGov-Congress-Bio, but it's from, which doesn't indicate where they got the image. The image is probably PD-old or PD-USGov, but there's no evidence for this.
  • Image:USAcellerE.jpg - Claimed as PD-USGov-Congress-Bio, but it's from
--Carnildo 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Left some biolerplate and a personal plea to stop. Jkelly 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
He's also uploaded two images that have copyright problems for the following:
These are from I've tagged them with copyvio. There are several of WireImage photos he's uploaded to Wikipedia, however he claimed they were press release. adnghiem501 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Could somebody have a word with WHEELER (talk · contribs)? He is repeatedly placing external links to his own highly original essays on a number of articles. He seems to think that I am the embodiment of evil, so could a third party please tell him about our external links policies. - SimonP 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought he'd left the project. Heavens. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
And here I was thinking that you were the embodiment of evil! Silly me. :)--Sean Black (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Did someone say evil? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be back, he has just added Revolution within the form and Cretan/Spartan connection. He admits that both are original research. I'm not going to touch these, so could somebody else deal with them. - SimonP 20:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I found the spot. As soon as I posted one External link---SimonP who has NO classical training or education kept deleting the External link (see page history of "History of Crete" as an examle) like Wikipedia is his personal space. Does Wikipedia belong to SimonP? I put asked him: User talk:SimonP#Hostility; he responded on my site: User talk:WHEELER#Links. Anything I do on this Website---he deletes or seeks to destroy the article. (1) I point to xenelasia where an external link to Wikinfo was changed by SimonP calling it "remove spam". (2) I point to synoecism where SimonP puts a cleanup tag with this comment "({cleanup} mix of original research and nonsense)". (3) I point to Classical definition of effeminacy where SimonP also puts a cleanup tag "({cleanup}, this article has a lot of problems)".
This man follows me everywhere I go In Wikipedia---him and his gang---go around harrassing me and doing immature things. There is no problem with an External link to Wikinfo articles!!! Should there be?? Is there that much visceral hatred by you people???
Get this man off my back and stop the persecutions. Please stop this immaturity.WHEELER 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not stay on Wikinfo? You understand by now that original research isn't permitted on Wikipedia, but you are continuing to post your own research in Wikipedia articles. I guess I don't get the attraction. I think you've done some interesting work, but it isn't appropriate here. Rhobite 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I caught you guys red-handed with "Article laundering". I don't trust you as much as I can throw you. One wikipedian deletes an external link as " (rv to SimonP; Wikiinfo not sister project). " My external links don't violate your policy!!!!
Second case of article laundering===Cultural imprint on politics/Revision at Wikipedia. Which was conventently deleted recently. Here is a quote from someone on that page:
This is a draft for a fair rewrite of an encyclopedic subject that simply discusses the imprint that culture has on politics. The basis for the present text was unacceptable to many Wikipedians as being an original essay with a strong personal slant (POV rather than a neutral encyclopedia report on the development of this self-evident idea, making references and citing sources. Don't make angry edits, try to forget any agenda of your own, and keep the English-speaking reader firmly in mind. Thanks.
You were attempting to steal an article at Wikinfo!!!! You deleted it. And then try to surreptissiously put it on your site ""Washed"" without tracing back!!!!! This is morally wrong for you people. I see your extermination policy of external links!!!! ala Bill Gates---you guys take lessons from him!!!! Instead of bringing it back on and referencing it back to Wikinfo---You are attempting to "Article laundering" in defiance of copyright laws regarding Wiki's. You people are evil. Do you have that much hatred for Wikinfo??? Is Hate the basis of what goes on around here???WHEELER 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Howdy! I note that wikinfo uses GFDL. As Wikipedia also uses this same license, and the terms of GFDL allow (in fact, encourage) distribution as long as the derivatives remain under GFDL, I'm not certain how this could be stealing, even assuming that it was a straight copy/paste job (which it wasn't). Also, most of Wikinfo's content is copied from Wikipedia as an FYI. Regards, CHAIRBOY () 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me the downside of external links to WHEELER's articles? Sam Spade 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that they are to essays that are at best highly POV, and at worst deeply inaccurate. - SimonP 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Now, I am rightfully scared that anytime I try to put an external link---they will delete it--run out---create another article on the subject--put in on Wikipedia themselves--thus preventing any external link!!!! I see this game you guys are trying to pull. And this should be noted.!!!! WHEELER 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I really am quite congenial. I understand the NPOV policy here. I understand the policy of NO original research. That is why I first tried to put in External links. I think the info is needed to inform readers. You can NPOV those articles but leave a link back to the original post so people can learn more. I am not interested in Turf Wars. Or delete the article and make it an external link. I'd rather you make it an external link. But what I see, scares me, I am forced to act the way I did. Those two article do in small ways violate your policies and need to be edited or moved to external links. I totally agree. But I will not stand for stealing my hard work or the "washing" of articles. And I don't believe in persecuting people.

Why can't I put an external link such as "Please see SPOV article at [Wikinfo:Subject name]" or "For original research material on subject please see [Wikinfo:Subject name]"? Why is this so hard?WHEELER 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

because literature cited has got to be notable ("notability" is relative to the subject matter). Wikinfo isn't a notable or reputable source by any standard. You have no "right" to link to your articles; the only way to get a policy-sanctioned "right" to discuss or link to your views is to publish them in peer-reviewed journals so that they arguably may be described as a notable academic minority position. 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

SimulacrumCaputosis and Zombiebaron[edit]

Two editors with very short histories, SimulacrumCaputosis (talk · contribs) and Zombiebaron (talk · contribs) keep trying to insert a link to Unencyclopedia into Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 03:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the place to contest this, but in all honesty Uncyclopedia is basicly the antichrist when compared to Wikipedia. Sorta makes sence to add it to what wikipedia is not, because wikipedia is not a place for blatent rascism, featured stubs, humor, cell churches, and the like. I feel that SulacrumCaputosis and me are completely justified in our addition, and numerous reverts. Zombiebaron 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I've contested your insertion of the link to Unencyclopedia, you can propose the insertion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. These things are done by consensus over here. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


User (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) use to make strong national attacks and to vandalize user pages of everybody he suspects in the Pro-Ukrainian POV. Today he seems to went on a rampage producing edits like: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], etc. He was already blocked for one week for the very similar behavior.

It appears that the IP is a static IP belonging to an individual. Simple IP tracing shows his real name and the phone number. He sometimes produces good faith edits, but also many personal attacks and vandalizing.

I gave him 24h block, just to cool down, but I feel that if he will repeat quite longer blocking must be applied. I was already criticized that the block is to lenient. abakharev 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The first minutes the block expired, he started with personal attacks. I had to double the block (48 hours). abakharev 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Can we have a sockpuppet check on this guy? On his first day he headed straight for the Chip Berlet article and started bringing up all the same old disputes, so I'm wondering if this is Nobs or Cognition or somebody else who has been dealt with by ArbCom. Gamaliel 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Jkelly 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's quite a backlog over there. Gamaliel 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep... Jkelly 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Both myself and Fred Bauder looked at it. That user comes from an IP address which seems to regularly spawn 'new' users with similar far-right beliefs and writing styles, each of which seems to stick to a limited subset of articles. They seem to be the same person. However, the use of multiple accounts doesn't seem to be actually disruptive - more, perhaps, to prevent the user being recognised / tracked. There is no multiple voting, use to evade 3rr/blocks, or anything of that sort that I can see.
The writing style doesn't look like Nobs or Cognition to either of us, however, and it's obviously impossible to tell for sure after this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh[edit]

There are significant issues with unregistered or very recently registered users editing the article on Dean McVeigh in continuing contravention of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Could it have semi-protected status?--A Y Arktos 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No action has been taken, and hence I renew am renewing my request.--A Y Arktos 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Still no action - have I put this request in the wrong place? Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy does say an admin would respond if I popsted here. I will try at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection too.--A Y Arktos 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a look over at the article history and enabled sem-protection for now. -- Longhair 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Policy Abuse by Celestianpower[edit]

In regard to the AfD entry concerning Steven Levitt, Celestianpower closed discussion a mere 35 minutes after its opening. Such insanely early closings only serve to further the secularist POV of such an editor. Voting MUST run its course - closing the polls early just because you happen to be ahead is patently unfair, and NOT what Wikipedia is about. This is a heads-up, as I am sure he will continue trying to push his view through the guise of janitorial tasks.

Peace in Christ, Steven Taylor 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. As Christians, it's the least we can do. Anyway, I can't see why on earth anyone would want that article deleted. Celestianpower was totally correct in ignoring all rules and closing a debate that had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the article deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, that was a rather absurd AfD nomination; we don't delete articles on authors with best-selling titles. Closing the discussion early was exactly the right course of action. The fact that you refer to "voting" and "closing the polls early" shows that you do not quite understand how AfD is supposed to work. android79 16:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser requested for Steven Taylor. The absurd abuse of process to prove a point along with the talk page spamming (look at this user's contributions), leads me to believe this may be a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. Hexagonal 16:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your incivility makes me sick. Steven Taylor 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Wow. Just, wow. I'm not the suspicious type, but if someone wanted to demonstrate the harm caused by categories like Category:Christian Wikipedians, the edits made by Steven Taylor (talkcontribs) make the point pretty clear. Friday (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. android79 16:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing. Account created today, listed Steven Levitt for deletion and then worked (partway) through Category:Christian_Wikipedians trying to round up a posse. Whoever it is ought to thank Celestianpower for saving them some typing. --ajn (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the use of "godless" and the "Peace in Christ" sign-off i