Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive87

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

Noticeboard archives


Blu Aardvark: I recommend a permanent ban[edit]

Blu Aardvark (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), of late, has been increasingly trolly, in reaction to the dispute over the {{user review}} userbox. He was recently blocked for personal attacks, and has responded by creating a number of sockpuppets which he has used to blank articles and to continue his personal attacks. I am blocking him indefinitely and recommend that he be considered banned by the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have blocked Blu's ISP ( for 1 hour; his response to this block was to create even more sockpuppets and vandalize even more of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a lie, Kelly. After my page blanking and a reset of my modem, I made a single statement on your talk page. That wasn't "vandalizing more of wikipedia", but mis-representing facts.... well, you're good at that. After the range block, I wasn't able to get an IP outside of that range (although if I was determined enough, I could have), so any vandalism that occured during the hour block was not from me. -- 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am convinced at this point that this is an editor who has no place editing here any longer. His presence serves only to cause harm to our encyclopedia, and I fully support the ban. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My spidey sense started tingling, so I checked meta on a hunch and caught him in the act of massive vandalism. Good thing he'd only been at it 4 minutes. Raul654 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Commons Raul654 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In light of [1] I see no reason why this individual should not be banned from all projects. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care if you ban me from all projects. Really. I have no intention of ever contributing to your "encyclopedia" again, after the way I have been treated. Numerous admins have been rude, unreasonable, and unresponsive to reasonable requests. Don't act all surprised that I got pissy and went on a vandalism spree. You block my account for a month, for no reason other than that I called a few users, who happened to have made some trollish statements towards me or about me, trolls. I respond, quite upset, and eventually I'm able to negotiate an arrangement to solve the dispute. Then a single admin decides, "Oh, I'm not going to let that happen", misquotes one of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, and reverts and protects my page. I am quite pissed about this, so I take it up with the admin in question, who not only ignores my complaint, he reverts my statements and blocks the accounts. After about four or five tries, I say "fuck Wikipedia", and I Special:Randompage it. But why does this surprise anyone? You treat a person like you have treated me, and legitimately expect me not to bite back? (Yeah, I know some cunt is going to revert this statement and block this IP, probably for some ridiculous amount of time, but seriously, what is it going to accomplish for your wannabe "encyclopedia" to do it, other than alienating me, and possibly some other members of your community? It will accomplish the "NeedToPowerTrip", but what does that have to do with writing an "encyclopedia"?)
For one, it'll get rid of a child throwing a temper tantrum and wanting his diaper changed for him for a while. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice. You make a lovely little personal attack like that and then block my IP indefinately, blocking me from responding to it. Oh, that's a dynamic IP, BTW. You might want to reduce or remove that block, because it's possible that a legitimate user may end up with it at a later point. -- 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
An all-project ban certainly seems appropriate. Vandalism sprees are never justified, and users that engage in such activity are harmful to the project. Indefinitely blocking users who engage in petty vandalism is a long-standing practice and an appropriate action, in my opinion. Are you really asking what purpose blocking a vandal will serve the encyclopedia, Blu Aardvark? It may alienate the vandal, certainly, but will also help us fight vandalism, which is more important, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker 06:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism was a foolish thing to do, granted, as were the sockpuppets, but seriously, I felt like I was being attacked and mistreated, and I fought back with the limited tools I had. When you treat a user like you have treated me, and then block all avenues of dispute resolution, you effectively escalate the dispute. I suppose the assumption was, "Well, we'll just make it so that he can't talk about it, or otherwise resolve the dispute, and maybe it will go away. Besides, there is no dispute, because he's not in the first group referred to by Raul's first law, and therefore is in the second.". I didn't vandalize until I was alienated, and all avenues of resolving the dispute had been cut off. I'm not very appreciative of the fact that, when I was actually making some progress in resolving the conflict, someone cuts the process short and says, "We don't do that here". -- 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt attacked and mistreated, but if your fighting style involves damaging the encyclopedia, then I don't believe you have any place here. I am not familiar with your dispute, but forms of dispute resolution available to blocked users include e-mailing the mailing list or e-mailing administrators asking them to review the situation. Vandalizing is never appropriate. I have not treated you in any manner, as far as I recall. I don't believe we have ever encountered you before. I am sorry you felt alienated and I don't wish users to be in such a position, but if this is the way you respond to alienation, then I would ask that you find some other project of which to be a part. I don't wish to be rude, but in looking at the edits you have made, it appears you are more interested in some sort of revenge than in improving Wikipedia, and that's really not the sort of editor I'd like to see here. Your comments above imply to me that you still feel your vandalism was somehow justified. I am sorry that matters came together to such an extent to cause you to feel it was appropriate to respond in this way. — Knowledge Seeker 08:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we never had a dispute, you and I. Primarily, my dispute was between Raul654, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and NicholasTurnbull, and a few other users. In other words, the High Cabal, and SlimVirgin and Friends™ - admins who think that they are above the rules, because none of the policies and guidelines matter if they pretend that they are interested in the "encyclopedia". ::::::::Again, I'm not really concerned if I am banned or not, which is why my mini vandalism spree doesn't greatly concern me. I cannot expect to get sufficient respect from the High Cabal so long as I contribute under the name "Blu Aardvark". If I do eventually decide to come back, it will be as my sockpuppet - the only one I haven't abused, or even used in recent weeks (which is why Raul couldn't find it in his obsessive CheckUser search). A fresh start may do wonders for myself and for the encycloblog. For now, an apology from SlimVirgin for libelling me in every damn place she could would be in order - that's where my dispute primariy lies. -- 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a permanent ban, on the grounds that the initial ban 36 hours ago was done in poor faith. --Golbez 07:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you believe then that if a block is done in poor faith (I'm not going to agree or disagree with you on that), then the user is quite justified in evading that block to vandalise wikipedia? Is that an expression of good faith on the part of the blocked user? --pgk(talk) 08:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying there was a rapid escalation of action and bad faith on both sides, and this needs to be addressed, rather than simply walking away happy to have banned him. --Golbez 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like someone involved to respond to this. --Golbez 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark has some good edits in the past with vandalism reversion, and I agree with him that policy is not followed enough these days. However, his personal attacks on DRV against SlimVirgin in particular are way off the rocker, and his sockpuppeteering displays a lack of sincerity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read, on Wikipedia Review forum, his admissions of sock puppetry, and witnessed his vandalism on Wikipedia, I don't think the good faith that was extended by me and others towards this editor in the past was merited. He is still openly boasting about having one undetected, unblocked sock. He also boasts about four undetected socks that are blocked, which suggests that he always abused Wikipedia while using the Blu Aardvark account for legitimate edits. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very damning. --Golbez 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
begging the question, if a user splits his editing behaviour between his socks to the point of schizophrenia, should he be considered a single editor, or several unrelated editors? I agree that Blu's behaviour on that forum (""? o_O) merit a permanent ban. If he has any interest in continuing good faith contributions, let him use his undiscovered socks: that's the good thing about anonymity here, you can always start over with a clean slate. dab () 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit Conflict Mis-representative. The four "undetected" socks were blocked by Raul654 for being Lir, in a bit of a WP:POINT action I was taking that, IMO, improved Wikipedia, because it reminded admins to act with a little caution when reverting edits. Yes, I'm my own "friend". Meet User:Orange Flowerpot, User:Another Orange Flowerpot, User:Yet Another Orange Flowerpot, and User:Neon Orange Flowerpot. Whatever. It doesn't really matter now, so I'll just let the secret out of the bag. -- 15:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Damned by his own words. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised at Blu Aardvark's behaviour as demonstrated above. He always seemed like a reasonable guy on IRC and on the old Wikipedia Review. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You all went about this thing the wrong way in the first place. Are you that surprised that someone lost faith and sanity in the project when they are attacked and question from 500 different angles by a dozen different admins? His own talkpage was protected while he was blocked, effectively making him unable to defend himself, so the only way he could was through anon IPs and sockpuppets. His past messages, most of which consisted of relatively normal conversation, were erased from his talkpage by admins. Maybe you need to re-examine the way you approach these bans and blocks, because when you accuse someone of being a troll or a vandal, erase their messages, and then you don't give them the chance to defend their character, chances are they will become a deviant, because they have nowhere left to speak, no one to speak to, and no way left to speak. You admins are the ones who set an example for mere users like Blu and I, but in this situation, it seems like all you did was sink to his level, and when that failed, you sought to ignore his plight. Blu Aardvark really can't really be spared now, he's not what he used to be, but don't think that he, and only he, did this. Next time, you take one or two admins to straighten it out, not a mass brigade of sysops.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Kim McGinn[edit]

Request an admin to look at this history page of this non-notable bio where the original author insists that the subject (presumably herself/himseld) is notable. The respective {{db-bio}} and {{afd}} tags are constantly being removed inspite of talk-page attempts by User:Stollery and myself. --ΜιĿːtalk 12:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and protected as a temporary measure. No reasonable assertion of notability in my opinion. Request review from other admins. --kingboyk 13:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire response to this article from top to bottom has been a debacle.

1. In the two minutes between the time I made the first edit and gathering information for the more detailed second edit, a speedy delete tag is added.

2. User:Stollery twice removes warning tags from his talk page.

3. Both Miljoshi and Stollery break the 3RR rule. In order to cover-up their acts, they apply to have the article deleted, which they succeed in doing. This is what Miljoshi writes on user_talk:Stollery page: "Have flagged...on WP:AN/I. To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully"

4. There is an AfD going on, and there have been three votes: 1 for Delete, 1 for Keep, 1 for Speedy Delete. Yet these votes are ignored when this article was deleted.

5. On the talk page a consensus was asked for: to temporarily remove the page from wikipedia until more information can be gathered on the subject. Did kingboyk respond or participate in the talk page? No he deleted the article and said that nothing new can ever be added about the subject.

I am disappointed in wikipedia. But I demand action and the reinstatement of this article, and the enforcement of wikipedia rules. Toysoy 13:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well hold your horses there mate! Give a fellow a chance. I had to attend to other matters first, like asking the other person involved not to bite the newcomers (although I now guess you aren't a newcomer at all), and I was then dealing with an unconnected vandalism report (which takes priority). Whilst you were typing this I was typing a message on your talk page and on the article's talk page. I have enforced Wikipedia rules: I speedy deleted an article on an apparently non notable person, I protected the page against recreation as an interrim measure because you weren't taking no for an answer, and I have requested review of my actions from other admins (with the possibility of overturning with no hard feelings). AFD is irrelevant if an article falls under the speedy deletion criteria, which to my mind this one does (1 speedy delete, 1 borderline speedy, and you; for the record). Note that no page is deleted forever and if you provide evidence of notability on the talk page or another admin decides to restore the page it can be restored with a couple of mouse clicks! --kingboyk 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me toysoy but you neglected to point you that you removed the Speedy tag three times and the AfD tag four times! In doing so you twice over broke the 3RR rule. Also you'll note that Miljoshi's note to me states "To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully" - note the part that says "avoid WP:3RR" - neither of us broke it (and even if we had it does not constitute a breach if reverting vandalizm - and even if deleted admins can see the history even if you can't so you assumption we had it deleted to hide our actions is false). My warnings to you (all FOUR of them) were placed after two warnings were placed on the article talk page - all of which were ignored. Besides all of this your note on the Talk:Kim McGinn page states "im the author of the article. why dont you remove the article now so that i can gather more info and make a decent article? then i can make the article again. is their consensus?" which is exactly what kingboyk did, so what's the problem? If you believe this person is notable then simply rewrite the article and request unprotection... you are quite obviously not a new user by any means so you should know to have done this anyway right? I believe everyone acted in good faith considering you removed deletion templates at least 7 times. Good luck with the article. ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First, on behalf of User:Stollery and myself my apology to Toysoy (talk · contribs) for any unpleasant event. To me, the reason why this matter is being discussed here is: User:Toysoy's reverts (an admin may see through the past history) on the said article by ignoring all rational on notability and warnings, and then, attempts by the user to stall User-page and talk-page of the fellow editor [2]. It may be noted that subsequent to {{db-bio}}, the article was tagged {{afd}} - a gesture in good faith by User:Stollery to respect the editor's view (it is a different matter that the editor chose to keep reverting everything). While I may assume in good faith that the editor is new and the subject is indeed notable (25 google hits), neither of the above two cases qualifies for a pleasant situation. And I see merit in kingboyk's action and rational to size up the situation. User:Toysoy is very much welcome to assert notability to support the claims. I have created review section on the talk page for this very purpose, content of which can be later moved to the main article subject to qualification. -- Regards. ΜιĿːtalk 08:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are great arguments, but really I think you guys are trying to excuse the inexcusable. You broke the rules. You can't break the rules in the name of stopping what you think is rule-breaking.

My rule breaking was to remove the damn tag LITERALLY 2 minutes after creating the article; as I was adding information in the first place. In your rush to gain edits on wikipedia you fail to see the consequences of your hasty actions.

These people were so eager to put the tags on the page that they put two on at the same time - the AfD tag and the speedy delete tag. It just doesn't make sense.

And the talk page had suggestions which you guys ignored. Instead you made 3RR violations twice over.

And then, to top it off, you conspired with each other to cover-up your acts and hide the truth.

Well the chickens have come home to roost. And to the wikipedia administrators, I say, punish these people and let the article run its course. We'll see how it looks in a week after some editing. Toysoy 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's funny how you guys haven't given any excuses for removing two warnings from your talk page. Toysoy 10:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am growing really tired of this harrassment
I have addressed ALL of this on your talk page, though you are obviously putting on a big song and dance for the administrators (even after writing "Just forget about it ok? It's over with." on my talk page). But I'll play your silly game, and I am going to go through this VEEEERY slowly so you understand as I've now told you THREE TIMES:
  1. The warnings on my page were written by a user who (amoungst other abuse) wrote the following on my talk page:
"Now that I know who you are. I have a few words for you. Fuck you, you pathetic loser."
"I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased"
"Beat it Stoolery. By the way your website is down, whats wrong with you?"
"your Outside View for Terryeo is full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic" [3]
He also wrote the same thing about me personally on at least three other people's user pages.
  1. If that's not enough - The warnings themselves were unfounded, wholely without any merit and, in the words of an Administrator "the warnings were clearly done out of harassment"[4] They were placed simply so (someone like you) could complain about their removal. If some random person went and placed half a dozen large unfounded warnings all over your talk page and expect you to leave them there? They were there, as the admin pointed out to harrass me.
  2. Wikipedia policy states: "It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid." [5]
  3. Even though I was 100% certain the warnings were not valid, to be absolutely sure I checked with another administrator to confirm I could remove the harrassment from my page, which he confirmed I could. [6]
  4. Regarding the warnings you left on my user page (which you vandalized as you are not permitted to deface other people's user pages) they stated "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia and kimigin (sic); it is considered vandalism" [7] - But I never removed any content all I did was add the speedy and AfD templates WHICH YOU REMOVED 7 TIMES!
  5. One the same basis as above (simply there as a form of harrassment so you could complain about me) I removed them as completely unfounded.
  6. You claim that we have tried to "cover up the truth" again is completely unfounded. For one we did not break the 3RR rule. There was no colaboration. Miljoshi's note to me stated "To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully" - note the part that says "avoid WP:3RR" - neither of us broke it (and even if we had it does not constitute a breach if reverting vandalizm - and even if deleted admins can see the history even if you can't so you assumption we had it deleted to hide our actions is false). My warnings to you (all FOUR of them) were placed after two warnings were placed on the article talk page - all of which were ignored.
  7. You claim "My rule breaking was to remove the damn tag LITERALLY 2 minutes after creating the article". Again, YOU BROKE THE DARN 3RR RULE TWICE OVER WHEN YOU REVERTED SEVEN TIMES AFTER HAVING 6 WARNINGS! And, again as you can't grasp this concept Admins can still see the history of deleted articles so why would we try to hide this fact... upon reviewing they will see your breach (twice!)
  8. Your call to have me "punished" is motivating me to have this looked into formally... Because I answered all your questions but you continually avoid mine. You came at me right from the start accusing me of deleting another persons warnings from my page before any of this began, and even complained to another admin wanting to know why I haven't been punished and I want to know why. Why do you even care about this? Who are you and what is your problem with me? You have come from nowhere (coincidently immediately after UNK was banned) and wrote about my citing confidential documents so are you a scientologist? Some admins suspect you are yet another sockpuppet of JimmyT/UNK (a scientologist) so please clarify why you are so motivated to bring me down. I await your reply. - Glen T C 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet? Wouldn't surprise me, otherwise he's a very clued up newbie! I am however surprised this is still rumbling on as the article's talk page is quiet and no evidence of notability has been produced (nor I suspect will it be). The other matters are peripheral; warring over a properly deleted article achieves nothing. I'd suggest dropping the matter, not that I think anyone will listen :-) --kingboyk 16:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I have temporarily blocked Linkspamremover (talk · contribs) as I suspect it is a bot (which doesn't have approval nor any information on who is running it). I base my suspicions on its single focus of edits and username reflecting what it does. I asked a few hours ago for more information but the user did not respond but carried on making similar edits. Could others help look into this? Talrias (t | e | c) 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Appears not to be a bot, has replied on his talkpage. Recommend unblock since he's doing a useful job here. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The block should already expired by now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?[edit]

From Talk: Democratic peace theory:

Regarding Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. The Arbcom included him in their decision. Ultramarine 23:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. West and I have known each other for some time before we began to edit. When he began to edit Lord Delaware and create related articles in time for the 400-th anniversary of his Governorship, he asked me, since I have access to a university library, to check out some details.

The three of us are under an Arbcom decision (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine) to edit Democratic peace theory by consensus; Ultramarine is justifying his removal [8] of text which the other two of us have explicitly defended. (see Talk:Democratic peace theory#1).

This incivility is not helpful. Whether it is a veuled (and false) assertion of sock-puppetry is unclear. Septentrionalis 04:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I fail to see anything remotely close to incivility or a personal attack. Ultramarine wrote that you are a friend or relative of Mr. West. You admit that you have known Mr. West for some time, so Ultramarine's comment appears to be accurate. Did you or Mr. West introduce the disputed material without Ultramarine's consent? --Mr j galt 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The material, as it stood, was the product of a series of rewrites by both Ultramarine, myself, and other parties not involved in the arbitration; the actual text was a condensation of an extremely verbose text of Ultramarine's, preserving the arguments. Robert West has not edited this section; I'm not sure he has edited the article recently. Septentrionalis 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Other jibes, on the same subject, include
Now this is interesting: both Septentrionalis and Robert A West has created and co-edited many articles about Baron West and Earl De La Warr. An old aristocratic family, who like the rest of the aristocracy lost their class privileges when democracy was introduced. Ultramarine 15:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
From User talk:Scaife; and Talk:R. J. Rummel:
The attempted deletion is even more strange when considering that they have created and expanded numerous vanity articles about non-notable relatives to a least one of them, various Baron West and Earl De La Warr. Why should persons whose only achievement were to born into a class exploiting the rest of the population be included, but not a a respected researcher who have spent his life on something as important as how war and mass murder.
This is attacking Robert West for a deletion vote, when in fact he voted to keep; just to add to the bizarreness of it all. Septentrionalis 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I should speak on this -- to me, it is clear that Ultramarine intends this to be understood as a negative remark, else his dark and portentious tone makes no sense, but the point escapes me. I am reminded of the old story where the politician announces that his opponent's sister was a public thespian. I hope that Ultramarine will either drop the irrelevant discursion or clarify his intent. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Bakewell Tart and user:Count of the Saxon Shore[edit]

I wonder if someone could please look into both of these accounts. Count of teh Saxcon Shore was, until recently, called Crusading Compoiser - both the name Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart and intended as personal digs at me - I work in the town of Bakewell and, as a composer who often uses music to camnpaign for certain issues, it is an epithet which has been used to describe me. BT and CC (now CotSS)'s behaviour shows them to be rather fixated with me - initially attacking the page created by someone else about me Robert Steadman and then, when I began to edit on WP attacking me. I strongly believe they are stalkers from another internet forum who wage a campaign of hounding and harassment for months on there and have now transferred this to here. Despite a handful of other edits they are both clearly single issue editors who seem to be on a mission. What can be done? (By the way, despite claims to the contrary I have never edited the page about myself and the accusation of sockpuppets against me is false (I am asure this will come up) - I'm afraid that user: Jayjg was wrong in his actions to block me for this and I would like this recified and the claims that I used sockpuppets removed from WP as it is defamatory). Robsteadman 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bakewell Tart seems to have no interest in adding content to wikipedia - the only real reason for anyone to have an account. User:Count Of The Saxon Shore has made some useful edits but doesn't seem to be able to keep away from Rob despite being encouraged by myself and AnnH. As for the sockpuppet accusations against Rob - just from the edit histories of User:Robeaston99 and User:Vhjh I can see why Jayjg made the decision he did but in the light of the strange folk Rob seems to attract I don't think this can be taken as a simple case. Jayjg himself was happy for other users with checkuser privilige to discuss this with him at the time but I think Rob was hoping it would all just blow over. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Bakewell Tart did not conduct himself in the manner of a Wikipedian- when I was reverting his edits to User talk:Robsteadman he began to start insulting me in his edit summaries and began gaming the system by making unique edits to the page every time. He still made 6 full reverts to the page in 24 hours, and was eventually blocked under 3RR, after me filing a report on the WP:AN/3RR page (admittedly badly formatted, as I was in a rush to get Bakewell Tart blocked as we were in a huge edit war with him). In the end I took to reporting him on WP:AIV. That's all I really have to say on this matter. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The words pot and kettle spring to mind. Another over reaction from the man whose favourite word is outrageous. Why does he have to see everything in terms of 'cabals' 'conspiracies' 'friends' and 'foes'? Should I respond by making him the subject of a RfC - his conduct would certainly merit an investigation?

I'll just make a quick summary:

  1. Yes, I initially created my account with the intention of removing the gush and autiobiography from Mr Steadman's article. The original article was heavily POV and unacceptable. I also wanted to add links to Mr Steadman's activities on other internet forums.
  2. I got into a lot of arguments with VHJH (later alleged to be a sockpuppet of Steadman) and some of these were not pleasant and I'm sure that I broke rules re: personal attacks, AGF and civility - but I'm not that fond of being called 'liar' and mentally ill.
  3. Once the gush had been removed, I let it go. I used Wikipedia to research my interests but I didn't edit for a while.
  4. Then the whole sockpuppet issue arose. Still smarting from VHJH's vicious personal attacks, I couldn't resist gloating and adding a 'Ha ha' to his userpage - although if anyone reads that, it was perfectly in context, considering VHJH's last comment to me.
  5. My AfD, although, unsuccessful, was not a bad faith nomination as Mr steadman, if he was indeed editing as VHJH, would have broken policies on vanity articles and biographies.
  6. I have NOT engaged in any further personal attacks, I have not joined in any of the many arguments that Mr Steadman has involved himself in. I hardly see how I can be accused of harrasing or stalking him (not in the last 2 months anyway). In fact, the only time that I involve myself with Mr steadman is when he makes attacks on me. I politely asked him to remove personal attacks from his userpage and he mocked me then ignored me. I am more than happy to have nothing more to do with him now that he has removed the offensive comments. Quite frankly, he does more to harm himself and his reputation than any of his 'enemies' ever could.Count Of The Saxon Shore 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And again, repetitions of lies, abuse and stalking - at least here is an admission that this stalker has carried his campaign over from other web fora. I did not and have not use any siockpuppets - that is a lie. I do hope something can be done about this stalker. Robsteadman 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that Robsteadman has removed the comments from his talk pages (Thanks for that), you two can try and leave each other alone, surely? Wikipedia is a big place. I suggest you simply put your differences aside, forget about each other, and move on. That's what I am attempting to do. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is any justice ALL vandals and stalkers would be banned. Let's see how long before this particular stalker starts again - or will it be as another new name? Deskana, if you had been stalked by someone for a year over different net fora and involving real-life events would you be hjappy to just let it drop because they felt the heat was on them? I somehow doubt it. Robsteadman 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

.......and if he continues with the stalking I will put back the naming and ashaming on my talk page because others should be aware of this sp-called editor's behaviour. Robsteadman 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, whether or not he stalked you, if he wishes to move away from this issue and his past, and edit on Wikipedia, he is welcome. The same is true of you. He certainly does not seem to be stalking you now, at least. Quite the contrary, he has expressed that he wishes to move on from this issue. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

He has expressed this wish months ago, and yet continues, he keeps expressing it.... what sort fo behaviour is that? Ummm... let me think! If he wanted to move on he would - as it is he doesn't and hasn't. Actrion should be taken - stalkers should NEVER be welcomed on WP or anywhere else.

The heat is on me? Just how, robert? This silly RfC is likely to backfire big time. Could you please stop referring to me as a 'stalker'. I am not a stalker in any sense of the word. If I was a stalker, then surely I'd be following you around. I happen to have edited on 2 sites which you have also edited, big deal. I edited an article about you because It was misleading. You have not undone any of those edits. Your article, as it stands, owes a lot to my contributions. I have had nothing to do with you on any forum for months - is that the action of a mentally unbalanced stalker? You seem far more interested in me than I am with you.Count Of The Saxon Shore 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, you are not letting him move on by repeatedly commenting about how he is a stalker on your user talk page. It is difficult to move on if someone keeps repeatedly calling you a stalker. If you let him move on, he might well do it. You need to try, otherwise you'll get caught in a deadlock constantly blaming each other for blaming each other (for blaming each other for blaming each other....). Count of the Saxon Shore cannot be blocked simply because you insist he is stalking you. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) seems to have difficulty with WP:NPA and it appears the vast majority of the edits from this IP are either article vandalism attacking the subject or attacks on another editor that attempts to reason with the user of this IP. I've blocked for a week because this is the 7th block for the same reasons -- if anyone thinks that needs to be changed, please feel free :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (talk · contribs)[edit] (talk · contribs) is constantly inserting the words BIG POOP (not kidding!) into the article on the European Union. He is a known vandal, having been blocked several times before (see his talk page). Could somebody with blocking tools take a look?

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is any relations to the feces vandal that struck a few days back... If not we should set them up on a date together, they'd be perfect :) Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 14:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha! I'd hate to see them make out though! :-) The Minister of War (Peace) 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Question: when does it reach the point when indefinite blocking is in order. All his previous edits are vandalism as well, and he's bound to return (he always has). Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Indefinite is a very long time, and in a "very long time" IP addresses can be reallocated. --kingboyk 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
So how "very long" would seem appropriate? To my mind, a ban of a year or so should do the trick, or is this considered overly harsh? Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 19:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hijacked AfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Licking has been hijacked by User:Musical_Linguist. She does not like the concept and she has protected this page after voting for delete herself and getting a few of her Catholic friends to also vote for delete. What is Wikipedia coming to that an admin is not significantly punished for such a flagrant abuse of her admin prviledges?!? Wikipedia is not her personal cathedral where only the sacred and blessed even get a turn to speak? She has a million other articles to work on and yet she had to

  • deeply reverted the "Licking" article itself
  • deleted other comments
  • tilted the vote in her favor
  • Hide perfectly valid criticism of an error that her fellow female User:FloNight made
  • use her admin priviledges to protect an AfD page to force the outcome in the way she just happens to want it to go?!? -- WaitingForTurn 14:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above user is a sockpuppet of a banned user who has been harassing a number of editors. JoshuaZ 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This is VERY interesting. Thanks. Robsteadman 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
For more information one should ask Flonight. Flo and Musical seem to be the name targets of this individuals harassment. JoshuaZ 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am more interested in thebehaviour of Musical Linguist. Robsteadman 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has been following but did not comment on the AfD either way, I don't see her as having done anything wrong. What is your concern? JoshuaZ 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrew William Morrow has a long history of problem behavior concerning what he calls "a certain demographic" (meaning, female Wikipedians). He has also cyberstalked at least one of them off-Wikipedia. He has been blocked under several sockpuppets, most recently for this edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected. Full protection would be highly irregular. Nonetheless I'm not sure it sets a good precedent. Best to block the dispruptive editors or close the AFD early than to protect a debate I would have thought. --kingboyk 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
User: has already been blocked. I'm going to unprotect the article and add it to my watchlist. --kingboyk 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And I've perma-blocked WaitingForTurn for personal attacks, although sockery is also a valid reason. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Woops, Musical Linguist beat me to it by a minute. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this page itself is currently semi-protected, which it really shouldn't be for a long period of time. --kingboyk 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I should point out - I am the one that started the delete process, by tagging the page for speedy deletion as patent nonsense (which it was not, I realize, after reading the article.) No one had directed me to it - I linked from a user page I was on, and it happened to be one of the first articles I came to that I thought was un-encyclopedic after I learned about AfD's. My speedy delete tag was removed, and changed to an AfD - but NOT by User:Musical Linguist. When I went to vote on the article, I struck out some abusive text by User:, not realizing he was the banned Andrew Morrow; and was hit with abusive comments on my user talk page (I have since removed them - you can see them in the history, some negative comments at the AfD for Licking, and then further comments on my talk page by the same user using IP User: (the same IP used to start this section). I had no personal vendetta when I started the delete process - I have periodically come across articles I think drastically lower the educational/professional standards of Wikipedia, and learned about AfD's in order to nominate them - this was one such article I came across shortly after learning about it. The attacks on Musical Linguist are, as near as I can see, totally unwarranted, as a number of other editors (myself included) played the primary role in tagging the article for deletion; a process Musical Linguist had nothing to do with. She simply deleted article updates/AfD vote by a banned user, something any editor, let alone administrator, is permitted to do. Hope that helps clear up any confusion as to the origins for the AfD.DonaNobisPacem 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Link spam by user SykoByte[edit]

User SykoByte is repeatedly adding links to his own website, in violation with the guidelines on WP:EL. Despite the efforts made by other wikipedians to make this user understand that linking to your own website is not allowed, he continues doing so. This user consider himself and his site to be above these rules, and refuses to comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia. When his spam links are removed, he adds them again, and complain about being harassed by other wikipedians. In my opinion, blocking this user and his IP would be the most suitable solution. An administrator might be able to set him straight, though, since he - despite the efforts made by other wikipedians - doesn't seem to understand that rules apply to all who publish on Wikipedia. Articles in which this user continues to link to his own website are:

In my opinion, this matter is way beyond a simple misunderstanding. SykoByte have been made aware of the rules and policies a number of times, but dismisses that as harassment. Now he needs to be made aware that the rules and policies are real, and meant to be followed, not bent or broken.

/Magore 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

While not the end-all and be-all as a guideline for spam, the site he attempts to add has no Alexa rank and Google PageRank, so this site is little more than a personal web site. If it keeps up, spam1 to spam4 warnings might be appropriate. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Although the links currently given are more than adequate evidence of the problem, I got involved in this issue on DreamGuy's Talk page ("What is wrong?"). Never once did SykoByte acknowledge that he had read WP:EL. EVula 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you guys are right. I read WP:EL and I will stop adding my links to the articles. I do not want to be banned from Wikipedia. I'm just glad I was able to add the 2 articles that I did without them being deleted. However, I do think DreamGuy needs to be told to stop being so rude to people on here. I did a search on him and I couldn't believe the amount of problems I saw with him and other Wikipedians. He may be a good editor, but he is downright rude and hypocritical. The other editors were overall kind about the situation.SykoByte

User:Joycie 15[edit]

Joycie 15 (talk · contribs) is continually adding articles about non-notable amateur football (soccer) players who play in their local league to Wikipedia. Most have been had been deleted, via prod or speedily. Despite request on user's talk page to stop adding them and read WP:BIO's guidelines on notability for sportspersons (i.e. that in professional sports such as soccer, being a full-time professional is the minimum for notability), user persists in adding dozens of new badly-formatted articles. Can someone please warn and/or block them? Thank you. Qwghlm 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempts at communication have totally failed, so I am blocking them for 48 hours. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New Jason sock needs blocking[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) JoshuaZ 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

National Security Archive[edit]

The article National Security Archive has been a focus of much contention lately. There is a user, User:Tbeatty who continously debates the usage of Wikipedia's copyright policy on the page's talk page when it is not the proper forum. He refuses to submit to logical and reasoned arguments and continues to change material when arguments clearly prove him wrong on the point of copyright and POV. He has been hostile and is borderline on the violating Wiki's policy on civility. Please also note that an administrator, User:Gamalielis involved in the dispute. --Strothra 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Can users violate a Wikipedia policy by erasing warnings from talkpages just because admin says he can do it? --Nikitchenko 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "warnings" he is complaining on my talk page about were from UNK who now is now banned as he is a sockpuppet of JimmyT: a permanently banned user who made numerous personal attacks (borderline threats) repeatedly on myself and at least half a dozen users as well as legal threats.
  1. The warnings were completely without merit and were made over and over again on my talk page in attempt to vandalize them
  2. Included was the following: "Fuck you, you pathetic loser." "I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased;" and "full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic" [9]
  3. Wikipedia policy states: "It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid."
  4. The warnings were not valid, but to be sure I sought administrator approval before removing here.
Hopefully this shines a little more light on the circumstances behind this situation. - Glen T C 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy from talk:Stollery for references[edit]

I went and looked. You call someone anal, it's a psych-oriented personal attack on a person who INSPECTING details.:) If you disagree, so be it. All cultures have different values. Have a good day. --Nikitchenko 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not call someone anal. Read it again, the click the wikilink for "this cultures" definition. Sheesh. - Glen T C 03:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You suggested someone was anal, a personal attack is uncivil and unnecessary for talking about contents. --Nikitchenko 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Just forget about it ok? It's over with. --Nikitchenko 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"if RadioKirk is going to be [[Anal retentive|anal]] I have uploaded..." - Glen T C 04:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I cant find ChrisO (admin who banned UNK) discussing anywherein WIkipedia that UNK is sock puppet of JimmyT. --Nikitchenko 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard, an admin, has determined that UNK and JimmyT are sockpuppets who harassed Stollery on his talk page and made a big fuss about removing warning templates (just as you are doing now, interestingly). You may not be aware that in the USA the term "anal" is commonly applied to overly meticulous people who make a big fuss over inconsequential matters (just as you are doing now, interestingly). wikipediatrix 04:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The following was posted on my talk page (Nikitchenko it seems you didn't look very hard)
Stollery, FYI - UNK has been blocked indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet of the currently blocked JimmyT. -- ChrisO 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems strange that you put a post on my page saying:
Just forget about it ok? It's over with. --Nikitchenko 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Then right up an incident report over it. I'm curious as to your motivations here? Why are you so bothered by this? Someone who launched abusive personal attacks against me many times writes me warning... why is this such a big deal to you? - Glen T C 06:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I ran across a user claiming to be Prasi90 (talk · contribs) in #wikimedia-stewards this evening. On asking if I could help him, he indicated that his account was indefinately blocked by MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), his IP blocked for a month, and his talk page protected; on further examination, I found that he had been indefinately blocked by MONGO, after being blocked a number of other times by a number of other administrators, while his talk page was protected by Gator1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was not involved in the blockings.

He was requesting to be unblocked, or his talk page unprotected so he could file an RfAr against MONGO. My first suggestion was that he email an Arbitrator; he responded that he had emailed Fred Bauder, but hadn't received a reply. (I've heard from other arbitrators that most arbs (Fred included) are very good about forwarding such requests to the ArbCom list, so it's entirely likely that they are discussing/have discussed the matter.) Rather than reversing other admin's actions, particularly in a situation where I had no idea what was going on, I told him I'd raise the issue here. (Here rather than with the individual admin, since it involves several admins.) It strikes me that with so many admins involved, it is unlikely to be a mistake, but, AGF and all. I'm notifying MONGO, Gator1, and Fred of this post, so they can offer thier side of the story.

I'd appreciate others taking a look and offering a more rounded view of the backstory, as well as thoughts on what, if anything, to do. I'm inclined to trust the judgment of the involved admins, and leave it alone unless the Arbitration Committee sees fit to get involved. Essjay TalkContact 03:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Prasi90 (talk · contribs) is also (talk · contribs). Repeatedly blocked for vandalism, harassment, personal attacks and general disruption. I blocked Prasi90 indefinitely after receiving numerous harassing emails and a scan of the talk pages on Prasi90 and IP shows that I am not the only one. I blocked his IP for 1 month which should expire on about 4/28/06. After repeatedly was posting the unblock template on his talk page and even though a couple of days went by and I was the only one responding, I asked him to stop posting the template. He then posted it in three places on his talk page, so I protected his page, telling him I would remove the protection just before his block expired. I also posted that the page was protected at WP:PP[10]. There is also a standing Rfc on this editor at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prasi90. Prasi90 was blocked before and asked to be unblocked to file an Rfar and I told NSLE to go ahead and unblock him. NSLE told Prasi90 that the unblock was contingent on him filing the Rfar, which he didn't do. Prasi90 did apologize, but has done this in the past as well, and ended up going right back to his old habits. When no Rfar was posted and after review of the editing history, I decided a long term block was in order. NSLE sanctioned the block[11] and Hamster Sandwich said he was thinking of unblocking and mentoring Prasi90, but didn't follow through with this. I said that would be fine, but I was not going to have anything else to do with this editor. If someone wants to unblock so...but I am NOT going to help anyone who has anymore difficulties in regards to this situation. I get one more insulting email from him, I'm simply going to contact his service provider.--MONGO 04:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
See also, block log for IP[12]--MONGO 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected his users pages and am watching them. If something happens which justifies protecting again please do so. Fred Bauder 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I went and unprotected his IP page as well.--MONGO 08:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
He's recently posted a listing of comments constructed by MONGO at earlier dates, for Fred to include in the impending rfar. I reproduce it all below:

The following is a (not yet complete)request for de-administratorship/disciplinary action against the user MONGO.I ask Fred to please post this on my behalf alongwith the RfAr.

Statements made by MONGO to Prasi90 which seem to be uncivil/rude/unprofessional in nature when compared to the tone in which Prasi90 communicates with MONGO.These statements show that Mr.MONGO uses his blocking powers to harass Prasi90-especially with permanent and month-long blocks. Urges Prasi90 to "have fun" writing Anti-American "nonsense" outside Wikipedia.

Urges Prasi90 to "grow up" and "be a good scout" since "this (Wikipedia) is not a playground".Also asks Prasi90 "Want to be blocked again for disruption?" in what seems to be a threatening manner.

Do you have anything constructive to add to Wikipedia? I am inclined to think that you do not.--MONGO 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to write an encyclopedia or do you want me to enforce a block on you for disruption. I'm about done with your uselessness. Oh, and no question mark.--MONGO 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comment seems to be particularly aggressive.

Here,in line 173 MONGO says-"Do you want a month long block...I'll be glad to give you one",seems again to be an aggressive statement

This editor has contributed nothing of worth to this project and in light of the incessant trolling and harassment of several editors, the one week block is quite lenient.--MONGO 09:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase which has been highlighted by me again seems to be judgemental and uncivil.

On an unrelated note, I believe dear Prasi90 will require much more than this to request an de-sysoping and explain the reasoning for his disruption.-ZeroTalk 11:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The user whined on IRC last night, also complaining that MONGO was stalking this user. As the block log suggests, there were only two blocks issued by MONGO, and the other 3 or 4 were issued by other people. I personally would not unblock. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary K. Sponze[edit]

Mary_K._Sponze (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is engaging in a very strange pattern of behavior. I tagged "her" article Movement to End Woman's Suffage a possible hoax; she tagged my user page as a hoax [13] and has been making personal attacks [14], removing test notices from her talk page, and other such disruptive behavior. I posted to WP:AIV but I also wanted to post here as the AIV notice will be removed (whether or not she is blocked) and I'd like someone to keep an eye on this. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Sample edit: [15] Antandrus (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential edit war on the articles about the United Nations[edit]

Dear admin, I would like seek your help in solving an edit dispute related to several articles about the United Nations, such as United Nations Security Council, International Court of Justice, United Nations Economic and Social Council etc. Each of those articles contains the name of the organization / department / agency in all the six official languages of the United Nations. (The six official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish.) But User:Raul654 is recently, unilaterally, very actively, deleting the official names except the name in English. I asked him to seek a consensus in Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Alternate_names first before he delete any information from the articles. However, it seems that he is still deleting the information from the articles. I am afraid that would invoke an edit war. I hope that you can help us to stop his deletion, and encourage all Wikipedians to discuss, ask for other people's opnion, and seek a consesus, before they delete information from the article. I sincerely want to avoid an edit war, and I hope that you could solve the dispute. Thank you. - Alan 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, we try to keep foreign names down to a bare minimun. What I suggest is that you do not add the templates, but check and see if the articles in the said languages are created at AR, ZH, FR, RU and ES Wikipedias and add interwikilinks. If that is done, then just do not add the templates again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. In my opinion, it is already a common practice for the articles about nations or international organizations to include the name in the non-English official languages. I don't see any points for making any exceptions for the United Nations, which is one of the most important inernational organizations. Furthermore, as I pointed out in the discuss page of one of those disputed articles, I think it is especially important to include the names of the non-English official languages in the English Wikipedia. As English is becoming a common language for international communication, or even a worldwide language, nowadays. English has the importance of being a bridge between people who speak different languages to overcome the language barrier. Unlike the Wikipedia in other languages, the English Wikipedia has a lot of contributors and readers from many different countries, which includes a lot of non-English-speaking countries. It would also be helpful for English speakers who are searching information about the United Nations, if they can see the terms in official languages all in one page, rather than guessing which word is the official name in an article written in a foreign language. (Some English articles don't even have a corresponding article in some other languages.) While the Wikipedias in a lot of other languages also include the English name of the United Nations in their respective articles, it would be fair for the English Wikipedia to include the names in those languages as well. I hope you guys could understand that.

But no matter what, it is very important to ask for the opinions of more Wikipedians of different origins, so that the consensus would be a widely accepted one, rather than one dominated by a small number of Americans who only speaks English. I don't appreciate the fact that some user is unilaterally deleting information from the articles without seeking a consensus. - Alan 05:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:United Nations Commission on Human Rights) There are arguments for both sides of the argument. The UN has many official languages, and thus the page should contain the translations. Raul's analogy that we should not include say, an Arabic translation on China, is not relevant, because Arabic is not an official language in China. So there is merit in adding the translations. However, I note that there are no translations on the United Nations page, so if we wanted something to follow, that would have to be it without the translations, although you can argue it either way really... But I think more discussion should occur before a revert war starts. enochlau (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that the analogy "adding the Arabic name on China" doesn't make any sense.
  • No one is trying to add Japanese or German to the articles about United Nation. Only the six official languages are added. I have to emphasize, again, that this has been a common practice in Wikipedia.
  • The name in all the five non-English official names of the United Nations was already put in the info box (on the right hand side of the article) long time ago. It wasn't added by me. For a long time, no one suggested that we have to delete them.
  • As I said before, I would like people to discuss and seek a consensus before deleting any information from the articles.

- Alan 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello all. I won't bore all of you with a detailed account of the prior behavior of Brazil4Linux, I'll leave it that he's a user with a long history of behavior who has a permanant ban. Recently, he created a sockpuppet with the username of Rick Browser and used it maliciously (personal attacks, stalking and other abusive behavior). He placed a vicious personal attack on RFA- then a checkuser revealed for sure that he was indeed a B4L sockpuppet and the sock was permablocked. Unfortunately, he anticipated his block and merely resorted to creating another sockpuppet. He shares the same edits AND he's voted once again against Jedi6's RFA. Of note- I'm not the only one who's noticed this. DeckKiller, a prominent administrator, has noticed this. Evading a ban, not to mention using it to create a duplicate oppose vote on an RFA... *sigh*. Daniel Davis 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar[edit]

Judging by the many articles he contributed to this project, User:Harisingh does his best to turn Wikipedia into a Sikh prayer book. I'm afraid that such statements as "fundamentalists thrust Islam by hook or by crook... by sexual harassment and forcible abductions of the daughters of Hindus and other satanic misdeeds" are liable to bring WP into disrepute. I put the article on RfC, but nobody cared to comment. User:Dbachmann added some necessary tags, yet Harisingh removed them within minutes. So what is to be done now? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick/Halliburton Shill, sockpuppetry and disruption[edit]

Halliburton_Shill (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked for an inappropriate user name, and his user page was deleted as an attack page. He had been involved briefly in the Abortion article. As he was blocked for his user name, rather than for misconduct, he was free to return under a new identity, and I suspected very soon that Pro-Lick (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was Halliburton Shill under a new name, with the same POV, the same rudeness towards people who opposed his POV, and the same habit of deleting other editors' comments from his talk page.

Pro-Lick began to edit war, violated 3RR several times (generally in his effort to remove "death" from the definition of abortion), and inserted extraordinarily POV edits into the abortion article. See for example, this (which he put in after I had said on the talk page that the word "death" doesn't imply that the fetus is human, and that I had recently taken antibiotics to kill an infection, and which is probably a violation of WP:POINT), and this. He was disruptive on the talk page as well, inserting links to comics and cartoons designed to ridicule the opposing POV.

He was blocked earlier this week for 3RR. During the block, some new users began to revert to his version. It was reported at WP:RFCU, and Essjay found that AbortMe (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Cry_Me_a_Shill (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and Vote_Machine_Malfunction (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) were the same user as Halliburton Shill and Pro-Lick. There was also technical evidence strongly suggesting that Undermined (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Ban.wma (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) were connected to the Pro-Lick sockpuppets. Another suspected sockpuppet, Curettage (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) started editing after the check was run, and so there are no results for that editor.

Despite being reset a few times, Pro-Lick's block expired today, and he edited his user page to link to his blog. The blog encourages people to come and disrupt Wikipedia, and to edit war.

Thursday 30 March
And speaking of spying extremists ... if you're looking for some interactive fun, head over to Wikipedia's entry on Abortion. Only need to make up a username and password to sign-up. In return, you get to edit any entries you like, your own user page, and a chat page.
They are having a fit over me in their little chat area. I am Pro-Lick, BTW. They didn’t like my other name. Apparently in their quest to put their enemy to death, they’ve been accusing other users of being me and banning them.
Make the definition beautiful. You'll get plenty of funny messages in return. There are some real-life religious fanatics trying hard to control the content, and any changes that don't include "death" drive them into a frenzy.
Some suggestions:
  • Abortion liberates the uterus.
  • Abortion is like a shower for the uterus.
  • Abortion cleanses the uterus of bio-contaminants.
  • Abortion is fertilization for flowers.
  • Abortion frees the uterus of extremist elements.
  • Abortion liberates the female from imposed pregnancy.
  • Abortion liberates the female from a pregnant dictatorship.
I’ll stop by tonight some time and contribute. Enjoy yourselves and don’t take them seriously. Don’t respond (unless you want to prod them a bit further). Like the supreme court, none of them actually listen. You get 3 changes per 24 hours on any article, so you can switch your changes back twice if someone undoes them. Then you can move on to the pro-life entry and make changes on it, and so on. Narf.

Some of those suggestions have found their way into edits in the last two days:

Annalina (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log):
  • edit summary: a beautiful def; edit: An abortion liberates the female from a pregnant [dictatorship]]].[16]
  • edit summary: another beautiful def; edit: An abortion cleanses the uterus of bio-contaminants. [17]
  • edit summary: grammar fix; edit: An abortion liberates the uterus.[18]
  • edit summary: refine; edit: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus, liberating the womb of terrorist organisms that threaten the woman's life.[19] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  • edit summary: beautify definition; edit: An abortion is fertilization for flowers.[20]

It's impossible to believe that this isn't deliberate disruption and trolling, and it is very clear that these edits either come directly from Pro-Lick or at least through him. I don't want to have to request a new user check every 24 hours, and I'd appreciate some help in dealing with this. Perhaps some other admins could keep an eye on Pro-Lick's behaviour and edits. I feel that Annalina should be blocked, for disruption and for being either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Pro-Lick, but I'm heavily involved in the article myself and have the opposite POV. I do not think that those edits could be just innocent, misguided NPOV violations, especially as some are taken verbatim from Pro-Lick's blog. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. AnnH 20:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: another edit from Annalina a few minutes ago changed the definition of abortion to:
An abortion liberates the uterus from an oppressive fetal regime.
The edit summary was: "an attempt to beautify the writing".[21]
This is not just a content dispute: this is consistent with what Pro-Lick was calling for on his blog — that people would join Wikipedia and change the definition of abortion to something like the examples quoted above. AnnH 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been banned for a week (and have learned my lesson) over much less than this crap that pro-lick is pulling. Good 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. - RoyBoy 800 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been busy IRL and have not been keeping as close an eye on this article as I usually do; I intend to immediately block anyone making this type edit if I see it, for disruption. If anyone disagrees, of course they are welcome to unblock and tell me how wrong I am. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Any suspected socks should continue to be reported at RFCU, as a check of one tends to turn up several others. I don't remember the ISP off the top of my hands, but I think a rangeblock could be considered without too much collateral damage if the sockpuppetry continues. Essjay TalkContact 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I hae blocked Pro-Lick because of his continuing disruptive behavior (inviting other people to disrupt Wikipedia is just the most recent), but I have been questioned about this by a couple of other editors, so have brought it here. If somebody wants to unblock him, I will not object, but I think he deserves to remain blocked until he agrees to stop the disruption. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've looked at any of this, but that sort of invitation to vandalize, combined with active vandalizing, seems entirely appropriate to block on sight. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I would block on sight anyone who inserts any of the phrases mentioned. --kingboyk 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I was very tempted to block Annalina, when I saw those edits, but was a bit uncomfortable doing so, as I edit that article and hold the opposite point of view. A more recent user check has confirmed that Curettage is definitely a Pro-Lick sockpuppet. Essjay's comments concerning Annalina were: "As for Annalina, if it smells like HS/PL it probably is, but the checkuser is inconclusive. There is, however, a vandal sock farm coming off that IP, mixed in with some legitimate editing." As far as I know, Annalina is the only editor with a known or suspected connection to Pro-Lick who is not currently blocked.
And by the way, I fully endorse Zoe's block of Pro-Lick. I have edited collaboratively with many Wikipedians who had opposite POVs from mine, but this is just disruption, trolling, and vandalism, with no intention to respect Wikipedia policy. AnnH 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I fully support blocking on sight any editors who make those edits you cited above, Ann. If Annalina makes another bad-faith edit, and I see it, a book will be thrown. Zoe's block of Pro-Lick seems to me entirely appropriate, under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. I've received an email from Pro-lick asking me to review that block (as, I suspect, have many admins). I replied on his/her talk page that I'm willing to support an unblock based on a convincing show of good faith - for which I'm not holding my breath. Naturally I still wouldn't unblock without input from others, including Zoe, the blocking admin. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I could have held my breath. Pro-Lick and I have exchanged emails, and I'm ready to support unblocking the account, and to unblock it or reduce the block myself based on our communication. I feel that Pro-Lick has expressed an understanding that hir behavior has crossed lines, a willingness to adapt and edit more cooperatively, and a desire to help with the project, evidenced by examples of better-faith editing shortly before the block. I've notified Zoe, and I'm also posting here, so if anyone has any concerns... -GTBacchus(talk) 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've told GT that I have no objections to an unblock. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will state frankly that I am not at all happy at the thought of Pro-Lick being unblocked. First of all, his/her blog still has that part encouraging people to come to Wikipedia and change the abortion definition to things like "abortion is fertilization for flowers" and to "get three reverts" every day, etc. Before I could approve of unblocking him, I would like to see some evidence that he realizes how inappropriate it was to make those edits, and I would like him to remove that section from his blog. Has he admitted to having used sockpuppets? I don't mean the Halliburton Shill = Pro-Lick, since he was entirely free to choose a new name and under no obligation to reveal that he was the same person. I don't want him to grovel, and I realize this might sound like making humiliating demands of a prisoner of war! But is there any indication at all that he sees his past behaviour as wrong or is he just hoping to be unblocked so that he can game the system and see how much he can get away with?

However, although I want to state that I'm not happy (so that it won't later be said that it was posted here and nobody objected), I will not oppose if GTBacchus really decides to unblock. I consider him to be one of the fairest of all the admins, and I have seen him treating leniently people who oppose his POV, so I shouldn't complain if I think he's over lenient to someone who opposes mine. :-) I have avoided blocking Pro-Lick and his sockpuppets myself mainly I have strong views in complete opposition to Pro-Lick's, although I try to respect NPOV. (If it weren't for that, Annalina would certainly be blocked by now!) So this is just my opinion. I object to the unblocking, but I support GTBacchus's right to use his own judgment, and am positive that he'll re-block if necessary. AnnH 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ann. I don't expect that unblocking Pro-Lick is a move that will make everyone happy, but I'm trusting what was said in our email communication - that this user understands that it's necessary to adapt and edit differently than they have previously. I think it's been made clear to Pro-Lick that just exasperating enough Wikipedians is a perfectly bannable offense, and that our Blocking policy says as much. I'm not too concerned about admissions of sock-puppetry as I am about the user's future behavior, which I'm sure will receive plenty of administrative attention. If Pro-Lick resumes being disruptive and uncivil, and doesn't display an improved editing style, then I will certainly not oppose any admin's reblocking, and may even do it myself.
I'd like to specifically address your question, "is there any indication at all that he sees his past behaviour as wrong or is he just hoping to be unblocked so that he can game the system and see how much he can get away with?" I'm not prepared to share the contents of any email without the sender's consent, but I'm comfortable saying that I'm satisfied that Pro-Lick sees that the editing style employed so far has been beyond "bold" and across the line into "dickish". Also, Pro-Lick has indicated a willingness to adapt to the community's standards, and adopt a less combative and more cooperative editing style. If it turns out I'm being overly naïve, and letting a troll back in, then it's here for everyone to see - I'll be the one who was wrong.
I request that all of us give Pro-Lick a renewed assumption of good faith now, and show the same patience and helpfulness that we would anyone who is yet unfamiliar with our customs and culture. I'm eager for Pro-Lick to see how positive an experience it can be, editing Wikipedia in a spirit of cooperation and respect, but that'll take a little bit of un-learning and re-learning, which we who are more experienced can really help with. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, GTBacchus. I see that you have now unblocked, and I'm certainly prepared to accept that and to give him (as you requested) a renewed assumption of good faith. I agree with you that admission of sockpuppetry is of far less importance than future behaviour. I do feel, however, that he should be prepared to remove from his blog the section where he encourages people to come and vandalize Wikipedia. Someone else has already made that point on his talk page, and I fully agreed; but I felt it would be counterproductive for me to post a message there saying the same thing! AnnH 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

GNAA 11th nomination[edit]

How long will it take before I am RFCed for cutting this AFD debate short? Also, I don't really think the nominator is a newbie at all, is it possible to get a check on who it is? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC for that? I wouldn't think so. Much as I would like to see the article deleted, it was kept at the end of March for the 10th time. There has to come a point when new listings are just disruption. --kingboyk 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Coudl be a User:Science3456 sock. He has edited Gay Nigger Association of America before, and AfD disruption is his thing. His user name, user page and the edits to Laundrymat seem to back this up. —Ruud 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well who knows, we may just have the 20th nom this year (but hopefully not). - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's going to really fault people for speedy closing GNAA nominations at this point. I've done it myself (the 10th I think?) Personally I think we should just delete the obvious bad faith nominations of GNAA, so as to cut down on the self-aggrandization factor. --W.marsh 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I think it would have to be Jimbo himself nominating GNAA for it not to be speedy kept. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I wish he would! Maybe I shall go over and suggest it to him :) --kingboyk 22:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs) and continued disruptive behavior[edit]

Benjamin Gatti, who has been sanctioned by arbcom for biased, tendentious editing, was recently banned from editing Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for disruptive behavior. He has begun to edit again, this time proposing that Category:Nuclear safety be renamed to "Nuclear danger" or "Nuclear risks" [22]. He also seeded the intro of Nuclear safety with a scare phrase of dubious relevance (Nuclear safety "is a term which underscores and understates the danger implicit in the use of nuclear materials") [23]. He has also injected inappropriate, biased statements into Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi: [24], [25] (where he writes as fact that Hashemi was given "preferential treatment" in his admission to Yale). Both of these types of edits continue a long-established pattern of biased editing to nuclear and political topics -- for which he has been placed on probation by the arbcom Final decision. I was one of the people who brought the original case against Benjamin so I don't feel it's appropriate for me to be counted in administrators voting to enforce his probation with a block, but for goodness sake, somebody else, please consider it. This has gone on long enough. Three administrators are needed to take any blocking action, and one is needed to enforce a per-article ban. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I echo kate's statement. I think we need a ban from any article involving the nuclear industry. This would include everything...categories, articles, etc. Ben isn't going to change. He's showed absolutely 0 inclination to change. In fact, he's become more troll-like since his arbcom case ended. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support enforcement. --Syrthiss 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support; obvious continued disruption. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support enforcement. Clear unreferenced POV after being sanctioned by ArbCom for same, protests ring hollow. Enough. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Comment the edits are sound and well sourced. "Nuclear safety" is an oxymoron as nuclear chain reactions are an inherently volatile proposition, and it is self-evident that the subject of Nuclear-safety - is a misnomer intended to convey a subconscious POV. I propose the more accurate Nuclear-risk and somebody blows a fuse. Yale did absolutely give preferential treatment to Sayed based on his association with a human-rights abusing organization - this is well reported by the Times - or is someone suggesting with a straight face that Sayed's fourth grade education made him more qualified than thousands of other applicants? - Some of which defended this country and the principles enumerated in the Constitution at the risk of their own lives? Please Benjamin Gatti 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's three administrators needed for a block. Now someone needs to place it. 04:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Someone needs to block him from anything involving nuclear energy until his probation is up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've banned Benjamin from Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi and Nuclear safety and talk pages, and blocked him for one week. This is my first ArbCom enforcement block, so if anyone disagrees with the exact measures I've taken (especially the other supporting admins), please say so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible Zephram Stark sockpuppet[edit]

Fear of ISMs (talk · contribs). this edit at the little noticed Battery electric factory flat truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is identical to this edit (see Batteries section) of previous sockpuppet. Also terrorism-themed info on his user page. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

They also have similar styles of edit summaries. JoshuaZ 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Now, concerned about verification of image uploaded by ZS, currently on ifd: this edit. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
After this [26] I indef blocked. Thoroughly inappropriate and likely a sock anyway. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a mildly clever trick, I don't think I've seen that one before. JoshuaZ 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hell, I fell for it. I notice nobody is bothering to extend ZS's six-month timer. I'm unilaterally making his block indefinite; I'm assuming there's consensus for a community ban in this case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone revert his talk page to this version and protect. He is banned, and should not be allowed a forum for posting his essays. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At least give the dude credit - he's running rings round you guys. He's the Beatles, you're the stuffy old aldermen of Birmingham Alabama, trying (in vain) to ban his records. Me? I'm Lester Bangs: I love this subversive rock 'n' roll. Anyone got any cough medicine?

it's hard to tell, hard to tell, hard to tell, when all your love is in vain, all your love is in vain

ElectricRay 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Let's see. You: 63 mainspace edits. Us stuffy old aldermen: 13,000 between the four of us just in this little interchange. You: Arguing at every juncture to let a destructive editor continue being destructive, supported by nobody except himself and yourself, assuming there is a difference. Us stuffy old aldermen: Building an encyclopedia. The fans can decide. If they think Stark is the Beatles, they'll let us know. Me, I think he's more akin to Wild Man Fischer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you alleging I'm a sock of Zephram? FIE UPON THEE! ElectricRay 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. I haven't been FIED for decades! Wow! -- Interesting. It actually feels pretty good, compared to many other possible retorts. I think I shall take up occasionally FYING others; there's something special about the sensation, I suspect, from both sides. (Does anyone know what it actually means?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an archaic word denoting shock, outrage or disgust. One should be careful not to overuse it, I find. I think Wild Man Fischer is quite a good analogy: he seems a pretty neat guy. And you have to admit, Zephram is pretty funny. He's got JW chasing shadows all over the show. And for all JW's studied outrage, I think Wild Man Stark's essays are worth throwing 10 cents in the hat for. Are you taking anything for your editcountitis, by the way? Ever tried Romilar? ElectricRay 16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ZS is now quite the effectively annoying troll. Nobody is denying that he is a troll, and it's not surprising that there are people who find trolls funny -- without supporters like you, trolls would mostly be growing hair on their palms. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If not, you may want to try some Fukitol for your wikistress. It works wonders for me. – ClockworkSoul 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Medule (talk · contribs) is continually reverting articles relating to Croats and Croatia, inserting factually inaccurate data and breaking the 3RR. He has refused to discuss on numerous ocassions and has been disrupting these articles for over a month. He has also been using sockpuppets like User:Purger and User:Purrger and has ignored repeated warnings to stop vandalizing. Here are just some of the articles he has been disrupting with his reverts - Battle of Vukovar, Croatia, Human rights in Croatia, Borovo Selo raid, History of modern Croatia, and many more. Can someone please warn and/or block him? Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Medule is nothing more than an arrogant vandal with a highly biased opinion and will stop at nothing to further his Serbian propaganda and lies. This user should be banned from Wikipedia, because he has no useful edits and only makes life harder for those who try to maintain Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopaedia. --Flag of Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2006).svg Flag of Canada.svg Boris Malagurski 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support some kind of action. Medule and his numerous sockpuppets have been forcing the same edits for months now, even deleting or rewriting entire paragraphs in an inflammatory manner without any discussion or collaboration whatsoever. His obsession is wasting the time of many users--including my own--and that time could be better spent on actual contributions rather than on endless reverts. --AHrvojic 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


User:Hipocrite removed a sockpuppet message from User:Hpuppet ([27]). Due to the closeness in name and the edit, perhaps User:Hipocrite is a sockpuppet as well? Hopefully, someone can check this out. joturner 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser is this way.:-) Regards —Encephalon 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fairly probable but a sockpuppet should be done just to be sure. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath (talk · contribs)[edit]

This one is long overdue. This guy has been asking for trouble it looks like for a long time, and somehow has avoided it. Hidden agenda, confirmed sockpuppeting, sneaky editing, vandalism, personal attacks, the works...he has already been blocked for 48 hrs for 3RR Recommend: blocking for extended period...give him some time to smell the roses...Also - articles in question below probably require arbitration Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, Mahavatar Babaji, Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji - there has been bickering going on for months now, with no resolution. main users in question are Adityanath (talk · contribs) and hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs)

  • earlier citations
an/i [28]sockpuppets[29]
  • most recent
[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]


  • personal attacks/incivility
[38][39][40][41][42]in citation tag [43][44][45]
  • original research
[46][47][48]interprets his sources to mean the opposite of what they actually meant [49][50][51]intentional misinterpretation [52] used immaterial reference to bolster his thesis of conflicting views[53][54]no basis for this [55]misinterprets to bolster his thesis [56]original research - uses leading-words to bias reader [57][58]misrepresentation of fact [59]writing his thesis on wikipedia [60][61][62]interpretation and false in context [63][64][65]misrepresenting source [66]demonstrates bias [67]
  • removal/sneaky vandalism or edits
false claim of mediator opinion [68]false claim that section was deleted - it was integrated in main body [69]not a PA [70][71]claims to abide by mediator decision, but does whatever he wants in practice[72][73][74]to avoid punishment he removed an admin notice [75]removed notice to avoid consequences [76]disingenuous tags and vandalism [77]disingenuous tags and vandalism [78]removed citation exposing original research [79]disingenuous tags and vandalism [80]shows hipocrisy [81] when previously he said you can't add conflictingviews of conflicting views[82] disingenuous tags and vandalism [83]removes edits that falsify his claims [84][[85][86]numerous ways he tries to undermine views he disdains [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]another false statement to create bias [97]false statement to try to get out of trouble [98]
  • more on:
    • his own talk page
[99]removing warnings - [100]threat - [101]removing warnings - [102]
    • kriya yoga page
    • Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page
[104][105][106][107]deceptively trying to weaken argument [108]weakens syntax [109]then claims it to be nonsensical [110][111][112][113][114][115][116]
    • babaji page
[117] sneaky removal [118] [119] [120]
    • nath page
tags [121] tags [122]removing discussion [123]3RR:[124][125][126] POV original research edits [127][128][129]

Kalagni Nath 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It sounds to me like there are multiple issues of a more chronic nature here. Perhaps an RfC might be better suited for considering the matter, rather than the admin noticeboard. —Encephalon 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Asb2111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

I have indefblocked this user whose stated aim is "A group of over 325 people have signed up to destroy this website from Columbia University". [130] His edits were mainly spamming of the statement "SORMTACULAR HERRABISM!" and variants therof to numerous pages. He also created the nonsensical Sormtacular herrabism article, now speedied. As I'm still gaining my admin legs around here, comments please. 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, enough, he was coming from a Columbia University IP. It seems static enough; if it keeps up, let me know and I'll nail the IP. Essjay TalkContact 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Err, did you mean he wasn't coming from a Columbia University IP? 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I suspect mild humor myself,;-) —Encephalon 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Damn that internet communication thing :-( I presume that since I'm not locked in the stocks with a mob throwing tomatoes at me that the block is OK? 11:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I mean he was. It's odd, because usually these kinds of claims come from crackpots with no affiliation to the place they claim to be from; this guy was actually from Colombia. Essjay TalkContact 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for similar nonsense and let you know. 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's see. First solitary edit Feb 11 to the User page, after which there was complete silence until today when it went on a vandalism spree involving some 20 odd pages. Ample warnings on talk page unheeded. The threat was placed on a mainspace talk page. It may well be a joke, but there is no way to be certain. Regardless, it's a very new account that has essentially only engaged in vandalism, so certainly a ban isn't inappropriate. I would probably use {{Indefblocked-vandalism}}, but this is minor. —Encephalon 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A discussion with Columbia University's system admins would probably be a good idea. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I blocked Hyphen5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 48 hours after seeing this edit. I don't know if everyone else thinks the block is unneccesary/too long/too short, so any feedback would be accepted, along with anybodies view on the matter. FireFoxT [15:57, 4 April 2006]

Well, he's clearly been creating a stir judging from comments on his talk page, but I think 48 hours for saying "fuck the arbcom" is a little too harsh, especially with no warning. I would probably have just reverted the edit and warned him to calm down. Then if he didn't, a block might be appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. At the point of blocking I wasn't too sure about the situation, so I thought I better block until it got cleared up. At the moment I'm trying to find out why it was he did that, so far all I have on his talk page is "Woops, my bad". FireFoxT [16:12, 4 April 2006]
The block is fair. It seems less for saying "Fuck the Arbcom" (which, IMO, is OK), then how he said it - as disruptive vandalism. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I see he has been editing a number of contentious articles but seems to have been keeping pretty cool about it, and 48hrs may be too long for a first offense. However, the "F the Arbcom" and "Whoops my bad" edits seem to be completely out of character. Could his account have been hijacked? (forgot to log out of a shared computer?) I suggest keeping blocked until he contacts you with a more substantial explanation, and unblock sooner than 48hrs if the explanation seems reasonable. Thatcher131 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also deleted all his own userboxes???? Thatcher131 16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
We have a reply... it looks like he's quitting. FireFoxT [21:23, 4 April 2006]


A user who has left wikipedia after intimidation by other users asked for his user and talk pages to be removed. This has been done but User:Frelke was discovered to have copies of the talk pages archived. This seems strange and unnecessary especially as there may be a link with one of the users doing the intimidating (they are both gamers). Can these pages be deleted or has the user the right to store them? It seems a misuse of wikipedia to me and a slightly worrying move on the part of the user. AnnH has asked him to delete them but he has refused. The files are here: User talk:Frelke#Robsteadman Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally." (Wikipedia:User page). I would have thought they either shouldn't have been deleted in the first place; or, if they were correctly deleted, the guidelines can be reasonably extended to a fork of the user pages. Deleting the one copy but not the other achieves nothing, right? --kingboyk 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Barring CSD-U1, our version of meatball:RightToVanish is ad-hoc at best (personally I don't think it's appropriate here, where keeping track of who said and did what is important). Keeping copies of someone's talk page is generally rather petty (and may well refect more poorly on the keeper than the original user) but I don't believe that, in general, it rises to the level where admin action is called for. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The user in question User:Robsteadman had a vicious personal attack made on his page yesterday by User:Count Of The Saxon Shore which I can't show as the page has been deleted but admin Gator1 spotted it and removed it so can confirm. This user has pursued Rob for several months and tried to get his wiki article deleted Robert Steadman. He has apologised but I think Rob was uncomfortable with being well known and identifiable and would like to just "disappear". Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 17:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Frelke's copies, since they were copies of deleted material. If anything needs to be restored, and I don't feel strongly about this either way, it's Robsteadman's original user and user talk pages. When asked about what he was doing, Frelke made personal attacks against Robsteadman; in light of this, I think we're dealing with a case of harassment. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia