Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive89

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Possible advertising scam[edit]

Something suspicious has been going on with articles related to the Travolta family, specifically in relation to the article Rikki Lee Travolta and a book written by him My Fractured Life with the various users below adding Rikki (and removing other Travoltas) as members of the Travolta family and adding information to various articles in relation to this book. It is claimed that Rikki is son of a Michael Travolta, an Australian and supposedly a brother of John Travolta but I cannot any reliable source that lists a Michael Travolta as a member of John Travolta's family (this link lists only Joey, Sam, Ellen, Ann and Margaret as siblings of John).

These users seem to be involved: Special:Contributions/Icemountain2, Special:Contributions/DogStar123, Special:Contributions/Cokenotpepsi, Special:Contributions/Infinitytoday, Special:Contributions/ScholasticBks, Special:Contributions/Bostic5.0, Special:Contributions/Hardwoodhaywood, Special:Contributions/Paramountpr, Special:Contributions/Sonybmg, Special:Contributions/65.209.181.195, Special:Contributions/68.74.180.2, Special:Contributions/68.74.121.143. Arniep 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated the articles in question for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#Rikki_Lee_Travolta. Arniep 01:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The article should be indelibly flagged as advertising and, unless a user can document the herdity claims, also as unsubstantianted and probably bogus. But behind the advertising the article contains some encyclopedia facts. All I am saying, is give flags a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talkcontribs) 16:17, 5 April 2006
Well two users did try to flag it as advertising but it was removed every time by the numerous sock puppets listed above. Arniep 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I started the Annie Travolta page and have been a contributor to many of the Travolta family pages including Margaret Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta, Annie Travolta, and John Travolta. Many of those changes are reverting vandalism. It is right there in the history. There is no way, shape, or form that could remotely be confused as being in an “advertising scam”. I have NEVER removed members of the Travolta family from listings. I have worked hard to keep the integrity in tact. I think upon closer inspection you’ll see there was an influx of attempts by an anon (66.121.40.132) to vandalizing different Travolta family sites [1] (changing facts without providing sources or citations). When the anon seemed to be starting a revert war with different users I followed Wiki policy [2]and contacted them on their discussion page [3] to request documentation for the changes being made.
Its been noticed that you have made several repeated changes to the family elements of the John Travolta page and related pages. The policy at Wikipedia is to try to avoid revert wars going back and forth over the same territory. As follows are what we have confirmed as members of the Travolta family: Margaret Travolta, John Travolta, Ellen Travolta, Joey Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta; Jack Bannon, Rachel Travolta, Nicole Travolta, Michael Salvatore Travolta, Helen (Burke) Travolta, Kelly Preston, Salvatore Travolta, Molly Allen Ritter, Jonathan Rau, Jet Travolta, Tom Fridley, Sam Travolta, Ella Blue Travolta, Valentino Travolta, and Annie Travolta. This is not an all inclusive list, but all those listed are confirmed. In respecting Wikipedia policy it is always necessary to approach differences of opinion in good faith. Although we have documented each of these individuals as relatives (of different levels of removal or closeness of course) within the extended Travolta family, ff you disagree with any person(s) on this list please provide the documentation and we should be able to come to a simple understanding relatively quickly (no pun intended). We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
The anon (66.121.40.132) did not respond. I assumed the matter was dropped but now I find out I am being lumped in some kind of witch hunt accusation by Arniep who seems to have some vendetta [4] based on feelings and assumptions without citing any sources and discounting such sources as TV Guide [5] and The Chicago Sun Times [6] as "just sites used by agencies".[7]
Firstly, the TV guide link says "There's also some kind of grassroots campaign on behalf of singer/theater actor Rikki Lee Travolta". A grassroots campaign led by who??? Secondly the Chicago Sun Times link is inexplicably not at the Chicago Sun Times website. Thirdly, the person you contacted had removed Rikki Lee Travolta from all the Travolta pages saying "Rikki Lee is not part of this clan" after you had added that name (see Special:Contributions/66.121.40.132). Arniep 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at Arniep's talk page [8] you see a long history of jumping to conclusions and waging war on opinions that are different than Arniep's. Not the spirit of good faith [9] that is intended and required for successful interaction. Sorry - one person's opinion shouldn't outweigh the facts. And Arniep is trying to make wide sweeping changes purely on opinioin without citing facts and ignoring the facts that do exist. The Rikki Lee Travolta [10] page appears to (now) have good documentation. The other page named: My Fractured Life [11] needs to be cleaned up and is so marked. This is nothing more than a witch hunt if you ask me and I'm offended to have been included in it because I was the one who tried to follow Wiki policy [12] to avoid this kind of pointless McCarthyism. Paramountpr 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but we can only use reliable sources of information (see WP:RS). Arniep 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rikki Lee Travolta is a real person and a relative of John per Daily Variety, the Chicago Sun-Times, Toronto Star, and others, per a Lexis/Nexis search. For example, from the New York Post in 2002,
THERE'S a strange postscipt to our item the other day about the Internet rumor that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have created a computer-generated actor called "Rikki Lee Travolta." A rather odd actor named Rikki Lee Travolta does in fact exist, and held a press conference in Chicago Tuesday to prove it. "It's good to be alive," he stated. "I am an actor. I am a human being." Travolta, who is of Italian and Native American extraction and claims some family connection with John Travolta, appeared in "West Side Story" on Broadway. He wrote a novel, sports a gunshot wound and claims a doctorate in religious studies. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Whether this person is notable enough for an article is another matter. Thatcher131 20:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no reliable evidence that he is even related to John Travolta, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#Rikki_Lee_Travolta for further info. Arniep 23:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See analysis at Talk:Rikki Lee Travolta and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta (although even if this is self-promotion by a non-notable person, hard to see why it should have been brought to AN/I). Thatcher131 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm named in this "scam" and only just found out about it from another editor named in the "scam". It turns out (it looks to me) that this FALSE claim is all some well orchestrated attack by a vandal trying to delete a page about Rikki Lee Travolta for some personal reason. Trash. Absolute Trash. Total Abuse of AN/I and Articles for Deletion. A total Abuse of the System. 65.209.181.195 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken in naming me in this. Hardwoodhaywood 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see this user's contributions Special:Contributions/Hardwoodhaywood. Arniep 12:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I would specifically take a look at this one: [13]. Fan1967 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that an advertising scam is something I am hoping to be a part of. Is there a way to get univited? Did I do something wrong? thanx Dramalover 14:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you have been caught up in this as you removed some names from Travolta articles. I removed your name. Arniep 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ManiF[edit]

I've just received this message on my Talk page. As I'm involved in a dispute with User:ManiF, I don't want to get involved with this, but a quick investigation indicates that there is some substance to the complaint (note, on the other hand, that there are also editors who are engaged in the opposite abuse: trying to insist that Persians were actually Arabs... see Al-Karaji, for example). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mel Etitis,
I want to report the fanatical patriotism behaviour of a user User:ManiF. The following are only recent examples.
Geber, although he was born in Iran(part of the arab empire at that time), his ethnicity is with most certainity arab: Columbia Encyclopedia , Ancients & Alchemists , Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia .
In the articles, where his ethnicity is not important, In good faith I removed info regarding his arab ethnicity, but this user inserted "Iranian-born" infront of his name to make the impression that he was Iranian.
If I am wrong on this than please let me know. If not, then I ask you please to do what ever in your hands is to stop the fanatical patritiosm of this user, which is a threat to the success and credibality of Wikipedia.
Thank You. Jidan 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no substance to this "complaint". I've not violated any policy either, and nor would I take any action that is not in conformity with Wikipedia rules and regulations. User:Jidan on the other hand, has been breaking wikipedia rules regularly (3RR, sockpuppetry, false accusations, personal attacks as per above), and the one who originally removed the term "Iranian-born" from those articles despite the fact that Gaber, regardless of his Arab [or Persian] ethenicty which is itself disputed by contradictory sources [14], was infact Iranian-born, born in the city of Tus, according to all the sources. I just restored the term. --ManiF 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with both User:ManiF and User:Jidan (and several other) over long period of time at Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, and having looked over several of their other disputes, I can say that there is some thruth to Jidan's accusation, but that it applies to himself as well. Both (and several others) are using Wikipedia as a battleground, and in their little nationalistic war over the etnicity of several ancient scienetist have caused/are causing a signifinct amount of "collateral damage" to the articles they edit. I find this such a problem that I'm, as a third party, seriously considering starting a RfC or even arbitration against them. —Ruud 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Ruud, and would be more than happy to support any wide action to settle this ethnic war. While I do agree that Jidan's concerns are not without merit, suffice it to say, speaking as someone who's been investigating this entire matter for some time now, Mani is easily the best of these users. A cursory look at what's been going on here and at a variety of related pages shows a broad spectrum of personal attacks, ethnic slurs, and ingnorant head-butting galore. While I certainly hope some other users/admins do look into the above topics, I firmly believe that only a case that looks at the situation as a whole, and all those involved in it, will end this fighting with some permanency. --InShaneee 19:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There's currently an RfAr against User:Aucaman, instigated by ManiF and friends, which will go to the heart of the matter. It has been my suggestion for a while to widen that case to the whole Iranian group (at least User:Zmmz, User:Kashk and User:ManiF). I'm not sure if all their opponents should also be collected in the same case. We're dealing with one central faction of Iranian editors here, but they battle on several fronts with several other groups (perceived as representing Kurdish, Turkish, Arabic and Jewish POVs against their monolithic Iranian national POV). Lukas (T.|@) 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is currently an ArbCom case involving me, as a concerned user, and user Aucaman who was reported for disruptiveness. Lukas, please refrain from constantly tagging me, or perhaps others as some sort of a gang, or nationalists etc. It is considered uncivil, so take time and please review Wikipedia:Civility. The mob you speak of does not exit; but, sporadic editors, concerned with a few unreasonable users, do. You yourself are involved in other fractions with other users in other articles, yet, I do not feel it is appropriate for [me] to comment on it. However please know that, constant finger pointing, and accusations to take attention away from some users who operate more on a political platform, rather than academia is not looked upon kindly by most admins. Refrain from making frivolous allegations and allow the system to investigate the ArbCom case properly. Zmmz 22:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a 'concerned user', the arbitrators have actually said they are accepting the case to view your behavior, as well. And speaking as an admin, I don't see anything wrong with Lukas' concern; after all, you have been blocked more than once in the past concerning the aforementioned issues. --InShaneee 22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did initiate the case as a concerned user, and the committee did accept to review my contributions as well, which is welcomed, and frankly fair. I was blocked once for a few minutes for Wikistalking, which was a misunderstanding from my part, since I had left a comment in the talk page of a certain user, requesting help from an admin, yet, you [InShaneee] then unblocked me minutes later. And, in the beginning, I was blocked for the 3RR, as well. None of these, however, were blatant attempts to manipulate the system, rather they can be attributed to inexperience with Wiki policies. As some of the admins may attest, I have tried very hard to compromise with numerous editors[15][16]zmmz (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Considering the kinds of edit warring and ethnically motivated personal attacks I've seen lately, I'm not entirely sure we aren't dealing with multiple groups here. Thusly, I do think that both sides of the issue should be put together in one case; it might take some time to sort out, but it would present a more balanced view of the issue, and have the advantage of being able to address innapropriate practices on both sides all at once. --InShaneee 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would also appreciate not being tagged as anything, all it takes is to assume good faith and have a NPOV. Most who have been involved in the disputes have been blocked at one point or another and in my opinion there is no reason for Lukas to take such special POV from the against-Iranian users view and name me and others everytime there is something going on. - K a s h Talk | email 10:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do not accept the current name callings such as 'ManiF and friends' and 'monolithic Iranian national POV', etc. I consider it to be very rude and out of order, I would like to invite everyone to be WP:Civil on this matter and do not call names and certainly do not back each other up against Iranian editors, in any case this only shows why it may look like we are against others! because to me it certainly looks like everyone is against us! - K a s h Talk | email 10:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:LukasPietsch's comments are in breach of several Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL which explicitly prohibit accusatory comments and classification of users based on racial, national, political, religious, and ethnic affiliations. --ManiF 14:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250[edit]

Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandy_Alexandre_%28porn_star%29&diff=prev&oldid=47412622 I have blocked WAS 4.250 indefinitely. The edit made deleted a request by Jimbo which has been honored. WAS_4.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been engaged in trolling in a variety of contexts; always taking positions which degrade Wikipedia. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Censorship&diff=47432420&oldid=47432080 seems designed only to disrupt.Fred Bauder 13:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to this block. As far as I can see he has contributed and continues to contribute in good faith to the encyclopaedia. The deletion of Jimbo's comment is unhelpful, but not grounds for an indefinite block in my opinion. Blocking of any kind should only have been considered if he did so repeatedly and after being warned. Maybe he missed Jimbo's name at the end - I myself deleted an Arbcom-mandated notice in good faith a few days ago and don't seem to have been blocked yet. His opinions on the inclusion of child pornography on Wikipedia aren't grounds for blocking either unless they reach the level of disruption or illegality. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The lack of any other edits on Brandy Alexandre and related pages, or anything else that would suggest a campaign to reveal her name, makes me more inclined to believe that the deletion of the notice was an accident of the sort I made. I'm open to correction. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to the block as well. No warning, no discussion, just bam an indefinite block. And the discussion he started at Wikipedia talk:Censorship was entirely good-faith and reasonable. Fred, please unblock him immediately. Angr (talkcontribs) 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this user mainly because I keep the Evolution article on my watchlist. WAS 4.250 is a good faith contributor there, so I don't think a summary indef. is in order. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But how do you explain how he got to the Brandy Alexandre page and and why he thought that edit had to be made? Fred Bauder 14:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While I am generally of the opinion that we treat vandals, trolls, kooks and those who are just out to disrupt the project far too leniently, I would ask you to reconsider this block. I have seen WAS 4.250 making lots of useful contributions to Influenza related articles and think a stern warning with the understanding that Jimbo's word is effectively law would be more appropriate here. If he continues with such actions after being warned, I would then go for an indefinite block. --GraemeL (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If he continues with such actions after being warned, I would start with a 24-hour block and progressively work up from there, same as for other people who are disruptive after being warned to stop. Surely indefinite blocks are only for pure-vandal accounts, proven sockpuppets, and ArbCom rulings to that effect! Jeez, you see something like this block and it's no surprise that some people write "This user is pissed off about admins ignoring policy" on their user page. Angr (talkcontribs) 14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but WAS 4.250 and I are disagreeing (Wikipedia talk:Censorship) in a manner that indicates he is willing to try to understand the other side of the debate. I'll put in a good word for his reinstatement. If one wants to know why he did something, asking him seems a good start. Even if it was WP:POINT indefinite seems a bit harsh. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur, discuss with WAS. I am neutral on the subject of unblock at this time. If it was POINT, it was a fairly blatant one, which requires serious examination. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Random article? RC patrol? Former Latter-day Saints? I've come across and edited weirder articles than that one. I'm not going to speculate on his motives, but I still believe it could have been a mistake. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. Fred Bauder 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

from my talk page[edit]

I have blocked you indefinitely based on this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandy_Alexandre_%28porn_star%29&diff=prev&oldid=47412622 Deleting an administrative request made by Jimbo is not acceptable behavior. I have characterized your recent activity as destructive trolling. Another example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Censorship&diff=47432420&oldid=47432080 seems designed only to disrupt. Fred Bauder 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

After discussion I have unblocked you. Your edit remains inexplicable. The lady in question has tried earnestly to move on. Fred Bauder 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Doggone it, now I don't have an excuse for getting a new hobby. I had just finishd convincing myself it was a blessing in disguise. Oh, well.

The second example was me discussing the issue of censorship on the talk page of a guideline proposal on censorship. The proposal is currently undergoing a poll. The poll already reveals the proposal does not have consensus. So the question arises, do we need a guideline dealing with people shouting "censorship" or people shouting "porn". Maybe. So I was illustrating the issue with a relevant recent incident.

Concening the article on the lady in question, I deleted two things in the article.

One thing I deleted was the factually inaccurate statement that her real world identity is unknown. That is both factually inaccurate and provably so with public accessable court documents. In this deletion I deleted the word "unknown" in the template on her.

The other thing I deleted was an out of date comment (in the article space, not the talk space) by Jimbo on 31 December 2005 saying:

As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article, please don't add Brandy Alexandre's real name to this article. And please treat SavvyCat with particular respect and understand that if she seems a bit touchy about this article, she has every right to be: it's about her. As a person with a biography about myself in Wikipedia which is frequently used as a place to attack me, I can say that Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this. --Jimbo --

It is clear that it is out of date because:

  • it says while we discuss the issues surrounding this article,
  • the discussion in question took place from 31 December, 2005 until 22 January 2006 with no further changes until 3 March 2006,
  • the talk page says In private email to me, Jimbo stated that he only originally removed the info pending proper sourcing, and only asked that the name not be re-added to the article while discussion was on-going regarding this issue on this talk page (see the hidden comments at the top of the article itself for Jimbo's request).,
  • and the talk page has not been edited since 24 January 2006.

Does that explain things? 4.250.198.204 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

An edit summary and/or an explanation on the article's Talk page were surely in order? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

please treat SavvyCat with particular respect and understand that if she seems a bit touchy about this article, she has every right to be: it's about her. As a person with a biography about myself in Wikipedia which is frequently used as a place to attack me, I can say that Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this. is a restatement of our policy on living persons and could be added to the top of every page of a living person and so I did not believe was meant to be permently at the top of this specific biography and thus claim more fairness for one person than another. It reads to me like a tempory comment meant to be removed as a whole at the appropriate time. So I did. I deliberately did not add her real name, as I thought it best for one bystander to declare the discussion over, and someone else to act or not act on that. 4.250.198.204 15:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you are starting the controversy up again. Why can't you have the courtesy to honor her personal request that her real name not be included in the article? Fred Bauder 17:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I diagree completely with your evaluation of my behavior and the results of my behavior. Let's focus on the results of my behavior and the results of your behavior. I quietly deleted an out of date message that is out of date by the criteria stated within it and furthermore that is now made unnecessary by the Presumption in favor of privacy section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which applies to all such cases and not merely this one. Blocking editors forevermore from editing this article is surely not your intent. Deleting the lie "unknown" removes the label "original name" leaving the casual reader with no clue the name given was not the original name. Now, your behavior restores the information to the article that there is an original name not given by the article thereby bringing attention to it. Your behavior has dragged this issue to the forefront of many administrators' notice when you could have simply asked me WTF on my talk page. You, Sir, are "starting the controversy up again", not I. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states:
Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article. If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out.

To the extent she keeps her real name from being noteable, it does not belong in the article by this guideline that did not yet exist when Jimbo typed his note. To the extent she makes it noteable, it does belong. If and when that occurs, I won't be the one to do it because I don't care enough about the issue to learn enough about her name's noteability to be able to make that judgement call. In summary, I have not done what you claim; you yourself have. Can we drop this now? Or do you wish to further add attention to a name you claim to want to not get attention? WAS 4.250 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine[edit]

Transferred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Ultramarine.

Talk Page Blanking/Vandalism[edit]

  • User:Eyeonvaughan continually blanks his own talk page, and has been warned against doing this numerous times, especially since he is currently the subject of a User Conduct RfC, most recently is here. As well, I archived my extremely long talk page today and he decided that I had actually blanked my page and decided to revert it. If I tell him to stop, he'll just continue doing it, I'd appreciate if someone else could step in. Thanks. pm_shef 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Eyeonvaughan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) just came back from a block for personal attacks. It looks like Deckiller gave him a 48 hour block for blanking. Thatcher131 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Users are entitled to blank or archive their talk pages at their discretion, CVU's insistence to the otherwise notwithstanding. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Archiving is, obviously, acceptable, however AFAIK, blanking a user talk page is considered inappropriate, particularly if it contains evidence of policy violations. Werdna648T/C\@ 17:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, why "CVU's insistence"? Perhaps you mean "despite the insistence of someone who is a member of the CVU"? If the CVU has been issuing directives like this, they forgot to send me the memo... Essjay TalkContact 10:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of no prohibition against blanking. I can think of several sysops who prefer it to archiving. It's not like he's deleting it or something. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Brandubh Blathmac[edit]

I have blocked Brandubh Blathmac (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for repeated insertion of POV material on Eamon de Valera, which has been consistently removed by a number of editors. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This user uses multiple socks and hops IP addresses to avoid blocks, so you'll still need to keep an eye on the article. See WP:RFAr#Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs) for the details. He's getting close to the point where I'm just going to indefinitely block all of his accounts on sight. --GraemeL (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Go admin abuse, yeh :) --Doc ask? 13:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that he is a sockpuppet of a user who in the past has been blocked for vandalism, is mounting the same attack campaigns on various articles and has a history of posting rascist abuse, I have blocked him indefinitely. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:69.194.137.183 and User:=Axiom=[edit]

I have blocked these users (the latter a sockpuppet of the first) for legal threats at Talk:Crossbow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Zadil[edit]

This user has been trolling Talk:Talmud for the last few weeks. It is obvious from the responses that his comments contribute little to the article, but are purely meant to infuriate. Request admin intervention and block on the basis of my earlier warning this his incitement amounts to trolling. JFW | T@lk 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Evianboy[edit]

This user continues to remove the "Scandal" section of the Peter Wentz article, which I have repeatedly argued for including on the article's talk page. Rather than defend his stance that the article should not be included, he continually removes the section with either a blank revision summary or with something like "not appropriate encyclopedic content" or "removing unnecessary info." An anonymous user placed an html comment above the section warning that its removal will be treated as vandalism, and I have since been giving him test warnings whenever he does it. I am sorry if I should not have given him test3 and test4 warnings before reporting him here. -VJ 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since he has only made one edit per day he has not violated the 3RR rule and this seems like a fairly typical content dispute that is unfortunately common on wikipedia. You can look into the steps of the dispute resolution process including putting out a request for comment on the article to get outside opinions from people who are not so close to the problem. Thatcher131 18:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Slanderous Comments[edit]

  • User:64.231.242.202 recently reposted slanderous and defamatory comments that on to my talk page (the comments had previously been archived). The comments were originally posted by User:Eyeonvaughan (who is also currently undergoing a User Conduct RfC) who had received a warning for them, this time, the AnonIP user reposted Eyeonvaughan's comments as if Eyeonvaughan had posted them himself, see the diff. This is getting rediculous. I consider these attacks to be extremely slanderous against my character and they are not appreciated. I very strongly request that strong action be taken against these two users. pm_shef 01:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Following my submitting of this report, the anon user added two nonsense warning templates to my page, see this diff and a Defamation NPA Warning here. Neither of these have any credibility or a result of any action on my part, its vandalism on the Anon Ip's part. Could an admin please remove these from my talk page and take action? pm_shef 01:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually the NPA warning would be credible since you are currently making legal threats, please stop threatening legal action since threatening legal action is against policy and is not warranted. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) I was not making legal threats, you'll see that I very clearly said "in other circumstances" and in any case, that has its own template and certainly not the defwarn large graphic warning, which is certainly not called for. Especially in the context of the anon editors contributions, all have been to my page and the page of the editor for whom I sponsored a User Conduct RfC. The incorrect information template and the defamation template both are not called for. If you disagree, show me where I have committed this serious vandalism. pm_shef 02:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check the time stamps on the diffs. 64.231.242.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) posted the {{Defwarn}} and {{NPA}} tags to pm_shef (talk · contribs) after posting this personal attack [17] to pm_shef's talk page. The IP resolves to Bell Canada and it should be noted that Eyeonvaughan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is in that part of the country and is currently on block. I can't find anything in pm_shef's contribs for the last 24 hours that would constitute anything remotely like a PA except for the use of the word "slander" here, after 64.231.242.202 reinstated Eyeonvaughan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) attack calling him corrupt and accusing him of bribery--basically wikilawyering by template. Can someone at least short-term block the Canadian IP addresses that pop up from nowhere to attack pm shef almost on a daily basis? Thatcher131 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:MonMan[edit]

MonMan was suggested as a sockpuppet of me by User:Mais oui! (a user that disagrees with me). It was proposed on Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser on 08:47, 7 April 2006 and blocked indefinitely a mere 4 hours later at 12:51, 7 April 2006 by User:JzG (an admin who supports Mais oui!s PoV). There has been no evidence produced and no evidence asked of either myself or MonMan. This is clearly a malicious block and should be reversed as soon as possible. Owain (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is MonMan actually a sockpuppet of yours, or do you refute the claim? CheckUser evidence is not open to the general public anyway. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is here; he refutes the claim, asserting MonMan is a friend but a different person. Essjay says meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry cannot be ruled out. Angr (talkcontribs) 14:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why has the sockpuppet MonMan (talk · contribs) been blocked, but the sockpuppeteer Owain (talk · contribs) has not? Kind of a waste of everybody's time if we uncover sockpuppetry, but then do nothing about it? What kind of message does that send to the massed ranks of vandals?--Mais oui! 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As Owain strongly denies the allegation put before him, I think there should be no further action taken until all sides have been fairly heard and all evidence and discussion has been seen. Blocking a 'sock' only 4 hours after it was alleged to be one and not giving its supposed user a chance to respond or defend himself strikes me as a very unfair and one-sidedt action, and a breach of admin powers. Mais oui! has had numerous content disputes with Owain and his characterisation of events should be acknowldged to be somewhat one-sided. Sysops, on the other hands, should be at pains to be even-handed, and this has not, so far as I can see, been the case with the blocking of MonMan. Stringops 16:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I must admit too, I would have looked better if the block had been applied by a third-party admin; given his past history with Owain, JzG should have recused himself and referred it to a third opinion. Can anyone suggest a way in which Owain and MonMan could prove they were different users, to the satisfaction of everybody involved? Does there exist a prescribed method that can be used? Aquilina 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about Mais oui's intent to have both accounts blocked. Even if it is a true case of sockpuppets don't we usually allow one account to edit if it does so productively? I also wonder in general, if 2 friends both edit wikipedia and have similar interests, what's wrong with that? It is certainly a problem if they coordinate their activities to be intentionally disruptive, how can one fairly distinguish between coordinate disruption and simply a case of similar interests (especially when the editor they are in conflict with pushes for them both to be banned). Thatcher131 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn Thatcher131 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Not being involved with the conflict, I think this could certianly be the case. I'm afraid that while I do trust JzG's judgement often, I don't see this as cut and dried as him and Mais oui feel it is. If there was meatpuppeting going on, one vote isn't going to swamp many discussions here on Wikipedia. Both accounts have a long history at Wikipedia, so its not like someone was recruited just for that vote. So, in this administrator's opinion we should unblock MonMan. If there really is disruption planned from some collusion we can always reblock. --Syrthiss 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Only just seen this has make ANI. I am conserned by the block on User:MonMan as I believe we should AGF and take Owain at face value on this; i.e. MonMan is a friend, but not a sockpuppet. The checkuser was not fully conclusive. I also agree with Thatcher131, and request that a third-party admin looks at this block. See also this on my talk page. Thanks, Petros471 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • MonMan has only 30 or so edits but Owain has over 4000 [18] and has been a wikipedian for 2-1/2 years. I suppose it's possible that Owain created a sock account or recruited his friend for the specific purpose of defeating Mais oui in a vote on renaming UK counties. It's certainly not typical puppetmaster behavior, though. Thatcher131 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn Thatcher131 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While he only has 30 or so edits, his account was created ~mid 2005. Thats a lot of forward thinking for a puppetmaster or meat recruiter. --Syrthiss 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Comments after further analysis I withdraw my defense of MonMan (talk · contribs). See below at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Owain (talk • contribs) Thatcher131 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The history is highly suspicious, the checkuser evidence also supports it, but MonMan emailed me assuring me he is not Owain - only one sock has previously emailed me and that was from an address on the puppeteer's own domain, which was pretty clueless. Under the circumstances I will accept it at face value - and I would have dealt with it sooner if I had been able. Just zis Guy you know? 08:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of Owain (talk · contribs)[edit]

Why has the sockpuppet - MonMan (talk · contribs) - been blocked, but the sockpuppeteer - Owain (talk · contribs) - has not? Kind of a waste of everybody's time if we uncover sockpuppetry, but then do nothing about it? What kind of message does that send to the massed ranks of vandals?--Mais oui! 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Do you need to put this on both ANI and AN (sorry... its above here, I knew I had seen it at least one other place)?
  2. The RFCU response was likely, tho meatpuppetry wasn't ruled out.
  3. There was at least one objection on AN
--Syrthiss 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If you had just uncovered a sockpuppeteer would you not wonder why the sockpuppet was banned, but not the pupeteer? It just seems very, very odd, considering what a menace sockpuppets are. I note that you have not answered my question. --Mais oui! 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The next time Owain is losing a vote, is it OK if he "asks his friend" to sit down in front of his computer, log in, and support his agenda? No? Yes? I'm honestly asking this as a question, not rhetorically, because as you have left it, anyone can log in under a different account, vote and comment and edit away in their own favour, and then when uncovered walk away totally without even a rebuke. Totally unbelievable! --Mais oui! 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If the two accounts were coming from the same computer then the Checkuser evidence would not have been "difficult to determine". I notice you have done some vote recruiting of your own. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Assuming that Owain and MonMan really are two different people, how is what they did different from what you did? Thatcher131 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn Thatcher131 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The massive differences are:
  • these people are not me, and have no connection to me other than being Scottish Wikipedians
  • these notices are open, public and above-the-board, and standard Wikipedia practice
Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are the opposite. The MonMan account is only used as a back-up to Owain's agenda - just have a look at the impressive accounts of those other Wikipedians I messaged. --Mais oui! 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"these people are not me". How is that a difference? MonMan is not me either! You should not be talking about above-the-board Wikipedia practices, given that this debate was started because of your unilateral moving of a page and then deliberatedly editing the redirect so it could not simply be moved back. Your derogotary treatment of MonMan is completely without substance - just because he agrees with me and disagrees with you he is categorised as "the MonMan account" and his edits are "only used to back up my agenda". It is also telling that an admin who shares *your* agenda had MonMan blocked within four hours of the initial request, with no evidence requested, in the middle of the night US-time so he could not defend himself. I have offered on my user page to have an admin give us both a telephone call to prove we are different people. If every friend I have is automatically blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet after making so few edits then that is not a very friendly introduction to Wikipedia is it? Owain (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Comments after further analysis I withdraw my defense of MonMan (talk · contribs) and agree that he is a likely sockpuppet of Owain (talk · contribs). I believe it is possible for two people to know each other off wiki and have the same interests without being meat or sockpuppets. However, I am no longer prepared to defend Owain (talk · contribs) and MonMan (talk · contribs). MonMan's first edit back in July, 2005 was to a talk page to support Owain's argument about traditional naming of UK counties [25]. Of MonMan's 30-some edits, the only edit to an article that Owain has never edited was to list Newport as a sister city of Kutaisi [26]. MonMan appears to back Owain up in contentious discussions such as [27]. He cast a vote alongside Owain here [28]. Most seriously, MonMan reverted an article after Owain had reverted it 3 times, thus saving Owain from a 3RR violation. [29] [30] [31] [32]

There is something Pythonesque about having a revert war over the issue of how English counties should properly be named. (I can understand abortion or GWB but come on, people). I also agree with Aquilina (above) that JzG is too involved in the same debate and should have asked for comment before placing the block. Consider this my (final) comment.Thatcher131 02:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Had to grin at your Pythonesque comment. What is worse is that the "ABC war" (ABC = Association of British Counties, the common link between people pushing this POV) has been going on for years on Wikipedia. 80.255 started it off, later ably assisted by Owain, and now others. And boy do these guys have stamina. Check out their talk pages archives (and the talk pages for lots of British places) for the number of people who've tried to work with them. Pcb21 Pete 10:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what is happening with this case? I am not a frequenter of this page and do not know the procedure. --Mais oui! 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but... may I ask what is happening with this case? --Mais oui! 09:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to oppose any block of Owain. If the findings were correct and MonMan was his sock, that sock is indef blocked. There have been several cases where we indef block the master and the puppets and then remove the block on the single account the user wishes to maintain. This would then be the implicit outcome of that: Owain continues as the user's account. If the findings were incorrect, and MonMan was indeed just a friend from the same area then I don't feel that any charges of meatpuppetry or disruption would support more than a short block if even that. If I can point out, neither of these users have a single previous block. I'm willing to give a longstanding editor a surfeit of good faith. Considering that your account is a quarter as old and has a block for 3RR you would even get the benefit of a surfeit of good faith. --Syrthiss 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on MonMan other than what I posted above; someone else will have to determine if my analysis and Essjay's likely supports a permanent block or not. On the issue of Owain I think he should be allowed to contribute so long as he is reasonably good about following the rules. If you believe he is using new sockpuppets to influence debate then bring it to someone's attention. If he has a long-term habit of using multiple accounts that might justify action against the master account. For now it seems to be a first offence. Thatcher131 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Syrthiss, Mais Oui has a block for 3RR only because Owain made tendentious edits to a template (supporting his "traditional counties" agenda) and then complained on AN when they were repeatedly reverted. Both were at fault, and it was Owain who made the contentious change not Mais Oui - I should have blocked both of them for a cooling-off period! Just zis Guy you know? 08:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, do[edit]

Please,_do (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked by me as a sock of Jason Gastrich about an hour ago. He's placed an {{unblock}} on his page. I request other Admins examine his contributions and assist in determining the best course of action. I wish to note that he made a few non-Gastrich edits, then voted Keep on Afd for an article with edits only by another Gastrich sock. I had blocked that sock earlier today. Gastich is known for making a few non-typically Gastrich edits, presumably to camouflage his identity, before moving on to more typical behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • its beginning to look like I've blocked an innocent party. I am going to unblock and watch, and leave the name on the suspected list on the ArbCom page for a bit. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think that one is quite so cut and dry. Probably best to unblock and keep an eye, and request a checkuser if any more fishy edits arise. --kingboyk 01:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've lost count of the times I've blocked Gastrich, and this is the first one that complained. That's my main rationale. But that his third edit was a vote to keep yet another Gastrich nn LBU grad bio is fishy. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Expansion: he voted on an unrelated Afd, then made one-word edits to his user and user talk pages prior to voting keep on the Gastrich article, Jack Eggar. That's classic Gastrich: he makes an "innocent" edit, adds something small to his user and talk pages so they won't be redlinks, then moves to Gastrich editing. I'm still suspicious. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there's reason to be suspicious certainly but let's give the benefit of the doubt (and/or the opportunity to slip up, which of late hasn't taken Jason long at all)? --kingboyk 01:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Judging by the contributions, the account is obviously a puppet. Whether it is sock or meat, I don't know, but this matter should probably head to WP:RFCU for clarification. Hexagonal 03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked for a User Check? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Results were inconclusive. So apparently although opinion differs as to whether this is likely JG via sock or meat, my decision to unblock and watch seems to have been the correct choice. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the checkuser folks are tired of cleaning up Gastrich puppets. I made a perfectly reasonable checkuser request that got denied for a bogus reason. Apparently its already been investigated, even though this new batch of socks hasn't been checked for sleepers or non-disruptive (yet) puppets. How do I appeal the declination of a checkuser request? Hexagonal 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
There usually is no point; a suspected Gastrich sock is blocked indef. I've only had one I had any question about, and that is Please, do, which is unblocked (by me) less than two hours after blocking. What's the point of running checkuser on the obvious ones? RFCU have a backlog as it is. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jami[edit]

Two editors, SouthernComfort (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) and ManiF (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log), insist on placing a NPoV template on a section of this article, despite new citations having been added (though it wasn't clear that they were needed). Neither of them has responded to the discussion at Talk:Jami for about three days, yet they won't allow the template to be removed. This seems now to be no more than disruption, whetever it was at the beginning. Could other admins take a look at this (I placed it at RfC, but it's aroused little interest from editors checking those lists)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time I placed a NPoV template on Jami, was on April 7th [33] right after I had fully explained my concerns on the talk page. [34] There is still an ongoing dispute over whether the section in question meets NPOV requirements. --ManiF 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It's true that SouthernComfort is now the main culprit. There have been no responses from either of you since 7 April, although four other editors have responded to you both. With no discussion for three days, it's difficult to see what you mean by "ongoing" (though, oddly, that's the term SouthernComfort uses in his edit summaries when he replaces the tag). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Aeurian Order[edit]

Not sure if this will prove to be a big deal, but AO Charles has informed me on my user page that I "have been identified as an anti-semitic agitator by the Aeurian Order," and that my "edits will be closely watched and reverted if neccessary.(sic)" I have responsed on his talk page: "I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not out of your mind. I'm a Jew. I'm the main author of Wikipedia's articles on Yiddish theater, and one of the two main contributors to secular Jewish culture. If I'm an 'anti-Semitic agitator', it is pretty hard to imagine who is not."

Normally I'd just write this off as, well, someone most likely out of his mind, but his user page claims that he is "a member of The Aeurian Order" and contains a link to User:AeurianOrder, which announces, among other things, "We intend to act as independant (sic) Wikipedia administrators. As all of our members are currently at college campuses, we have unlimited access to IP addresses… [I]f one or more of our members are banned we will just start up new accounts."

They claim to be an anti-vandalism group, but any group who could imagine that I am an anti-Semite is likely to have a pretty odd notion of vandalism. I suggest that people try to keep an eye on this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This user's other contributions are all adding the equivalent of "so-and-so is an anti-semite" to various articles. I'm tempted to roll them all back but welcome anyone else to have a look and see if there is any validity to the edits. Looks like trolling to me. Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've rolled back this user's hostile missives, and have deleted and blocked User:AeurianOrder as a misuse of a user account. I have also told this user to be more civil in his dealings with other users. JDoorjam Talk 03:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm honestly a little baffled by this guy. He just posted a harassing note to Jpgordon [35] -- what the heck?? Both Makemi and myself just now left notes for him. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest not feeding the troll anymore. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have indef. blocked AO Charles as a troll. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfairly Blocked From Editing Own Page[edit]

My online nickname is Orsoni

IP address 212.138.64.179

My IP address has been blocked and now i can't edit my own pages.

I live in Saudi Arabia and most likely will get no help from my local ISP.

Do I have any other alternatives?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orsoni (talkcontribs) .

Greetings: since you were able to edit this page, obviously you aren't using that IP. However, I just unblocked 212.138.64.179 for you; it was tagged as an open proxy more than a month ago. I'll AGF for now since the proxy scanner I've been using is down, and I see your good edits at that IP. Antandrus (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried editing again and I received a "User is Blocked" page showing my IP address as 212.138.64.174.

I wasn't aware that my IP address changes (I'm a newb). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orsoni (talkcontribs) .

OK I unblocked 212.138.64.174 as well. Both IPs had been used for vandalism a month or two ago. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

DakotaKahn (talk · contribs) misrepresenting my edits as vandalism[edit]

I reported Beckjord (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s block evasion on the Arbcom enforcement page, and DakotaKahn (talk · contribs) considers that vandalism without giving me an adequate explanation. I see a failure to assume good faith here. Can someone look into this? --69.117.7.63 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be cleared up; mistaking the insertion of a lot of content for the deletion of content. Ashibaka tock 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Two blocks related to Islamism[edit]

I blocked Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs) for disruptive edit warring on Islamism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has asked to be unblocked. Please review; if anyone thinks 24 hours is too long, or the block is unwarranted, reduce or remove the block.

Related to the above, I blocked MuslimsofUmreka (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for personnal attacks, specifically [36]. Again, please review and change if appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


As Tom has thoughtfully invited me to register my opinion, it is simply that

User:Kyaa the Catlord did nothing wrong. His “edit warring” came down to 1) reverting User:MuslimsofUmreka’s repeated unilateral removal of other editors’ disputed tags, to which I’d also objected and 2) restoring a consensus (except for MuslimsofUmreka) version of the article’s introduction, which we’d discussed at length on the talk page.

MuslimsofUmreka had editted the article to be an incoherent and highly POV discussion of the term itself, rather than of political Islamism as a real-world phenomenon as per the article’s original intent. At no point has he engaged in meaningful discussion, but merely repeats his fundamentalist position, which boils down to 1) all Muslims must be Islamists, or are not true Muslims 2) How dare you call all Muslims (by point 1) Islamists 3) you are all racists [sic.] and have no right to participate in editting this article. No matter what anyone says, he always returns to these points. Further he has repeatedly violated WP:NPA as well as WP:SOCK and WP:3RR, and indeed if Kyaa did anything “wrong” it was only to respond to rather than to ignore MOU’s abusive comments on Kyaa’s talk page.
Administrators erred in indulging his ceaseless requests for intervention to begin with while overlooking his egregious violations of wikipedia spirit and policy, and erred in blocking Kyaa the Catlord for attempting to put a stop to this nonsense.Timothy Usher 06:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I support the blocks. Edit warring is never OK, even if someone feels they are "in the right." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


I've reset Katefan0's block on MuslimsofUmreka (talk · contribs) and applied it also to Eastern section of the nation (talk · contribs), for using transparent sockpuppetry to evade the original block. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Spammer admits he's seeding links on Wikipedia[edit]

While the servers were malingering this Sunday, I spent some time surfing the web & found this. Maybe I missed some important nuance in this article, but I can't help feeling that this [word that indicates I'm not assuming good faith towards this person] needs to be made an example of. At the least, I feel Petertdavis (it's a real account) has earned much bad faith by writing, "Thanks for the comments Derrick. I acknowledge your opinion, but don’t agree. Are you an employee of Wikimedia?" Discussion? I'll assume silence means consent to a permanent ban from Wikipedia for Mr Davis. -- llywrch 02:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Davis appears to be a true, blue white-hat SEO, so that would make his comments about "how to spam" sarcastic. Why don't you ask him on his blog what his intention is. Ashibaka tock 02:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And just what is a "SEO" -- "Sarcastic Executive Officer"? His exchange with Derrick -- who was clearly trying to have a good-faith conversation with him -- made it clear that posting on Davis' blog would be as productive as talking to a brick wall. Sorry, try again. -- llywrch 03:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
He hasn't done anything nearly bad enough for a permanent ban. He just dislikes Wikipedia and experimented with spamming it once. We don't permablock other people for spamming once, we warn them. By the way, there's an obvious way on Wikipedia to find out what an SEO is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, SEO = Search Engine Optimization. --Cyde Weys 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I hate it when I try to assume good faith and get taken for a ride. Though he does misinterpret what I would consider as being an established contributor, "a few good edits" is way below the criteria I would use to evaluate this. All in all, the result of this is that I'm likely to be less tolerant of linkspam in the future. Though I agree with the posts above that he hasn't done anything to deserve a perma ban, I've noted the sites he was spamming and now consider them nuke on sight. --GraemeL (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, Llywrch, you do seem to miss the point of my blog post. You won't find anyone more anti-spam than I am. I spend over an hour every day just dealing with spam on different websites I admin and moderate. Yes, it's often difficult to figure out intent behind links that someone drops. Also, the "Derrick Smith" who commented on that article is Bobby131313. GraemeL, yes my comment "a few good edits" is hyperbole, is hyperbole now worse than actual link spammers? How about focusing more on this comment I made "So, the question is, if the information violates copyright, why is Wikipedia linking to it? If the information doesn’t violate copyright, why isn’t the information put into Wikipedia itself? Seems to violate the spirit of Wikipedia"? And, Llywrch, if "Derrick" was trying to have a good faith conversation with me, why did he not use his real name, Bobby? IPs don't lie, but people do. But, the big question really is, are Wikipedia admins going to accept someone dropping dozens of links to their own website, particularly when the content at the end of the link is not original, and there's a question whether it violates copyrights of well established publications? Banning me isn't going to make that issue go away. Peter
I still can't get past the fact you first accused Derrick of being a Wikimedia employee well before it occured to you to determine if he was Bobby131313 -- expecially when it's well-known that Wikimedia has practically no paid employees. Even if you meant to ask him whether he was a regular contributor, your question still shows a lack of good faith on your part: you attacked the messenger, not the message. Add to that your interesting usage of "link spammer" in your blog entry, & I have to wonder if you truly understand the point of Wikipedia: how you used those two words alone made me suspicious of the intent of your blog post long before I read your comments. Coming here & stating that I "won't find anyone more anti-spam than I am" doesn't negate what I felt was your message -- that if a spammer wants to gets his links into Wikipedia, the first step is to con one or more Wikipedians to help with this.
Wikipedia is not a tool to increase sales or link clicks, it's a source of information. If you can do it with a link to a website outside of Wikipedia, I think it's great; but far too many external links have no informational value, & are added just to attract eyeballs. Unfortunately, Wikipedians try to act in good faith because we all make mistakes, & newbies make more than folks who have been around for a while, so folks like GraemeL & myself often leave a questionable edit alone as a token of trust. So when we discover that we've been taken advantage by a link spammer -- as your blog indicates we were or can be -- we're more likely to be a little more suspicious of the next newbie who crosses the line, or a little more frustrated with the experiment that is Wikipedia -- or both. Your blog entry encourages this kind of abuse of trust that we are struggling to create on Wikipedia.
If you're not here to build a great encyclopedia, then don't waste the time of those who are. And social experiments like yours -- also known to some of us as trolling -- waste our time. -- llywrch 20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Llywrch, that's what I'm trying to say. Exactly that. You should be a little (maybe even a LOT) more suspicious of the next newbie who starts off by inserting dozens of links to their own website. That's exactly what I'm saying. While I may be lacking in the protocals of Wikipedia, I have been fighting this sort of thing for years. My blog isn't going to bring more spammers here, they're already here. They're all around. Some are just much more stealthy than others. Regarding my comment about "Derrick" (his real name is Bobby, aka Bobby131313) being a Wikimedia employee, that was sarcasm. I'm sorry if my delivery fell flat on that. I didn't for a minute think he really was. Perhaps I can be accused of trolling, but, just maybe, what I'm saying will bring a greater awareness to the administrators here about the nature of link spammers. And, if I can do that, I am helping you build a great encyclopedia. And, that brings me back to the question I asked before, "if the information violates copyright, why is Wikipedia linking to it? If the information doesn’t violate copyright, why isn’t the information put into Wikipedia itself? Seems to violate the spirit of Wikipedia"? One of the most common types of search engine spam is people who copy content from other sources and republish it as their own work. Wikipedia seems to be particularly vulnerable to this type of manipulation, as at first glance, websites such as the one in my example, are packed full of useful information. It's extremely difficult for the search engines to determine which is the original source of this content, and I don't suppose it's any easier for Wikipedia editors. However, I think it's something important to keep in mind when all of you are considering proper editorial control on external linkage. It's a minefield of a subject. Peter

I don't understand why this horse continues to be beaten. I have never once said or claimed that the information linked to is original.

I'll explain it again. The coin facts and grading guidelines are taken from the 2005 Redbook (out of print). The facts are mintage numbers, compositions, edge types, and the like. No creative content whatsoever. How can a fact be copyrighted? If Nascar publishes the winner of a race on their site, I can't? It's no different. The grading guidelines are just a list of criteria which are strictly opinions. Again, no creative content. Copyrighted? I think not. The coin histories are used with permission and credit given. They are not even on the original publishers site anymore.

FYI, the "How to Spam Wikipedia" article seems to be snowballing here and here and here so far. Bobby 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)[edit]

User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 18:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Not again... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • SPUI, this is probably the eighth time that Curps' bot has blocked you. Please slow down that page moves. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any suggestions for the best place to resolve this dispute? I've asked Curps to do something about it with no response. This is an unauthorized use of a bot, and admins are getting tired of cleaning up after it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, are you sure that there is a consensus on this latest round of pagemoves? I just want to make sure that you're doing some uncontroversial moves rather than controversial moves, which you previously got in trouble for. --Cyde Weys 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there seems to have been consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois State Routes. I checked before I unblocked him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this one had both consensus from the real names and consensus from editors. But Curpsbot assumes bad faith. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 03:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And Curpsbot is a necessary evil. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this is the bot's fault; I ask again that if SPUI is doing mass page moves, please slow down to where this heading does not show up on AN/I again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You act like I have a button marked "slow down enough to avoid Curpsbot". Not so. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are anthropomorphizing the bot, as if it was thinking evil cybernetic thoughts (I'm sorry, SPUI, I can't open the pod bay doors). -- Curps 08:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm anthropomorphizing your actions through the bot. Either you are not in complete control of the bot, in which case you should be blocked, or you are, in which case you are responsible for its actions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point I think SPUI should just get used to it as an inevitable fact of life :-P Cyde Weys 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If there's a consensus on this, can't you get other people to share the work? --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Rob requested that a bot do the moving, but got no response. I guess I'm just willing to do a lot of grunt work.--SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could just make the grunting a bit slower. That would cause decidedly less disruption. You haven't actually got a right to move many pages very quickly. Do it slowly and I find it difficult to imagine you'll be blocked. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
...The only disruption here was the Curpsbot block. As I said, I don't have a fucking button marked "slow down enough to avoid Curpsbot". This is how I have always moved pages. Now my improvements to the encyclopedia are being bot-blocked as vandalism. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
That's your problem, not ours.
I checked, and since January 1, the Curpsbot has issued 42 block. The last ten:


The complete list is at User:Calton/Sandbox#Page_Move_blocks. Most are Willys on Wheels sockpuppets, and almost all the rest are garden-variety vandals. Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) seems to been triggered the bot by accident, and most of SPUI's blocks to to be from his unilateral moves in his one-man war on highway names.
In short, the bot performs a valuable vandal-fighting service, and if SPUI gets caught up in it he should slow down: his alleged inability to slow down isn't anyone's problem but his own. Rapid-fire page moving is not a constitutional right, and given SPUI's track record, allowing him to do rapid-fire page moves is probably not a good idea to begin with. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Civility please. You seem short on it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Mr. Pot? It's Mr. Kettle on line two. He says you're black." Laying out facts which contradict you = incivility: got it. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you just call me black? Racist :P --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just realized I can uncheck the "move talk page" box, and probably avoid the bot. Of course then the talk page would not be moved. Most are just wikiproject boxes, but there is some useful stuff. Any comments? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why he doesn't just whitelist your name. And if there's no facility with his bot to have a whitelist, he should add one, it can't be that hard. —Locke Coletc 05:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Really. That borders on no-brainer. Where's the Lady from Philadelphia when you need her? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that given SPUI's track record, that's not a good idea. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
He whitelists admins. I disagree with the idea of a whitelist, as it creates one more division between haves and have-nots. I've written some more on the issue at User:SPUI/Curpsbot. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Never mind. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think SPUI should be whitelisted too. I understand why admins are whitelisted, although I do agree that it sucks that that creates a user/admin divide, but the admin list is a good list of trusted users. But I think that almost any user with a significant list of contributions who gets tagged by the bot when they're doing legitimate work should be whitelisted. If they do something against policy, that can be addressed separately. moink 08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Half of these moves are controversial though... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
More then half I'd say. A user who is acting unilaterally without consensus when there is opposition is definitely not worthy of whitelisting and is definitely violating WP:BOLD. JohnnyBGood 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Kashk[edit]

user:Kashk had removed two large sections from the article anti-Arabism [37]. His edit has not been reverted yet.

A few hours later, he accuses user:Aucaman of vandalizing, he claims that Aucaman removed content from Wikipedia. [38] Inahet 05:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(Non-admin view) With respect to the first complaint, from what I can tell, a section of the article was removed consistent with a discussion on the talk page. Curps, ostensibly avolitionally, reverted the edit, and Khashayar returned the page to the form about which talk page agreement existed. Joe 05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, but I don't see any evidence of an agreement on the talk page. Actually, the user who had orginally added the information decided to remove it because he felt he was being harrassed by user user:ManiF. From my experience dealing with user:Kashk (and he is aligned with ManiF) I can tell you that user:Kashk's edit was based on personal reasons rather than on a supposed consenual agreement on the talk page.--Inahet 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we should assume good faith for now. His actions seem to be in sync with what was discussed on the talk page. --Khoikhoi 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Khash's talk page. He does have a history of asserting his version of a page to be correct, and accusing those who change his edits to be 'vandals'. --InShaneee 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta[edit]

This is the oddest case I have seen in a long time. Either Rikki Lee Travolta is the greatest actor of his generation or the greatest astroturfer of his generation. All the accounts listed here share very unusual characteristics; they were all opened months ago; their only articles in the main space have been to Rikki's article or to insert information about him into other articles; and they have all suddenly rushed to his defense once the article was nominated for deletion. It doesn't seem to fit the requirements for a checkuser since their participation does not seem likely to change the vote outcome. However they look like rather obvious sock puppets and if someone with more experience thinks this is a good use of Checkuser could you please crosspost it for me? Thanks.

Paramountpr (talk · contribs)
Sonybmg (talk · contribs)
Brotherstork (talk · contribs)
Bostic 5.0 (talk · contribs)
65.209.181.195 (talk · contribs)
Icemountain2 (talk · contribs)
Hardwoodhaywood (talk · contribs)
Cokenotpepsi (talk · contribs)

Thatcher131 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would keep an eye on them in case they start editing other non-notable people and movies/books, but the Travolta articles are gone, so unless they start barnstorming on DRV, I wouldn't worry about it. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Doom127, The Eye, & Jean-Luc Picard[edit]

Earlier this evening, I intervened in what was quickly becoming an edit war between Cyde (talk · contribs) and Doom127 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jedi6. Cyde had made a comment using the Wikipedia-specific spelling of "rouge admin" (rather than "rogue admin") and Doom127 corrected it to rogue; Cyde then reverted, Doom127 reverted, and it continued until I stepped in, returned it to Cyde's spelling (it was, after all, his comment, and he's entitled to spell or misspell as he sees fit) and left a note on Doom127's talk page, pointing out that it was inappropriate to alter other users' comments, especially to eidt war over such, and noting that he was approaching violation of 3RR. Doom127 responded with several rapid-fire edits to Jedi6's RfA (see Special:Contributions/Doom127), ultimately changing his support for Jedi to strong oppose, based on his apparent fury at my warning him. He continued with a rash of incivil and enraged edits until blocked for three hours by Pgk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to give him time to clam down and avoid doing things he would regret.

In looking into the situation further, I noticed a series of such explosions and subsequent temporary departures, as well as an odd similarity with another user, The Eye (talk · contribs). On a hunch that there might be sockpuppetry involved (see this edit, as well as the similarity in contributions between the two accounts), I ran a checkuser, and discovered that Doom127 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), The Eye (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), & Jean-Luc Picard (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) are all without question the same user.

The three accounts have been used to triple vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jedi6, as well as to game the Three Revert Rule on a number of video-game related articles; additionally, specific IP addresses used by these contributors (and only these contributors, across two separate ISPs) have been used to violate 3RR. Interestingly, within minutes of Doom127's explosion, Jean-Luc Picard shows up to change his vote to oppose as well. I suspect that given sufficient time, The Eye would do the same.

Given that I am involved in the situation, both as the bureaucrat that extended the Jedi RfA, and as an admin warning Doom127 on the disruptive edits to the RfA, I don't feel neutral enough to tag and block the sockpuppets, and take action on Doom127. I strongly encourage an uninvolved admin to look into the matter, tag and block the socks ({{SockpuppetCheckuser}} should be used), and consider what to do about Doom127. If the community feels it necessary, I'm willing to raise the issue to Arbitration, and forward my evidence to the AC. Additionally, I'm willing to provide my results to another checkuser if they would like to review my findings. Essjay TalkContact 09:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, someone should strike the sockpuppet votes on Jedi's RfA, and at least note the bad faith involved with Doom127's, if not striking entirely. Essjay TalkContact 09:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmph, I resemble that characterization that I was getting into an edit war. --Cyde Weys 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyde & I both just rangeblocked 4.243.60.0/24 as it is one of the ranges used by these three, and has been vandalizing Jedi's RfA non-stop; my block for three hours should clear both blocks when it expires. If there is collateral damage, unblock. Essjay TalkContact 09:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The IP's were also blanking Jedi's user page and talk page. This was followed by blanking my user page after I blocked 3 of them. I ended up blocking both User:I am the lizard queen! & User:TAt this rate we're gonna run out of usernames! indefinitely for the same actions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point involved/uninvolved doesn't matter. This guy launched an all out assault, using various IP addresses and over a dozen sockpuppets. This guy is a vandal, clear as day. I've taken the liberty of striking out his votes on the RFA in question and indefinitely banning all of his sockpuppets. Someone still needs to decide what to do with the main account, Doom127, however. --Cyde Weys 10:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

He's still blocked but for only another 25 minutes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should extend the block, even if only for 24 hours to give us plenty of time to talk over what to do. Essjay TalkContact 10:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Now blocked for 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Think you can make it a permanant block, old chum? After all, that WAS the intention (I've left a little on Cambridge's page regarding the care and feeding of them and the purpose of such). It takes a lot of work to create three sockpuppets AND have them have unnoticed edits for the better part of a month in order to create an account implosion. What's the point of me going to all the trouble if I can't get an indefinite block? Cheers! -- user:doom127 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Classical Music Fan (talkcontribs) 11:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
User has been blocked indefinitely as another self-proclaimed sockpuppet. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Bloody hell. Of COURSE I'm a "self proclaimed" sockpuppet! I already TOLD you that I've been planning this bloody thing ever since my first runin with that filthy molehill Cyde. Now, given that you've already blocked my lovely Classical Music Fan account as a sockpuppet of Doom127, would you please block the Doom127 account? It all seems anticlimactic now, to be honest with you. For shame, having to ask for a block on myself. Do I really have to spend another hour spoofing IPs? Bloody hell. --- user:doom127—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.242.12.194 (talkcontribs) 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Striked the user. Another sock-puppet/vandal. Notice to admins - Please block ip as you see fit. Especially see talk page of the ip. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but after seeing Doom losing his temper over the spelling of rouge, and creating and using sockpuppets for bad purposes, I think hen should be blocked for an additional week. Note that I had no experience with him until Jedi6's RfA, so I am not one you should probably listen to.--ac1983fan-Talk 14:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Doom127 created and updated. Claming for indef block for Doom127, if he is a proclaimed and comproved sockpuppet guy. --Pinoi 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it, Brazil4Linux. I created multiple sockpuppets, wildly violated Wikipedia policy, harassed and insulted multiple admins, disrupted an RFA AND even went on here asking for an indefinite ban, and all I get was this lousy t-shirt... err, I mean a 24 hour block? I would have thought only one of these things would have been enough to merit an indef. What gives? Daniel Davis 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review 3RR block[edit]

I blocked Goodandevil (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on abortion. The four edits are [39], [40], [41] and [42]. As you can see, the fouth edit is a simple blanking of the paragraph objected to, rather than replacing it with the previous version, presumably to avoid a 4th revert?

Anyway, since the user has objected to the block on the grounds that I'm involved in editing the article in question (which I am), I request a review of my action by other admins. I thought it was a fairly open-and-shut case, but I'm open to feedback. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have done it yourself, but those are certainly four reverts (counting the wholesale removal of the section) by most people's accounting. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. I ran into Goodandevil in the past and it was more of the same. --Cyde Weys 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

By the book, as GTBacchus wasn't participating in the edit war; rather trying to stop it with discussion on talk pages; I think he was sufficiently removed. - RoyBoy 800 21:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the fourth revert, while not technically a revert, was definitely intended to have the same effect — that of removing the paragraph that Goodandevil objected to. I did wonder at the time about GTBacchus carrying out the block himself rather than reporting it. If there's any admin who can definitely be trusted to be fair to those on the opposing side as well as those on his own side, it's GTBacchus. (I say that as someone who has the opposite POV from his.) Nevertheless, to avoid giving people cause to complain (you blocked this editor and you didn't block that one), I think it's more prudent for us not to carry out blocks on pages or editors we're involved with (except, perhaps, in cases of obvious sockpuppetry). If GTBacchus had reported instead of blocking, I'm sure another admin would have blocked. That said, I fully agree with RoyBoy that he wasn't participating in the edit war, and was therefore not in violation of the blocking policy which says, "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." AnnH 00:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Reporting - Ban[edit]

Wwjd2009 has repeatedly blanked information within the article New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. NPOV discussions have been ignored. Vandalism warnings have also been ignored. Last warning given 4/4/06. Last vandalism by Wwdj2009 done 4/10/06.

Gator1 again[edit]

User:Kibbles and bits and stuff put a welcome message on Gator1's user page and talk page[43]. These were the only edits of that user. I deleted both the user page and talk page, per the discussion above. But who is this user? And what's the deal? Someone who knows more about this situation than I do should look into this. I'm still on wikibreak, by the way. Chick Bowen 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd that a new user's first and only contrib would be to add a welcome template to Gator1's talk page, but maybe AGF on the account I guess. I'd be inclined to support semiprotecting Gator1's userpages until this blows over a bit. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would preclude keeping them deleted, which was decided above was the best course. Has anyone ever done a buzilla request for the possibility of a true protection for a deleted page (i.e., preserve red links but for non-admins nothing would happen when you clicked on them), rather than {{deletedpage}}? Chick Bowen 20:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the pages only need to be completely blank until Google has purged its caches, then they can be protected. But see above for a discussion from someone who sounds like he knows what he was talking about. Thatcher131 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike the Chick[