Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry

In reference to this discussion and this one Baseball Bugs and I have discovered the following:

71.56.117.42 first and only edits were to add added cardpricer.com to the Baseball card article.

Twenty minutes later, Blacksoxfan arrived (having never edited this article) and reorders the links slightly. He then adds that same link to other articles: [1] [2] [3] etc.

Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles [4]. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. [5] [6] He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles [7] as well as just add it himself [8] [9] [10]

Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 went on to add Blacksoxfan.com to articles and later admitted to being Tecmobowl. Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming on an article talk page.

The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia as was the original IP 71.56.117.42...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia.

While Tecmobowl was on a 48 hour block, El redactor appears and his first edit is to add Blacksoxfan.com back to the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. He added it once more after it was deleted and then made a few more useless edits for the day and promptly disappeared. These other edits were pointed to by Tecmobowl as an alibi for it not being a sockpuppet [11]

I am convinced he has been using multiple accounts over a long period of time to add his own links into articles but I would like another set of eyes to look this over. IrishGuy ^talk 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional input I saw some of Tecmobowl's early edits deleting external links. In almost every case where links were deleted, the links were removed without any explanation other than the claim that they were a "link farm". In every case that I saw, the links provided specific relevant information, and in no case were they excessive. In many cases, Tecmobowl eliminated links that provided clearly unique information from hundreds of articles, including clearly-relevant obituaries (see here for one of many such examples of articles where clearly useful links were removed). Efforts were made to encourage all involved parties to reach a common ground. Unfortunately, Tecmobowl persisted in deletion of links, despite repeated requests to respect the status quo while discussions were still underway. Tecmobowl is clearly capable of excellent work (see here for a specific example) when on his own, but seems to have great difficulty understanding that Wikipedia requires building consensus with ALL editors; unfortunately, Wikipedia involves working as a group and respecting the collective consensus built as a group. I had rather clearly warned Tecmobowl about potential/likely WP:3RR violations (see here) which simply went ignored and resulted in a 3RR-related block. It truly disappoints me that someone who can be so productive, can wreak so much chaos in his efforts to impose what he has deemed to be right, despite persistent efforts to try to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus. It is unfortunate that, at this point, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Alansohn 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this edit summary Tecmobowl states: most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh. If they aren't socks, they are most assuredly meatpuppets. IrishGuy ^talk 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I read through Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson and Tecmobowl is pushing that link waaay too hard for me to have any AGF about it. I removed it and removed a few of the other card-pricing links in other articles. This type of stuff shows up in baseball articles all the time and I've removed it on other occasions. See WP:WPSPAM#Assuming_good_faith for some discussion of the linkspammer profile. 75.62.6.237 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (Added: There are edit warring problems on that page from many people).

Actually, Tecmo stopped pushing the link and said that he would let it go because discussion was ongoing and he'd trust talk page consensus. All he has done is revert people who have since removed it, and I have said that I'm comfortable with the site on while discussion is ongoing. IMO, it's an ok EL.

• It's unique
  • the list will never be included in an article as it's too long
  • also, IMO, a gallery is unlikely to be included in the article
• While the website does sell product, it doesn't on that page and it's not overt--it took me a couple clicks to figure out how to get to the selling people were talking about. It's also not the SOLE purpose of the website, or even necessarily the MAIN purpose--the website has a lot of unique content included a lot of documents that they host online in PDF format--in additional to trying to make money (or maybe just pay for hosting), a resource is clearly being provided

Maybe Tecmo has a COI, and maybe his adding it was a spam link but I think that it's a good EL. I also don't want it off of the article while waiting for discussion to go anywhere because most of the editors who care about this link are avoiding the discussion--they'll come to the article to revert three times in a day but not to talk content or answer straw poll questions. I personally think it's a good link, and I think that the editors who don't want the link included also have a COI, though a personal on-wiki. They all have the opportunity to voice their opinions--they haven't. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:06, June 11 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a case of "maybe Tecmo has a COI". It is his website. He has used two IPs and three different account to push that website into various articles. That is spamming and sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a checkuser request regarding Tecmobowl and El redactor at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl. John254 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL? This is like following a treasure hunt. I go from one talk page to another to another and boom, I end up here. The same guys that have been argumentative and mean spirited. IrishGuy - I just left you a friendly message on your talk page and I have got to say that you are one of the most confrontational people I have seen on here. By the looks of your talk page, Baseball Bugs' talk page, and the comments above about Epfleche, I would say you guys are the sockpuppets. I made my first contributions on Wednesday night before I went to bed, then some more on thursday. Baseball Bugs then edited most of the pages I edited. From what I can tell, you accuse anyone who does not agree with you and get into fights all the time. And aren't you an admin IrishGuy? Aren't admins supposed to be level headed and polite? Maybe you should have that removed. El redactor

More H.E. socks to block

H.E. is disrupting Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency with Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs), after CheckUser confirmed that Ibn Shah (talk · contribs) was identical to MomoShomo (talk · contribs). (MomoShomo was not IP-identical to prior socks, but was blocked by admin Tom Harrison as a sock based on behavior, for which the evidence is very strong). Both accounts should be blocked, and if admins could put that page on their watchlist for more disruption I'd appreciate it. - Merzbow 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs) should be blocked; his comments on the CU page moved to his talk page; and a link to the page before his writtings were moved to be provided on the CU page for further decisions. --Aminz 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser proves that I am not His Excellency. Please stop bothering me about it. Ibn Shah 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not prove anything, it just gives clues. Neil ╦ 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He is now disrupting ANI with his comments, and continues to disrupt RFCU. If H.E. wants to comment he can do so on his talk page, as Aminz says. (BTW it's funny how all of these accounts that are supposedly not H.E. socks are born as adults, with the ability to find their way to ANI, RFCU, and 3RR at will, with nary a newbie edit between them. Also funny how his self-admitted socks seem to find the time to check these places multiple times a day for mentions of him, odd for a banned user who isn't supposed to be here.) - Merzbow 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a naive comment. I may be new but do you think I'm not going to look over the contributions of people who are petitioning to get me banned with every other edit? Yes, I will, to defend myself. Ibn Shah 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you never saw the need to contest MomoShomo (talk · contribs)'s indef then. MomoShomo was obviously the sock of some previous experienced user. The easiest way for you to clear your name is to indicate who that user is. (But the answer, of course, is H.E.) - Merzbow 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't desperate to contest it because I already had this account among other reasons that I listed on the checkuser. Of course the only evidence you have now is circumstantial, so I'm sure you'll try to find every excuse you can to get me blocked. Ibn Shah 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MomoShomo is banned, are you are confirmed to be identical. Unless some other admin wants to overturn Tom Harrison's block of MomoShomo, you are confirmed to be evading a siteban, and should be blocked forthwith under policy. That's all. - Merzbow 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you always go around endorsing incorrect sitebans or do you really have something against Muslims as His Excellency was alleging in his edit summaries? If Tom Harrison was so confident in his previous block then he would have blocked me himself when he was on Wikipedia a few hours ago. This is getting quite annoying. That's all. Ibn Shah 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"HisExcellencyReturns" and I were editing almost concurrently recently if you look through our contributions. That further proves that I am not him. Ibn Shah 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom just went on wikibreak, so your joy is premature. I formally request that an admin either block Ibn Shah as a sock of banned user MomoShomo, or overturn MomoShomo's block. The status quo as it is cannot stand under policy, with an RFCU-confirmed sock of a banned user walking around editing. That is the last I'm going to say here unless asked a question by an admin. - Merzbow 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Shah and MomoShomo have been confirmed as H.E. socks now and blocked. - Merzbow 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The administrative response to this thread was unimpressive.

This is as clear a warning against overreliance on checkuser results as one could hope for.Proabivouac 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If Dmcdevit had not come through with extra-effort checkuser results, we'd still be dealing with Ibn Shah and also Xiao_t (talk · contribs), both H.E. socks and both heavily editing articles together. More admins should become familiar with his editing style and be willing to follow-up on these reports; he is quickly becoming a sockmaster as corrosive as Hkelkar.- Merzbow 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No HE is even worse than hkelkar. Since he lives less than 5 miles from BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) it appears obvious that both are probably colluding in an attempt to undermine wikipedia. The information given to me by Hkelkar before his block (regarding BhaiSaab) makes string of puppetry from NYU/NYC (residence of these two users) entirely plausible.Bakaman 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the community ban discussion a couple months ago, it doesn't appear as if BhaiSaab has socked for a while; he appears willing to wait out his block now. Do you have evidence he is socking again, and/or colluding with H.E.? - Merzbow 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical threats between students

Resolved

I have just blocked Silver Fang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for extreme physical threats at User talk:Jwarrior343 and User talk:Waveisback77788 (see this diff and this diff). Usually I'd revert, block, and move along. But because it appears these are threats against fellow classmates, I felt I should bring it here to be looked at further. What should/could be done about this? Metros 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking presumably happen all the time in junior high schools across the world. I don't see any reason to do anything more than what you've already done. Friday (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Threats of buttkicking are just fine, as we then get to buttkick the one who threatens! As was done here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but shouldn't I at least contact the Internet police? Metros 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

...another reason I shouldn't wiki at work: random bursts of laughter is suspicious. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that picture is funny... but back to business, see this. Apparently it's just a bunch of school kids pwning each other. I gave them their wish and blocked all the accounts that were not already blocked. That should take care of that.--Isotope23 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You did all that you're responsible for. Good job!!! We need to keep that kind of crap out of Wikipedia!!! This is not a freaking chat room! Redsox04 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug adding disruptive templates to talk pages

Could another admin please have a word with User:Yug regarding the image or template he's placing on talk pages (my own ([18]) and the Talk:Stroke order page ([19]). I've asked him repeatedly to stop, as the templates are offensive and disruptive, but he persists restoring them. I don't think a block is called for (yet), just a word on his talk page, perhaps. Thanks. Exploding Boy 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that almost seems like a new one to me, and I thought I had seen everything. ^(H) 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but Yug has again restored this image/template to the Talk:Stroke order page. I've repeatedly asked him not to. Exploding Boy 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

well..em.. I'm a bit lost for words with that one - I'm assuming that english is his second language? Maybe he does not clearly understand what is going on? --Fredrick day 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

English is his second language, yes. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to ascertain what he's trying to say. At any rate, I've asked him repeatedly to remove that image (or whatever it is). It's disruptive, and it's certainly not encouraging cooperative editing. He refuses. I'm an admin, but since I'm involved with this user I'd just like another admin to have a word with him on his user page. Exploding Boy 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I've removed the image/template several times while keeping all of the content. He persists in restoring it. Exploding Boy 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK on second look, there is clearly a problem here and the crux (someone correct me if I am wrong) seems to be as follows - User:Yug's contributions to the article are in broken pigeon English and he seems insistent on replacing coherent content with his own version. He is highly resistant to people rewriting or reverting his material and thinks it is best that he writes and then people clean-up after him - that seems like disruption to me. While wikipedia welcomes all contributions, if your English is not up to a certain standard, it's pretty clear that (as has been suggested to him on the talkpages) that he should get others to check it over before it's added. An admin making those suggestions would clearly be helpful - oh and telling him to knock it off with the template. --Fredrick day 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's more or less correct. Exploding Boy 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the template. Left a note about avoiding it, asking if people can all work together. Hoping this can be resolved amicably. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Yug#Please_stop:

Luna Santin : can you had this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yug_adding_disruptive_templates_to_talk_pages :

Notes:

first : I think it is not fair to talk here about me without notice me. I asked you for two day to start a WP:RfC. Instead, you come here find other admins help, with the statement "User:Yug adding disruptive templates".

Second: my edits in stroke order are : delete misleading contents (fully explained in the talk page) in good English, and replace it by better content with English mistakes. Explodin boy don't like this : What is the solutions ? Revert, or spelling correction ?

Third : For the last 2 weeks, EB choice the first way : to make hasty an full reverts. He made no edition onto user:yug/Stroke order.

Fourth : the "disruptive template" is a div + an image to underline why I'm in opposition with exploding boy, this div and image is what exploding boy want revert.

That is why we are in the current situation. --Yug (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC) <I'm admin in Fr and Commons><ok : good night everyone !>

You're right, you should have been notified first. Well, to be fair, your English is really bad. You can't really add any substantial content to an article with that standard of English. I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say most of the time, so having people clean up after you wouldn't really work. Perhaps you can suggest edits in article talk pages, so other's can implement them in good English?--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yug should have been notified. Sorry about that. The fact remains, however, that the template or image was disruptive. Exploding Boy 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I haven't been notified, and you didn't went to RfC(as I asked you 3 time), you came here.

I honestly think you want do too much, and you make mistakes.

Worse : you lead other in your hasty and diruptive way. Admins have to help, not to create and feed edition wars, like you did. If you are too busy help : stop to revert. --Yug (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC) <I'm admin in Fr and Commons>

User:Sadkid2010 is a sockpuppet of User:Funnykid2010

My evidence is as follows:

• Similair Name
• On page of Sadkid2010, it says "HalfShadow, why are you posting stuff about vandalism on my page for my other account when I did NOTHING????" proving they have another account, and HalfShadow warned it
• User Funnykid2010 commented unsigned on halfshadow's page
• HalfShadow has warned Funnykid in the past
• On talk page of FisherQueen, they signed a message as follows: "-Funnykid2010, pretty soon Sadkid2010."

This is my first time reporting a sockputppet, so if I stuffed something up, I apologise. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Added more evidence. Matt - TheFearow 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You would probably get a better/faster resolution of this at WP:RFCU or WP:SUSPSOCK. Feel free to ask me questions if you need help posting your case. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim (talk · contribs) uncivil behaviour, personal attacks

See his edit history. He's been warned more than once, yet continues to own his talk page and make snide uncivil remarks, as well as personal attacks. Here, being reminded to remain civil, he labels a template as "insulting" [20]. Here he threatens the same editor [21], makes a snide remark again as I remind him to be civil [22], here he makes several insulting and attacking comments Talk:Bose_(company). He's obviously not particularly interested in cleaning up his behaviour, as he's been warned multiple times. Perhaps someone could get involved here?--Crossmr 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As well, he seems to have owned his talk page, claiming to moderate it for any message he doesn't like (which would include warnings and comments about his behaviour in article space, and other pages).--Crossmr 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone should have a look at what's being left on my talk page as well. This looks like this behaviour may be rather long term.--Crossmr 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this user may benefit from the carrot before we have to reach for the stick. He is very passionate about promoting Bose products here, and I think his reaction is that of a person who is genuinely offended that anyone would question those products. —ptk✰fgs 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, where I'm from, we tie the carrot to the end of the stick -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He's passionate about a lot of things. After some digging it seems I encountered this user a year ago, and he was just as passionately involved in editing the Apprentice Seasons 4 article. In fact I suffered some long term harassment for warning one of the parties involved in that dispute. This goes well beyond his passion for the Bose article, he seems to think anyone reminding him of the rules is an unfair and harsh attack on him, and seems to wish to completely ignore them. --Crossmr 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This still needs addressing. The user seems to be under the impression that its okay to level personal attacks against other users and threaten other users, if its for a "really good reason" like making sure his viewpoint is accepted in articles.--Crossmr 12:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Noclador constant vandalism

I have been suspended a couple of times now, unfairly might I add the admins have seem to only look at one side, I really would like you too take a look at some of the vandalism User:Noclador has caused to nearly every single article that has to do with Albania or Albanians, BRDM-2, BTR-50, T-55, Type 59, Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces, Albanian Army, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, Albanians, Islam in Kosovo, he was been in violation of the 3RR rule is more than several occasions and I have not seen any action take against him, he removes sourced information like on the BTR-50 article he removed Albania from the operator section even though it had 3 sources, for no reasons when I asked him he would not reply, he never uses the talk page to discus his edits, and he uses obsolete sources and even when he uses those he miss quotes them like this one for example http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=1&sec=8 it clearly states there are 373 tanks in service and yet his number is 79 I would really like to know where he got it from. He also has in some occasions changed my words in the talk page to make it seem like have attacked him so he can get be suspended, I don’t like to run to the admin for every little think like a little child runs to his teacher but User:Nocladordoes seem to, but I would really appreciate if you take look into him and see that I’am right and do something about him from editing those articles because he just seems to vandalize them, I would also like if you would open the Albanian military articles and let me fix them again as I did 3 months ago until he started to ruin them everything was sourced and well laid out, I would also appreciate it if you ban him from editing them again, because he surely will vandalize them again, for 6 months no one had problems with my edits but for some reason this guy wants a war with me, User:Noclador associate is User:MrMacMan but his more reasonable guy but he also has vandalized in the past a few articles, he stalk me in every article I edit just to revert it. Well thanx in advance and I really hope you can take a look into this guy Gon4z 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE guys I have tried to be as nice as possible to this guy and still I’am trying he has clearly vandalized and has made me very angry.

Not only that he is in violation of the 3RR rule in the BTR-50 article where for 3 times he has been removing my sourced information I have tried to talk to him in the talk page he has not replied, but what’s wore he has totally deleted the new article I have created today on TYPE 77 I spend 2 hours in that article today and he deleted it all that is really disrespectful you managed to suspend me for a week for a minor edit I think you can ban him for deleting a whole article. Gon4z 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The deleted article was an out-and-out copyright violation. Sourced is good; cut-and-pasted is bad. Noclador didn't delete it; an admin did so, appropriately. MastCell ^Talk 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the thread above ("Gon4z"), I've indef-blocked Gon4z (talk · contribs) for intentional creation of copyright violations, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behavior. I'll welcome feedback on the block. MastCell ^Talk 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z's post here is an act of bad faith. He has behaved as if he owned the articles about the military of Albania and his comment above "PLEASE guys I have tried to be as nice as possible to this guy ..." couldn't be further from the truth. Gon4z has not provided adequate sourcing for his edits when others asked him for them, and he has been very rude towards several other contributors. See e.g. a few edit summaries [23], [24], [25] and some of the messages Gon4z posted to Noclador's talk page. Warnings that other editors posted to him were simply ignored and removed, including block notices.[26]. See also User_talk:Prodego#Military of Albania. Noclador is known on this project for being a valuable contributor regarding the size and organization of European armies, not for "constant vandalism" as Gon4z claims here. Conclusion: Gon4z has been disruptive and I don't believe he will begin editing collaboratively with others. The block sounds appropriate. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Political userboxes

Resolved

 – This isn't the sort of thing that needs to be brought here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Husond/Userboxes/Assyrian

This user supports Assyrian autonomy in Iraq.

User:Chaldean/Userbox/Assyrian independence

This user supports the independence of Assyria.

I think these userboxes do not help us make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. -- Cat ^chi? 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks Ashurbanipal was an OK guy if you got to know him. —freak(talk) 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks all non-Babel userboxes are evil. --Haemo 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks this to be a matter better dealt with via MfD, if at all; he thinks it is, in any event, not something requiring administrator attention but, instead, something requiring, if anything, the attention of the community (as any other userspace-hosted userbox with which one has a problem). Joe 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This user thinks that, as she finds the above hilarious, she's probably been spending too much time here. Natalie 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought political userboxes were speedy deleted. Was there a change in that practice that I am unaware of? This does need admin intervention since I can't delete them myself. -- Cat ^chi? 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed an MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Assyrian related political userboxes anyways. -- Cat ^chi? 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BmaninOK

New user BmaninOK continues to make less than neutral edits, labeling Robert Mugabe an "anti-white racist"[27] and a "terrorist,"[28], and complaining about the "left wing lamestream media" on David Brock[29] while removing references. He was asked to stop[30] but has continued [31]. Perspicacite 05:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is still a "warning" situation. There are not yet grounds to block. I reverted his edits to Pol Pot. YechielMan 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at William Cheung

Resolved

Viridae^Talk 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User User:MichaelMaison has been told multiple times by multiple editors over the past month that his attempted contributions to William Cheung and Leung Ting and Emin Boztepe violate NPOV, lack actual references (he has actually provided none except to copy advertisements from Cheung's website word for word as entry material), and do not follow an encyclopedic format. This is not a place for political minded editing and bickering in leau of actual encyclopedic material. Every effort has been made by the major contributors of that article and the Martial Arts project to explain the situation to him. I (today), as well as another editor (last week) have even tried to rewrite his material in a NPOV manner for him so it could be included (see William Cheung talk page), and this was still not good enough. He has simply responded with accusations, derogatory comments (see page history), and continued re-addition of the same material. Now he's threatening to "dispatch individuals" in person and to further edit war the page [1]. In the past three hours, he's simply resorted to pure vandalism, throwing up any reason in the editing comments for spite. I have also filed for the page to be fully protected [32] . --Marty Goldberg 05:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the observations made by Marty about User:MichaelMaison. The article has gone from relatively stable to complete disarray in the space of a week or two. I can understand the sensitive nature of some aspects of the article, but the user's response has been to make soapbox statements or simply peddle a party line. I personally don't know of correct procedure in disputes such as these, but I think a good precedent could be the Ashida_Kim article. That became relatively stable after protection and some stern action towards a vocal minority of loyal vandals. -- Rpf 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the two main editors on each side of that revert war: MichaelMaison (talk · contribs) and Wgungfu (talk · contribs) for massive violations of the 3 revert rule. The former has a 24 hour block (first offence) the second has a 31 hour block (second offence today!Whoops, that block was exactly three months ago). Everyone else should remember that ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. Viridae^Talk 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Protection declined per the block. Viridae^Talk 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Ned Scott

The user has removed a warning message on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan) each time referring to my reinstatement of the message with the "don't be a dick" message, which I consider to be a personal attack. The message simply says that techers who are employed at the company should have proper sources. Previously, there was a LOT of unsourced NPOV material and OR in the article. I have asked Ned Scott to discuss the removal of the warning message on the page, but he refuses, and continues to revert the warning. [33] [34][35]. Rather than get in an edit war with him, I would like admin assistance. I feel this kind of trivial editwarring is not in good faith. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the diffs fool you, I made two reverts and that's my limit. Sorry if I feel a message that says "YOU CAN'T EDIT HERE" is inappropriate. I urged Sparkzilla to make a different warning message, noting WP:COI and all that jazz, but one that doesn't give the false impression that certain people are not allowed to use the talk page. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the message, which was originally posted because all the behaviour in the message was present in the article:

Just because you worked at Nova and think you have some inside knowledge about the company does not entitle you to post here. This page is not the place for rumours that you may have heard, inside knowledge that no-one outside the company knows, or your opinions or the consensus of opinions of teachers about the company.

Wikipedia requires reliable sources, such as items from the company website and newspaper or magazine articles about the company. If you don't have a proper source please do not post on the page. All non-sourced items should be removed from the page.

So the message makes it clear to editors that they should follow WP policy and take care to only post relibaly sourced material. How you can get upset about that, I don't know. You did not urge me to make a different warning message, and I would have happily discussed any new text on the article's talk page, but instead you chose personal attacks and editwarring. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here, I'm not saying edit warring is right, but you reverted just as much as I did. This "personal attack" you speak of was me trying to express to you that you were making yourself look like a dick with the message. Sure, maybe not the best way of putting it, but in no way am I trying to attack your character or who you are. And maybe you missed my very first message and edit to that talk page: "Warning message has been archived. I would have just deleted it, but it was signed, so I figured it counted as a talk page comment. If you want to note WP:COI here, or something to that extent, great, but don't be a dick about it. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)", so yeah, I did urge you to make a better message. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions. Sparkzilla, why did you make 3 diff links to 2 reverts, which implies incorrectly to the casual reader that Ned Scott was brushing with 3RR? Ned, what led you to decide that the right course of action in this dispute was to replace the contested talk page content with a paragraph calling your opponent a dick? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying "don't be a dick about it" is not the same thing as saying "hey! you're a dick!" I could have, and probably should have, just said "but don't be rude about it". -- Ned Scott 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you said: "I understand that, but you're being a dick in the process". "You're" not "you look like". Throwing around insults when making edits is not acceptable on WP. It is unecessarily combative and does not assume good faith. The three diffs are to show the edit summaries of the initial edit and the reverts. Actually< I realised that in the first edit he didn't write an edit summary but placed this message on the page: "Warning message has been archived. I would have just deleted it, but it was signed, so I figured it counted as a talk page comment. If you want to note WP:COI here, or something to that extent, great, but don't be a dick about it." Clearly shows combative attitude. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Spark, I've already apologized for that, and tried to explain to you that my intention wasn't to call you a dick, but comment on the impression the warning message left. You also seem to be confused, as we are commenting on the message I left on the talk page which does say "don't be a dick about it". Any other use of the word DICK was in reference to THAT. Now you're screaming your head off, saying I keep personally attacking you, when all I did was slip up on one edit summary. I'll admit that even that was rude, but it is not a continuing issue. It was never my intention to personally attack you, and I'm really getting tired of saying that. Maybe I'm not assuming good faith here, but it feels like to me that you're just repeating the words "personal attack" as much as you can to make the situation seem worse than it was. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Would both of you be willing to take 30 minutes away from this conflict and then return here?--Chaser - T 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted your apology on your user page. I will replace the warning, and after some calm down time (longer than 30 mins), I am happy to discuss it with you on the talk page. I would urge you to be careful in future with the "don't be a dick" message as it is unecessarily combative and, due to ambiguity in the subject, can be taken the wrong way easily. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really should stop using that word.. Sorry I got so heated there. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we make it a few hours instead, then?--Chaser - T 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? -- Ned Scott 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A few hours of voluntary time off to cool down so that when you get back you won't still be harping at each other about nothing.--Chaser - T 06:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't be commenting again on this until at least tomorrow. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well Sparkzilla - you're not exactly as pure as driven snow when it comes to making "dick" attacks are you?[36]. By the way it was me you were supposed to apologise to, not the admin who pulled you up about it. See Petard, especially the "hoist" bit. David Lyons 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up entirely different situations is poisonous to the process of solving this problem. Please let it lie for a few days, or at least start a new section.--Chaser - T 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User 61.17.42.55

The user using IP address 61.17.42.55 is editing the Indian military articles without providing any source which is vandalism. This is repeated many times.[37] I request this user to be warned and subsequently blocked. Chanakyathegreat 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the edits. It seems the fellow has been inactive for the last nine hours, but a 24-hour block might be a prudent move. The repeated vandalism warrants such a response. YechielMan 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Lft6771 repeatedly pushing his original research

He rejects all mass media as "corporate media", "They are all wrong", and "misinformation" and refuses to cite any sources. I repeatedly told him and asked (and even offered him to reach a consensus, which he simply ignored): [38][39]

Instead, he simply reverts to his version (repeatedly), which is not only originally researched but also full of (dozens) "citation needed" marks:[40] Yes, he ignored my warnings too.

Thanks for taking care.--HanzoHattori 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seek dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have time for any of this. As for now, I guess any moderator telling him along the lines of "original research is bad, m'kay" (and that he needs to provide RELIABLE sources for everything) would do. I don't REALLY seek him to be banned (after all, what problem is to get an anouther account and go back with a real vendetta). So, thanks in advance again. --HanzoHattori 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We are not moderators. We are administrators, ordinary editors entrusted with access to certain tools. If you want the support of other editors in telling this person about original research, then use dispute resolution, including Requests For Comment and Third Opinion, as you have been told to do. Uncle G 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I took the time to read up on your dispute (unfortunately, administrators often don't have that time, especially for long protracted disputes as this). I would suggest filing at WP:RFC, and also, I would suggest being more precise. It's my experience that as who ramble on and can't precisely state the nature of the problem are often not paid attention to. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • • Nah, I'll decline. I hate all this beurocracy. (Btw, he reverted your revert too.) --HanzoHattori 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Resolved

 – unless they don't learn their lesson. Natalie 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the correct place to report a personal attack? [41] ExtraDry 08:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, it depends. We used to have a noticeboard just for personal attacks, WP:PAIN, but it was tagged historical a while ago because people were abusing it. Now you have several options, which are listed near the end of the WP:PAIN page I linked above. In your specific case, I believe attacks that severe can go straight to WP:AIV. --tjstrf talk 08:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ExtraDry 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for that plus various gems in their edit summaries. Natalie 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Azerbaijan (Iran) article. This article has been a source of dispute for quite some time, and has been protected a number of times too. Right now the dispute is about over whether it is ok to add info of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports. Some users delete this verifiable info from the article under the pretext that “Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox”, however I don’t see how adding verifiable info from a third party source is soapboxing. I know that this may not be the most appropriate place to raise this issue, but I would like to ask experienced and impartial editors become involved with this article to help resolve the disputes, and also ask the admins to keep it on their watch lists. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are organizations with their own political agendas. To the best of my understanding, information must come from reliable sites, and those sites aren't. Od Mishehu 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they have any agenda other than protection of human rights, plus what's wrong with reporting the opinions? Grandmaster 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you can not spam Wikipedia articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not about human rights per se. It is about recent history. I made edit on page Iranian Azerbaijan based on multiple sources [61]. user:Pejman47 2 times blindly reverted it without reasonable explanation. First time he left short comment on talkpage and after that I reintrouduced my edit with new sources as he requested reliable sources. Second time he just reverted without comments on talkpage. He did it after I urged him to explain his behaviour. It is interesting that user:Pejman47 arrived at this page to revert me after user:Alborz Fallah who, an hour earlier, reverted me on another page Iran-Azerbaijan relations. And user:AlexanderPar also delete multiple sourced information. I opened RfC case for that but abovementioned editors instead of deliberations keep removing historical information--Dacy69 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a place and a purpose. WikiNews is for current events, and Iranian Azeris, or Human rights in Iran are the appropriate articles for ethnic issues and human rights reports, not geography articles like Azerbaijan (Iran). You, however, have been inserting the same poorly-sourced information on multiple pages from "Foreign relation of" articles - to geography articles, this is blatant soapboxing. AlexanderPar 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 is attempting to spam the same information on several articles. The issue they want to insert into Iranian Azerbaijan is already included in two or three articles.Hajji Piruz 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, WP:AN/I is not for the content disputes. You already have an RfC open on the article. Unless you want from us swift administrative actions (like block somebody) please argue on the RfC page. Alex Bakharev 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I reported not about content but about behavior of editors. Thanks.--Dacy69 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a problem with User:Hajji Piruz's usage of word "spam" left and right against editors. The comment above is just one example. Is there a warning or some form of reminder that can be issued to the user about it? Thanks. Atabek 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

now I see that that stuff handpicked by you from sources like isn.ethz.ch/ and amnesty international, "the most unbiased information source of the world") has been copy-pasted in the 4th article [62], I understand that some users have called that edits "spam", and you have not yet explained your misguiding "edit summery" in [63]--Pejman47 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge admin to interfere with blatant vadnalism of User:Hajji Piruz and others orchestrated by him. without discussion they redirected page which was suggested by third party during RfC [64]--Dacy69 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what vandalism did I commit? LOL, what did I do? Dacy69, the only one not discussing anything is you.Hajji Piruz 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)

User maintains an uncivil/insulting tone despite being warned. He continues to maintain same accusatory and uncivil tone in a self righteous manner disrupting a sensitive yet rather routine stub-sorting maintenance discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 10:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I find calling someone a racist a pretty serious allegation. You could have given him notification for this report though. I see you haven't done that yet.--Atlan (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He has been warned for personal attacks and incivility many times before, to no avail. Blocked for 24 hours, to prevent further wild accusations of racism. Neil ╦ 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't find any warnings on his talk page. Only 1 3RR block some months ago. I don't object the block, though.--Atlan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And now you are making personal insults again. See Wikipedia:Civility. Others have been blocked for that kind of behavior recently. You need to reassess the situation here because I don't think you are looking at it realistically. DreamGuy 11:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Whispering 00:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Last warning. Watch your comments or you will be blocked -- Samir धर्म 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

These are the ones on his/her talk page. He was welcomed on 10 July 2004 so he must have stumbled upon our core policies by now. And if he hasn't checked out our core policies by now, now would be a good time to do so.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it was just me then. It must have been the small print on his talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Communists

Icar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Francis Tyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Dahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are doing little more than following eachother around reverting names and communist afiliations from a score of Romanian Politicans from the WWII era. Perhaps widespread protection or sending both of them a discuss-or-leave message would be useful? PouponOnToast 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could one of these users be User:VinceB by any chance? I can't tell enough about the dispute to see who's the pro-communist and who's anti-communist. In any case, I find Icar's constant use of the term "vandalism" to be off-putting enough that I want to ignore him altogether. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Lazio Gio

Lazio_gio is my user name on Wikipedia, for some reason I have been blocked by administrator Duja. Duja is taking a break right now and cannot get back to me. I have written to other administrators but they have not responded either. I have been accused of being a sock puppet of Vince G or Vince B, I am not. Just compare my editing record. Anyways, please write to me at lazio_gio@easy.com I do not want to start any wheel warring but this block is totally unjust, I feel like I am in a Kafka book...

I have created the Wikipedia article on Vilmos Apor and on Count Kuno von Klebelsberg, as well as the article on General Schmidhuber. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.224.28.2 (talk)

This may require a checkuser. The only thing I can be certain is that both Lazio Gio and VinceB have taken an interest in articles related to Serbia. YechielMan 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete - compromised admin account

Please undelete Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 650l2520 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been restored by another admin, but what the heck was that deletion about? WP:POINT?--Isotope23 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the deleting admin Vancouverguy (talk · contribs) might bear some watching. Account has been inactive since October 2005 and suddenly shows up to make a WP:POINT deletion of the CSD category today.--Isotope23 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's trying to tell us that he was really fast at deleting images, and we have silly backlogs. At least that's my AGF version. Keeping an eye on him is a good idea, though. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely. I blocked him after he was desysopped by User:Bastique, after I reported this account as likely to be compromised. After he played silly buggers with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - stupid move - there wasn't much doubt IMO. Moreschi ^Talk 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Isotope23 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No more AGF after he continued trolling using admin tools. Pretty fast response time, little damage. Good work. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainlly looks like it was got at - good call. --Fredrick day 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a footnote, 87.175.68.193 (talk · contribs) and 194.54.189.173 (talk · contribs) made a few similar edits immediately after. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How would the account have been compromised? I thought the weak passwords were changed? Carcharoth 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

His associated e-mail could have been compromised?--209.115.153.68 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have an idea. Email accounts are hacked easily, and all a vandal needs to do to get hold of an admin account. Is get the email account, then click the button sayijng "Email new password." emailing the password to the email account, allowing the vandal to log in... Francisco Tevez 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised or not compromised, doesn't massively matter. If not compromised, then admin actions like that are just vandalism with admin tools. Not clever. If the account was not, in fact, compromised, he'd better have a bloody good excuse. Moreschi ^Talk 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser needed? Francisco Tevez 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two IP's we've associated with the hacking come from Germany and Poland respectively, and VancouverGuy is from, um, Vancouver, I doubt it was really him. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouverguy's authentic contribs are too old for checkuser. Thatcher131 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, the IPs he used were, unsurprisingly, Tor. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What's really confusing is this: if someone has gone to the trouble of hacking this, why waste it with two silly, high profile, but not very disruptive,pieces of vandalism - think of what he really could have done?--Doc^g 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said vandals are smart? Seriously... those who have been around here long enough to be creative are few and far between.--Isotope23 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Best de-adminship spree yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the account was not compromised, an admin from 2005 might find the Brave New Wikipedia of 2007 quite a weird place. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With that in mind, is there any reason why an account that was dormant for a year and a half was still an admin? That strikes me as a bit of a security hole. Resolute 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been over that before, I can't find the link, though.. there are both pros and cons for doing it. Neil ╦ 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And his action of deleting C:CSD was especially annoying today of all days - I've been working like a mofo on keeping it clear. Neil ╦ 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD has been more manageable during the past couple of weeks due to the efforts of a handful of vigilant admins. I am amazed at the amount of work you guys have done. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEREN, why we don't desysop inactive admin accounts is there. Moreschi ^Talk 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• However, the assumption that inactive accounts are less likely to get hacked than active ones is questionable in light of the last couple of months... Georgewilliamherbert 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (tell me where to propose) - I propose that admin accounts inactive (no edits) for 3 months are put on suspension - admin bit is flipped off, but will be restored 24 hrs after resumption of normal editing and upon filing a request on WP:RFA. Request does not need RFA approval, just create a new section there for handling it, so the bureacrats don't have to watch other pages. Admin will remain "an admin" during the suspension, just with the bit flipped temporarily. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Three months might be too short a time period, but the Wikipedia:Inactive administrators proposal, which was on the page that Moreschi linked seems ideal to me. This very case would suggest its usefulness, and there is also the general security issue. Working tech support, I wouldn't ever think of leaving someone with admin privledges active should they leave the company. It is just begging for trouble down the line if that person returns with a different attitude towards the company. As Wikipedia grows and becomes a bigger and bigger target, it needs to minimize risk where it can. This may be a proposal that could benifit from a second look. Resolute 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wildscreen and www.arkive.org

Could I get a couple of additional admins to look at this. Either I overreacted, or we have a serious long term spam-link situation here. The mentioned user was adding links to the same site to many articles. A regular sign of spamming. I reverted the links and gave the user a warning. A search of the link shows the site is linked to already on a *lot* of pages. Some by this user a while back, misc others by other users. A look at the page shows a conservation site. Not a for-profit organization, but they do have prominent Donate Now type links around their page. I'm not a spam expert, and this is not quite the obvious case it appeared to be at first glance. Or maybe it is such a case, and all the links need to be removed. Anyway, I was hoping a couple of others could take a look at the situation and give their $0.02. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a clear case of WP:COI and attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but the pages aren't the most objectionable spam I've seen (the donate links are tiny and not the main focus of the pages by any means). We run into the same problems with people going around mass adding NNDB and various wikis and so forth... The sites have some info, but don't seem to have any reason to be as linked as they end up getting linked, and fail WP:EL on the "sites that don't have as much info as the existing Wikipedia article or what the article should have if it were improved" criteria, on top of the self-promotion problems. As a general concept I remove all these when I run across them, but each has pretty dedicated people pushing them back in later. All of these seem to be a calculated attempt to exploit Wikipedia for their own purposes, probably out of good faith (thinking the info is good, etc.), but still. DreamGuy 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(and is it just me, or does the part about the "nofollow" tag in the standard warning about linkfarming strike anyone else as pretty naive and/or deceptive... I don't know if it's from Wikipedia mirrors not using nofollow tags or just Google loving Wikipedia in general, but any link added to Wikipedia can expect a substantial jump in Google ranking and hits. It's just a fact, and that's why we need to patrol these things. DreamGuy 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's linked from 580 articles - now they might be in good faith and they might add something to the articles - who wants to take a look at each of them :-) --Fredrick day 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have gleamed from some of the articles that have the site as a reference, it doesn't seem like a problem. Being a part of WP:CVU and regular member of the WP:SPAM mIRC chat room, I have a basic check list I use when investigating spam. I check if the link is a reference or merely an external link. Then, I look for in-your-face advertising on said link. In this case, all I can see is a small donate link. Next, I look at their “about us” page, to see if they are for-profit. This page states “ARKive is a not-for-profit initiative of Wildscreen (www.wildscreen.org.uk), a UK-based charity, whose mission is ‘to promote the conservation of nature and public appreciation of biodiversity, through the power of wildlife imagery’.” If there is something about this I am missing, please let me know. Otherwise, I don’t see the site as a problem here. Perhaps to some users and IPs that insert these links, they see these as the best available references. I do the same thing with All Music Guide and Allaboutjazz.com for my various WP:ALBUM and musical artist pages. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of opinions then. The site itself is not bad, and no real need for wholesale removal. When inserted on a one by one basis, the link is likely fine. But the mass insertion by User:Wildscreen was inappropriate, and at a minimum an attempt to promote arkive.com using WP, and so I was correct in reverting/warning this user. Does that sound about right? - TexasAndroid 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I now see your problem. As you describe it, whenever such an incident occurs when I am watching recent changes or the mIRC spam channel, I flash revert and warn the user that adding so many links at one time is unwise and shows an agenda. Also, on a personal side note, adding links to pages that are solely pictures and/or movies is a no-no, since those pieces of media may be subject to copyrighting, even if not uploaded to Wikipedia. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This external link was added previously to other articles and then discussed on the talk of WP:TOL and accepted as valid. I am restoring the links. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've utilized the link on a few articles to improve the articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were not an established user, I would be giving you a spam warning right now, Uther. Reverting all those spam links is rewarding the spammer. The spammer was placing the links in to promote the site. If it is added one by one into articles, it is not a problem. If it is added in mass to multiple articles at a time, it is WP:SPAM. WP:SPAM specifically prohibits the mass adding of links as was done. By mass revererting to reinsert the link, you are yourself now the spammer. - TexasAndroid 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand a little, how the heck are we supposed to tell Wildscreen that what he did was spam and improper, while at the same time Uther gets to revert all the spam links right back in, and that's supposed to be acceptable? The mass adding of the links is improper, and is spamming, no matter who does it. It's worse for Wildscreen, because of WP:COI issues on top of the spamming, but what Uther has done is still spamming the project. - TexasAndroid 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TexasA here; these links shouldn't be added back in. I accept ARKive.org as a valid reference but the manner in which these particular ones were added in bulk and the nature of the link (possible copyrighted images and videos), and these links placed above all other links on said pages shows me these shouldn't be in the external links section. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And where was that discussion at WP:TOL Uther? I couldn't find it. Also, I have just noticed that Wildscreen is the "UK-based charity" that ARKive.org is based on (I know, I mentioned it above but didn't put two and two together until now), so this is a huge WP:COI. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The www.arkive.org discussion is on Archive 17 of the WP:TOL talk. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits and Uncivil Comments

Recently, changes to the United States were made, including the dropping of a citation for basic info on the country (How many states, year founded, etc.) 1. However, Corticopia, objected to this, and re-added the citation; 2, 3, 4. 5, but then removed the warning on his talk page 6. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 7.

Since another user had already started a thread on him at the 3RR noticeboard 8, I added diffs from the United States issue (mentioned above). Corticopia objected to this, 9. An admin ruled that the violations were stale, but warned Corticopia to be civil 10. Corticopia then replied with this 11.

I also asked the user who reported him originally about writing him up at WP:ANI 12, and Corticopia responded with this threat 13.

It should also be noted that Corticopia has been blocked 5 times for violating 3RR. He was last blocked on May 20, 2007 for a period of one week. A sixth block was rescinded after an admin ruled he hadn't technically broken the rule.

Thanks ---BH (T|C) 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in my experience Corticopia has been remarkably intransigent and uncivil. Moreover, he seems to want to "game" the 3RR system: he'll revert three times and then promise to return the following day to revert again. He's not interested, it seems, in establishing consensus through discussion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In the span of only three days, Corticopa reverted United States three times in succession on three separate occasions--the first time over a period of 13 hours; the second time in a span of 23 minutes; the third time in a span of 53 minutes. Here are the three separate warnings I left on his Talk page: [65]; [66]; [67]--note that you must scroll to the end of the diff to read the new, third warning (Corticopia had deleted the earlier warnings in the interim). I also note, though Corticopia issues plaints about "personal attacks" directed against him, it was he who first made the vigorous but healthy debate over the style and structure of the United States lede personal and uncivil in the following comment on the article's Talk page, in which he charges those opposed to his argument with "sophistry": [68].—DCGeist 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is probably a minor thing, but it's frustratingly difficult to understand what on earth he's trying to say half the time. I was reminded of this by this edit, which is frankly unintelligible (huh? what comma splice?), let along this one (which is a pig's ear even after eight separate edits). And it was in similar circumstances that he and I started butting heads, when he insisted that I was using "unencyclopedic syntax" but without explaining what that might mean. But once he's taken a position, he's almost invariably unwilling to back down, preferring to revert to incivility (and that's putting it mildly). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia does not follow the rules. S/he is a an editor who does not wish to follow the WP:NPOV policy. I have showed him/her that a POV that differs from his/hers meets the requirements of a "majority" POV according to WP:WEIGHT, but s/he has continued not following the policy by not allowing the POV in the article. S/he continued to revert the article under question to the version that did not display a neutral POV. Her adamant refusal to concede that her edits are against Wikipedia Policy is flusterating. In some of my dealing with him/her, her/his accusatory remarks were completely uncalled for. When I initially started arguing with him/her, s/he accused me of sock puppetry, since anonymous IP editors took similar views in the talk page. This was against WP:FAITH. Corticopia continually disregards Wikipedia policies when s/he forms her arguments for article content. Whereas my arguments with Corticopia rest on Wikipedia Policies which I regularly call by name, Corticopia does not base arguments about article content on policy. Her arguments are based on incivil tactics. In multiple occasions s/he has argued with editors and has ended up disingenuously calling a them a troll, accusing them of "sophistry" and threatening to call down the administrators on them. These clutch arguments are put forth regardless of the situation, because they are merely empty threats Corticopia uses to scare away other editors. I have brought up this issue in a discussion with Corticopia but s/he erased my comment in [this edit] against WP:TALK. The worst argumentive strategy Corticopia uses is refusing to discuss the article's contents with other editors when they try to discuss changes in the talk page. How can article improvement proceed if Corticopia refuses to discuss the modifications with other editors and simply reverts the article to her version? Corticopia has followed up exhaustive arguments with indeterminant phrases such as "acknowledged". Corticopia claims that when she says "acknowledged" it neither means she agrees or disagrees with the other editor. She has tried to use this tactic as a means to end all rational discussions, so she can have free reign to revert the article. Corticopia has not, in my mind, genuinely tried to base the reasons for her/his edits on Wikipedia Policy in discussions and refuses to work in accord to policy with regards to her article reversions.----^DarkTea 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-Oh! It looks like that irregardless of the comments by me and three colleagues, not one admin is even looking into the matter. The user in question is an edit warrer who has been blocked 5 times for actions, but yet he's still allowed to continue his disruptive and uncivil ways here at Wikipedia. It just makes me sick. BH (T|C) 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some admins have lives outside of Wikipedia. Did you take it to WP:3RR, where it states, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." You may have luck with that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it got taken to WP:3RR, where it was likewise allowed to grow "stale" by admins. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there over 1200 admins. Plus other sections seem to attract more interest. I wouldn't complain, however I don't want this go "stale" without action being taken. BH (T|C) 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; this is really long, so let me ask, in a nutshell: is there anything here that is blockable and not already stale? Some have suggested Corticopia is gaming 3RR; could you provide some diffs to show this? Just diffs with no long paragraphs about it, please, a little explanation if necessary. Or, if the incivility is current, show me a few diffs for this? Maybe you've already listed some of this; if so, well, the remarks above are pretty long and it's hard to figure out what's up. If there's nothing blockable here, there's nothing for admins to do, and you should consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Potentially Uncivil: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'd relist the 3RR stuff, but that might be harder to do without making it too long. BH (T|C) 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly current, but it's enough that we should probably keep an eye on him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Corticopia refusing to discuss article content any further:Corticopia does not refute my arguments but calls me a troll and refuses further discussion, Corticopia's threats and refusal to discuss changes, and Corticopia calls User:Meowy a troll and refuses discussion with her----^DarkTea 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And the diffs for the revert thing are:1, 2, 3. And here the user threatened to keep reverting the next day 4. BH (T|C) 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia was recently blocked for a week by myself and does not seem to have taken the hint. It is time for a longer block if it continues. Dmcdevit·t 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, Dmcdevit. My contention this whole time has been that Corticopia has yet to learn his lesson and a much longer (if not an indefinite) block is needed to stop his behavior. BH (T|C) 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know why incivility alone isn't reason enough for a block. WP:BLOCK mentions incivility as a reason, and also mentions that the users prior blocks can be used to impose a stiffer penalty. BH (T|C) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, oh well. I was recently directed here by another editor -- busy bees we are. While I am tempted to address and respond to the charges of each encyclopedisteditor, which are replete with a sort of confirmation bias I can only describe as laughable, I really have better things to do. And that will be the extent of my involvement in this farce. Corticopia 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Farce? This is no farce. It is a serious discussion about the way you contribute here at Wikipedia. You have been blocked not once, not twice, but five times. This thread is to determine whether or not you've learned your lesson. And given these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, say6), I'd say you haven't. And it is within my rights to ask other users who have dealt with you in the past to comment here. Perhaps if you hadn't had so many run-ins with editors who have had to deal with your disruptive behavior and uncivil comments, they would be harder to find. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a farce: given your abortive move of America and concomitant chiding there, I am unconvinced that your spearheading of this is an overreaction and/or retaliatory attempt on your part. I will not address other comments made above -- not because I cannot but because I have neither the inclination nor the time to indulge in your witch-hunt and in the confirmation bias of like-minded editors, not to mention the circular argumentation such an exercise would result in. Your invitations to other editors to seek my blocking are more a reflection of your sensitivities and intent than of my ... editing idiosyncrasies. Despite accusations from you et al, for example, I have received kudos from others for said efforts at encyclopedism, which remains problematic amidst the often challenged editing and one-sided commentary from commenting/solicited editors above. Wikipedia is not your mother: if you or others cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And beyond this I will not comment further. Ta. Corticopia 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, that debate had 8 people opposed to me. So explain what I've done to witch-hunt out the others. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I myself have had problems with getting an admin to act upon another problematic user, so I can't really advise you on another place to go for help. It doesn't hurt to try, though. Following WP:DISRUPT, try going to WP:CN. If you are up to it, try seeking an admin and contact them through their personal talk page, referring to this ANI. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its very important to remember WP:IGNORE, User Corticopia edits have only served to make this a far more valuable resource of information. Many articles here have been hijacked by a gangs of users with absurd POVs and are able to force "consensus" through their mafia style tactics. I strongly urge you to research the factual merit of Corticopia's edits rather than enforcing "rules" for their own sake. Wikipedia can bring out cult-like behavior in some people that get obsessed with the rules over the content. Please remember this is an encyclopedia first and a fascist society of rules and their enforcers second --Caligvla 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Corticopia's been editing constructively for a fair bit, but it's not an excuse for doing it recklessly. Reckless editing is detrimental to community, and without that there's no encyclopedia. One doesn't have priority over the other, they go together. This is the subject of this discussion. It doesn't matter if one thinks the other side is biased, because they're probably thinking the same on you. This way of thinking leads to conflict. Assume good faith, and assume the assumption of good faith. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reckless is a fair assessment of Corticopia. He's passionate, and let's himself get egged on, but that's not a terrible quality, just a bad one. He gets busted for 3RR because he worries about making a good encyclopaedia, not following the rules. It's not perfect, but not terrible. That he escalates problems with disruptive editors, rather than diffuses them is not so great. But since he isn't the one being disruptive in the first place, no "further" action needs to be taken against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

What about his incivility? Corticopia loves to use the sh*t in his comments, and refers to those with differing opinions as "Sophists". See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And WilyD, perhaps your too new of an admin to know policy, but incivility is blockable as it is considered disruptive and harmful. And he's the learned the 3RR rule because he now knows to revert three times in a half-hour, then come back the next day and keep it up. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect America without consensus and despite lengthy discussion and prior attempts, then launch an abortive move at America and -- in the middle of that -- launch a contested straw poll on the same page; when that fails, insinuate the same viewpoint into the DAB. I can also expand on, for instance, DarkTea's persistent attempts to significantly skewreframe Asia with a narrow view despite near unanimity against such editing (see that talk page), and you tell me who is being disruptive? I can go on, but won't -- suffice to say that sophistry and perhaps incompetence are abound. If you prefer uncensored comments or synonyms, I can oblige, but editors can either ignore all rules or just ignore -- I make no apologies, and again Wikipedia is not your mother. And when junta-like editors push their viewpoints, misrepresent or act without consensus, add text with poor or unreferenced syntax, here above all, or just remove long-standing citations with little reason from articles which remain far from featured status (perhaps far off because of such removals in part), said corrections are not being disruptive but merely represent encyclopedic zealousness. That's it for now. Corticopia 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These "examples" are pretty lame, to be honest. There's nothing wrong with saying "shit" - in fact, that I've used "fuck" as part of my edit summaries on a few occasions was discussed at my RfA and no one thought much about it. "Fuck you" is inappropriate, "Ah, shit - I've fucked up the table format" is not. As for the rest of it --- you generally aren't given admin tools unless you already understand policy. Refering to the arguments of other editors as "sophistry" is not the greatest way to deal with other editors, though sometimes POV-warriors need to be called out on what they're doing. Gaming the 3RR rule is bad - but Corticopia's already been subjected to escalating blocks for it - he'll figure it out or he won't. But there's nothing else to see here - certainly I've not seen any incivility that's cause enough for a block. WilyD 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to block...

All the sockpuppets of User:Goodman09. Or someone to block the IP range if possible. Multiple sockpuppets such as User:Goodman017, User:Goodman016 and so on ad nauseum. Sasquatch t|c 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Fayden

I have today received two personal attacks via email from the blocked user User:Fayden asking why I blocked his account and then going on to say rather nasty things and make threats about me. I had never heard of Fayden until he emailed, and certainly had nothing to do with his blocking. I'm avoiding replying to him as it will give him my email address. According to others, I'm not the only one receiving these, and he's repeatedly requesting unblocking claiming to have done no wrong, and seemingly has no interest in reading Wikipedia policy. I posted this at WP:VPM, and was directed here. Cheers, Stannered 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A diff: [69] Stannered 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-blocked him with the brand-new email blocking feature enabled, as he seems to be misusing that privilege. That should dry up the stream of emails, at least. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Stannered 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where can we learn more about the brand-new email-blocking feature? Newyorkbrad 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same...I see the option has appeared on Special:Blockip. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell he would be emailing anyone other than me is downright baffling (though I did get an email from him)... I love the new feature, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK, under "Setting block options", for a brief explanation of the email blocking option. This is the first time I've used it, but it just felt right, somehow. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this user faked an email pretending to be from an innocent third party entirely unrelated to the block to unblock-en-l. As such, I have also placed a block on the IP address. I suspect that google search results for Iced Entertainment Media Inc. are going to start including the links to the Wikipedia pages showing this Fayden person's bad behaviour. Well, he brought it on himself. --Yamla 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone is a sockpuppet of User:Quentin X

As explained on the userpage of User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone. Dalejenkins 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I my opinion, this seems fine on the surface. The Jackofalltradesmasterofnone (talk · contribs) states that he can not log onto his account, Quentin X (talk · contribs), at work, so has created this account (which works). I would probably do the same thing. The user does not hide the fact and this complies with WP:SOCK. However, if there questionable edits or the users are not actually the same user, then there could be an issue. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it does explain that. Is there a specific problem? Sock guidelines do allow the use of multiple accounts for benevolent purposes, and the explanation seems reasonable. They're not editing at the same time or anything, and the sock's talk page redirects to the main account. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud by banned user

12345ak (talk · contribs) was indefinetely banned in April by Moondyne for abusive sockpuppetry.[70] In a previous blocking of one of his sockpuppets, 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs), Avraham cited this edit by 12345ak as one of the reasons for the block, proving that 131.111.8.104 - registered to the University of Cambridge[71] - was one of the sockpuppets used by 12345ak.

In May a new user account was created, 12345ka (talk · contribs) (note "ka" not "ak"), which voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as his first edit[72]. Out of the 5 IPs which voted to keep the article, 2 are confirmed to be IPs of the University of Cambridge, 131.111.235.31 (talk · contribs)[73] and 131.111.8.104 (talk · contribs) (the confirmed puppet account of 12345ak) [74]. That would almost certainly mean 12345ak / 12345ka was engaged in vote fraud on the AFD.

I didn't think a checkuser request would be required in this instance given the proof, so could an admin please block user:12345ka as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and are there any other ways to prevent further vote fraud at AFDs by the same user using various IPs? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Obvious sock. Sasquatch t|c 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Momusufan reverting all my edits as vandalism

Resolved

 – for the time being.--Chaser - T 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Momusufan (talk · contribs) is going aroudn and reverting all of my edits as vandalism, which they are not. Can someone please review? Thanks. --130.15.219.160 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, your edits do not look like vandalism at all. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute of sorts. Am trying to sort out on Momusfan's talk page and will find a source for the population of the town.--Chaser - T 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested for a range block

Can another admin sanity check a range block I just did for a half-hour. It's the last thing in my block log. The IPs were vandalizing Wal-Mart, User:DerHexer, and Home Depot, and possibly other pages.--Chaser - T 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Expired by now.--Chaser - T 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review: Soccermeko (talk · contribs) trying to OWN their talk page

See User talk:Soccermeko. They have posted "rules" forbidding the posting of messages to the page. They have reported 2 users to an admin. Also threatened to have User:Moondyne blocked. I've blocked for 36 hours as they had a previous block for harassment and incivility. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually say to grant people leeway to do lots of things on their own talk page, but you can't just forbid contact and expect it to be enforced. Fully agree with the block. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, hopefully a quick jab with the "get a clue" stick should solve the problem. --Fredrick day 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbidding people from posting on your talk page is only an invitation for people to do so. —Kurykh 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

yes and it's disruptive to boot - the use of the usertalk page is an accepted part of the communication and "glue" that hold wikipedia together. You don't get to opt out of communication from fellow editors (within reason).--Fredrick day 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that posting such rules is inappropriate. The rules are no longer there; for those who want to see it, here's an old version. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Evaded block

User:Wikimegamaster was blocked on the 10th June for canvassing and trolling. He circumvented the block to leave a message on my talk page on the 11th [75] the nature of the message was an apology for behaviour and a promise not to do anything else while blocked. I'm listing it here as it is a block evasion but what do people think about following up on it? Given the conciliatory comments and no other obvious edits being made while blocked should any further action be taken? Mallanox 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not constitute circumventing a block. People that are blocked can still use talk pages, circumventing a block means editing with an IP or a sockpuppet. DarthGriz98 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was under the impression that while blocked users could only use their own talk page to request unblock. Mallanox 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio uploader still active depite warnings/previous blocks

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still uploading copyvio images despite numerous warning and several previous blocks for the same repeated offences. Prior to last block the suggestion was an indefinite block. But the next offence only resulted in a 5 week block. NOTE this user is also editing unlogged as IP 66.97.112.223 (talk · contribs) as can be seen in this IP's edit history. Suggest a long vacation for both. 156.34.228.140 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, this IP user helps a lot on the project, so I trust their judgment. Looking at MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) contributions, there are concerns that this user is not getting what we are asking for through policy. The talk page alone is damning. The user has been blocked five times with four of them being directly related to images. If others agree, I think it may be a good idea to take this to WP:CN. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal currently on another spree

67.49.181.250 has been vandalizing many articles in the last few days. I notice he has had several warnings before on his talk page but they have not deterred him, and his account is being used solely for vandalizing articles and his vandalism spree doesn't appear to be slowing down. Masaruemoto 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Lewisskinner

This user is doing super-speedy reversions, apparently either using a bot or tabbed editing, but whatever he's doing, he's obviously not paying attention to what he's doing, because in many of the cases where he's editing, he's reverting good edits back to vandalism. Corvus cornix 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block him until he responds to the problem? Corvus cornix 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just spot-checked the last 10 of those he did; they were all either clear vandalism he fixed (8), or seemed to very likely be (2). I don't know if this is manual or automated, but unless you can provide us with good reason to think he's got an automated or semi-automated bot in use, it appears to be good if rapid vandal fighting.

I'm not ruling out that he may have made some mistakes; if so, please call out the specific edits he did which are goofs, preferably to him on his talk page (your note there was too vague). If he keeps making a significant number of mistakes or won't respond to them there, bring it back up here. Georgewilliamherbert 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see with his reverts, most of them are removing vandalism, but a few seem to be trigger happy. The controversial ones have been reverted back to their original ones. This doesn't warrant a block; it would be punitive in such a case. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

His proportion of "goofs" is ten times what anyone actually reading the revisions he's reverting could ever be believe to make, and he's been evasive and nonresponsive when asked to explain. I've blocked him until he gives us a darn good explanation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See the edit history of Galeries de Hull, where he reverted my speedy delete tag back to an empty article. See his reversion of Donation. See his reversion of Tilt up. See his reversion of Gamma ray burst. Corvus cornix 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See, here's why linking to specific diffs in the initial report is so important. If the first 10 things that an uninvolved admin looks at aren't the problem, then you didn't give us enough info to begin with... Thanks for elaborating now, though. It does clarify the situation. Odd. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him to give him a second chance. I hope he learned the importance of double checking what he does. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Womcat: A User:Komodo lover sockpuppet

ResolvedAkhilleus blocked the account indefinitely. Pants^(T) 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Womcat coincidentally edited some of the same page that User:Black Rhino Ranger edited, including Impossible Creatures and Animal Face-Off. The user even restored a comment made by Blue Rhino Ranger. Pants^(T) 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover. Pants^(T) 03:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

misuse of admin tools by Irishguy

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
Irishguy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Irishguy and Tecmo have gotten into it in the past:

They got into a disagreement on the Kevin Youkilis article, where Tecmo a 3RR block (partially related). Tecmo reverted him at 12:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment at the talk page and at 12:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at 12:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 12:23, he blanked his talk page at 12:24: "how many idiots are there in one day". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior:

"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."

Except you can see by going to Tecmo's contribution page quite easily, that he reverted and his next contribution was to the talk page. Maybe he had to go to the bathroom, maybe the doorbell rang.

AGF and what actually happened didn't seem to matter. But it should when we're dealing with new editors who could be sockpuppets or who could just be new editors.

Irishguy filed a Suspected sock puppet report. Given that he filed the report and his past with Tecmo, he shouldn't have been the one to declare that the evidence he found was "obvious" and block them both within a day of opening the report.

His solid evidence was that Tecmo warned El Redactor about a conversation on his talk page about El redactor. Tecmo warned El Redactor and no El redactor (cap difference) and El redactor found the conversation anyway.

In actuality, El redactor found his talk page and commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson section, and then the "El redactor" section. Maybe he got there because Irishguy commented on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page (he'd edited the talk and article pages minutes earlier). Maybe he got there because he looked at Baseball Bugs contributions (his last two edit summaries said "baseball bugs is following me").

WP:AGF and WP:BITE and policy and procedure have been ignored, and people have forgotten that their own arrogance aside, we don't know whether El redactor is or is not Tecmo. If he's Tecmo--a sockpuppet was blocked quickly. But if he isn't, then look what's been done to a new editor. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:07, June 13 2007 (UTC)

At the very least this bears looking into. If the sockcheck was not complete, then it was premature for Irishguy to block. Irishguy does appear to be 'involved', which would seem to suggest that Irishguy should have deferred to an uninvolved editor to do the blocking. I agree that the socks issue looks suspicious, and AGF says it is not a sock until proven to be one. Lsi john 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

homophobia and vandalism

hi user [DaveyJones1968] has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford AfD

Hello. I wondered if it'd be possible for an admin to look in to this AfD discussion because the situation appears to be degenerating with allegations of this, that, and the other. I nominated the article for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph, was promptly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Emnx by User:IPSOS, am currently being subject to a checkuser request by User:GlassFET - both of whom edit the article - and now there are allegations against another user in support of the AfD nomination of the same sort, and a counter allegation by that individual of abuse of process. This all seems a bit much. I am also wondering if simply holding a position in disagreement to another user is enough to warrant allegations of sockpuppetry etc. This, to me, seems to verge on a personal attack and is certainly a failure to assume good faith. Before the discussion gets any worse I wondered if someone might look into it...? Coldmachine^Talk 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image tags

Dm2ortiz has uploaded a large number of fair-use images without providing any fair use rationales, despite the fact that this requirement has been explained. I tagged his images with {{nrd}}, but he is currently removing all these tags with an edit summary of "vandalism". Dm2ortiz has been unresponsive to my previous attempts to communicate with him, so I am looking for advice as to what to do next. Cheers --Pak21 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you notified the uploader when the images were tagged, though it is hard to tell with users who blank their talk pages. Do that and also mention to them that the tags should not be removed until the issues have been resolved. If that doesn't work, come back and someone will probably block. If you've already passed this step, just supply some diffs here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is this version of the user's talk page, where I have been over this with various other images, and the need for rationales has been explained on their current talk page as well. Given this comment by the user, I'm not sure that my comments would be accepted. Restore the tags and leave a message for the user anyway? Cheers --Pak21 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message and rolled back some edits. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing sockpuppetry by blocked user Emnx

There appears to be continuing sockpuppetry over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford. There is one user (Coldmachine) which appears to be an account which predates Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and another newly created (Arthana). The evidence is fairly strong. The history of Emnx is repeated attempts to delete Mandrake of Oxford, the latest using sockpuppet SKRINE2. Here is a highlight and link to full evidence for each user:

• Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Used the exact same language as SKRINE2. Compare edit comment by Coldmachine with AfD nomination by SKRINE2, both use the exact words "is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising".
  • More evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

• Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • User's second edit is to participate in an AfD. When it is pointed out in the Mandrake of Oxford AfD that the user is new, the response comes not from the user, but from an IP address in the range shown by checkuser to have been used by Emnx.
  • More evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd)

How much more obvious does it have to be to get some action taken? IPSOS (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake. I have nothing to do with these people, cool it down and cease with the personal attacks. I came across the article while looking through your edit history after you reverted edits without discussion on the Dune (novel) article, and I happened to agree that the Mandrake of Oxford article GlassFET created, and which you edited, should be deleted. I nominated it for the same reasons. Sockpuppetry allegations are a huge leap to make from mere agreement with another user. Note I have not accused you and GlassFET of being meatpuppets and yet there is ample evidence for that too: the reason being that I am assuming good faith. Quit persecuting me, and cease your personal attacks. This sort of case is precisely the reason why your participation on wikipedia has proven so controversial to date (judging from your talk pages, and edit history). Coldmachine^Talk 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, I made the decision to make an overt comment on the user talk page of User:Emnx to make it clear that I do not support this users behaviour or attitude towards the AfD, and to distance myself from this individual.

One further note. I refer you (again) to a decision made by an admin here in which it was made clear that "...the case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)". You persist in these false allegations: I can only assume therefore that these are personal attacks as part of some vendetta you hold against me for merely holding a different view than your own. Coldmachine^Talk 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk

I'm feeling a bit jaded, so am about to take a Wikibreak. So I could be just being an old miseryguts with this edit ([76]). Appreciate some other admins familiar with the Ref Desks casting an eye over this. At first I thought of pruning out the worst elements, but even if you do that, there's no real Ref Desk question at all. Anyway, if I've been too curmudgeonly, I happily expect to be reverted. --Dweller 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a knowledge-based question to start with, from my read. I'd say good job on sending the poster back under his bridge. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson awards and achievements

I recently added a section to the La Toya Jackson article outlining her awards and achievements. The section was unjustifiably removed by User:Metros. I reverted the section back and Metros again removed it, this time claiming that the entire thing must be removed because none of the awards were sourced.

I would like to point out that administrators are suppoed to follow the "good faith" rule, which Metros did not, and that other similar articles such as List of Michael Jackson's awards do not offer citations for every single award. Many of the awards and achievements are common knowledge, and the more obscure awards were found through images of the actual awards themselves, which were recently sold on eBay through a large Jackson family auction. I request that administration look into this issue and restore the awards and achievements section that Metros removed. This would certainly not be the first time that Metros has abused his admin powers and used his own opinions on La Toya Jackson against the article.

71.100.160.189 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the section was justifiably removed by User:Metros. We're not supposed to follow the "good faith" rule when the "good faith" rule goes against majority Wikipedia policies like verifiability and, more importantly, biographies of living people which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

So, until that's source, it will be removed. Metros 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that User:Metros is so intent on having this section removed but has no opinion on List of Michael Jackson's awards, which is the same thing, only more conentious. 71.100.160.189 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

since he em.. deleted List of Michael Jackson's awards then I think his views on that article are pretty clear.--Fredrick day 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• See distraction fallacy or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the Michael Jackson award page. Something that large should not go unreferenced since at least May of 2006. Metros 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I read this thread. The "fact" in the pre-revert version that she is/was a spokesperson for "Star Ice" made me smile and I really needed a smile. --Dweller 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja-vu from this incident - the behaviour (and the IP address) suggests this is User:Rhythmnation2004, who has had similar problem with Latoya based articles (and admin conduct around such articles) in the past. --Fredrick day 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Rhythmnation2004. See the IPs contributions, especially the edits to the IFD debate (where the IP signed a comment as Rhythmnation). Metros 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

page move got kerflunkeled--help!

MrsMacMan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

MrsMacMan's move log shows the following:

• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Primary education to Talk:Elementary school (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)
• 16:11, 11 June 2007 MrsMacMan (talk · contribs) moved Primary education to Elementary school over redirect (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)

Primary education redirects to Primary school Talk:Primary education redirects to Talk:Elementary school

I can't even begin to figure out what happened where. Obviously an admin is needed to undo these--if these are moves that need to be done they should be done properly and probably proposed first. I'm guessing it was in the undoing that something got kerflunkeled. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:41, June 13 2007 (UTC)