Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dutch declension, Archaic Dutch declension 2 Violation of WP:POINT, by User:Steve Dufour 3 Seeking block of User:Merbabu from further supply of comment to User:DavidYork71 talk page 4 Disruption by User:Malber 5 Personal attacks by Lygophile (talk • contribs) 5.1 Another personal attack, after 3 warnings (an Admin included) 5.2 One more 6 Breach of privacy policy 7 Please review 8 User:SPSF luvr 9 Redirect to Willy on Wheels 10 VoA Bot II 11 Input request 12 User:Fortyfeet 13 Another sockpuppet of banned user User:JJonathan

[edit] Dutch declension, Archaic Dutch declension

There are a few problems to address here.

1. I was being attacked as "foreigners", "don't understand Dutch" and need to "fuck off", etc in the discussion page about merging the two articles. I don't know a lot of Dutch, but I'm certainly know much enough to edit things I know which is true and which is not. And I asked someone who does know Dutch to do the rewrite.

2. I did not attack, nor erase anything. I simply revert the page to something believable.

3. I suspect Govert Miereveld, Bombshell and Scavenger are of the same user.

4. The above user, plus some users with a very similar IP, never responded to replies, nor discuss anything when there has been a very clear POV fork which needs to be addressed till lately when Rigadoun suggesting the merge of 2 pages.

5. The abovementioned users keep brining the Archaic Dutch declension page to Dutch declension page, making redirects, moving links from Dutch declension to Archaic Dutch declesion on Dutch grammar page on several occasions.

I feel violated. Although the comment was removed by another user for good enough reason, I think it is not at all civilised. Thanks in advance for the help because this has been going on for quite a while and I can not stand this anymore. Excuse my language in the beginning. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not admin, but diffs please. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The three accounts are indeed clearly sockpuppets, I have accordingly blocked two of them and given the third a warning. As for the rest of his behaviour, I consider myself more-or-less involved in the content dispute, so I'd appreciate if somebody else could take over. I can confirm that Bombshell has been disruptively editing against consensus, blatantly failed to understand WP:ATT, and has been making some rather nasty personal attacks (mostly in Dutch [1]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• And also in French and German. Judging by the verbiage, the user is Belgian. Not that that matters. It's basically a rant like "I'm pissed and you can all go to hell". Not very nice, to say the least. >Radiant< 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:POINT, by User:Steve Dufour

• Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), has previously been blocked for violation of WP:POINT. For more recent comments by other editors on this user's inappropriate disruption of the project, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Violation_of_WP:POINT.. More recently, the User continues to violate WP:POINT: DIFF 1. The User had previously tried this: DIFF 2, and was correctly reverted by User:Antaeus Feldspar, DIFF 3. Incidentally, this disruption was inserted again by later banned User:BabyDweezil, and was reverted again, and stayed removed until now. This repeated pattern of disruption of the project is clearly unacceptable. Smee 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

How many times is that now? - Denny ^(talk) 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking block of User:Merbabu from further supply of comment to User:DavidYork71 talk page

This is motivated by the firstnamed user's supply of incivilities here:[[2]], and by it's manner and degree of unsolicited attention directed at the secondnamed user in general. Please effect this, or inform me how to do so. Thanks and Easter Regards, DavidYork71 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And while folks are at it they might want to remove the soapboxing image found at the top of User talk:DavidYork71 (do note that User:DavidYork71 never requested that User:Merbabu not post to his talk page). (→Netscott) 05:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt anyone interested in the issue will read the full discussion where I’ve ask David to explain the meaning of the pic. As I pointed out in the discussion, an admin has already asked for the image’s removal. It’s apparently a graph purporting to map average IQ’s across various racial groupings, however, David—apparently a self-avowed fan of Hitler [3], [4],—will not explain this – when prodded he suggests it is an ‘Arabic-Hindu’ chart, hence my suggestion of ‘rubbish’ I believe is quite apt. Merbabu 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a graph of racial groupings and IQ differences among said groups. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what it is. I'd invited him some time ago to remove it, to no avail.Proabivouac 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is misuse of the incident noticeboard - a careful examination of blocks, warnings and comments about the complainant will show that the reverse is in actual fact true relative to bheaviour on wikipedia. SatuSuro 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image of the racial grouping IQ graph. I then reviewed Mr York's contribution to the project, particularly since his last block and I've given him another one. Sarah 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the removal of this graph, the alleged factual accuracy of which is completely beside the point.

Diffs such as these[5], [6] are disturbing. I am not clear that this block was earned as a matter of policy, but at the same time it is very difficult to muster sympathy for a user who has declared Adolf Hitler a "great man" and a "great statesman."Proabivouac 09:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption by User:Malber

After being caught sock-puppeting the other day, Malber (talk • contribs) has gone on a WP:POINT spree trying to get all his own contributions deleted before leaving the project ([7], [8]). Apparently he was successful in applying CSD G7 to a number of articles and images, even items that were clearly useful encyclopedic contributions and had existed for a long time; he is now bragging about how he misled admins into following his bad-faith nominations. I've speedy-closed the latest AfD he had created in this context, and I'm going to restore the speedy deletions. I'd also recommend a good long block, but I'd prefer it if somebody else applied it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for a month (although he should be unblocked if he wants to come back and be constructive) and deleted some choice comments on his talk page. This reminds me a lot of the actions of someone I knew in real life who I've come to strongly dislike, and it's a shame, 'cause Malber was a good contributor. Grandmasterka 09:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I dropped the user a note. El_C 09:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Lygophile (talk • contribs)

This user wanted to insert some totally biased claims on Americans in the Dutch (Ethnic group) article. (Arrogant, propaganda machine etc) which are not supported by sources. In the following discussion he first called me "full of shit". I gave him a standard No Personal attacks warning, though he denied making one, calling me a liar instead. He subsequently claimed: "if you think "your full of shit" as a respons to spreading lies about me is a personal attack your just a whiny little bitch (now thats a personal attack)". I doubt this needs any further explanation.Rex 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another personal attack, after 3 warnings (an Admin included)

He once again calls me "full of shit" and asks me to "shut up". Rex 10:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One more

This time he made a personal attack on my talkpage, in Dutch. "hou op met je spelletke. je bent gewoon het kleine broertje dat zn oudere broer blijft irriteren tot ie kwaad wordt en dan naar ze mammie loopt zielig te doen. je provoceerd het zelf met je onzin, dus dan moet je ook niet gaan janken" :Translation:

"Stop your little game. You 're just the little brother who keeps provoking his older brother until he gets angry and then runns home to his mummie to act pathetically. You provoke these things yourself so quit being a cry baby."

I'm not quite enjoying these things, so if an admin could finally undertake some action? Thanks Rex 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both users stepping back sounds like the best thing to do at this moment. El_C 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

24hr block. However, you appear to have been goading him, which can't help matters. Disengagement when things get heated is a good idea for both sides.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Things getting heated is no problem for me. Making personal attacks when you can't "winn" a discussion which requires references is. Rex 10:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking was needed; I already dropped a note on the talk page, so that should have been given a chance. El_C 10:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to unblock if you wish; however, Lygophile needs a tap with the cluestick about acceptable ways of communicating (even when being goaded) and 24 hours presents a good opportunity for him to cool off.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block. This user had clearly developed a disruptive pattern that had to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats some vile stuff. - Denny ^(talk) 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, of course. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack blocks are, generally, a bad idea; especially any that can be seen as punitive. El_C 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And a no personal attacks policy that is not enforced has no power to prevent abusive behaviour. Why even have a policy if we don't enforce it? We can't just warn people forever. I think this block is preventative in nature, as the behaviour seems likely to continue in the lack of any intervention. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a world outside of warning templates and it's this. El_C 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breach of privacy policy

194.73.163.108 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has breached privacy policy in these three edits [9], [10] and [11]. I would like these versions oversighted and the user given a final warning to cease or be blocked. DavidBoothroyd 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ip blocked for one year, edits deleted. El_C 10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please review

I declined an unblock request at User talk:I'm so special. I would normally never do this in a case I had previously been involved with (the user's first block was for "trolling", in attempting to advocate on my behalf on this very noticeboard!), but in this case the user asked for me by name and I agreed with the indefinite block; the user's contributions have largely been restricted to the above-noted advocacy attempt, some talk page edits, and starting Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MONGO. Feel free to disagree with my action. --Guinnog 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people seemed to be in agreement with the block up above, I'm not sure why upholding the same block needs further discussion, but I guess he'd only believe the same old crap we keep telling him if it came from you. :-) If you'd unblocked him unilaterally, different story of course. Grandmasterka 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[12]--MONGO 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't see that discussion. My post was really designed to be transparent, as declining an unblock in a case I've been involved with seemed like it might attract criticism. I should have made it under the existing discussion if I had seen it. --Guinnog 13:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to miss, there are 60 headings on this page as I write this.--MONGO 13:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SPSF luvr

SPSF luvr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) can someone check him? He's gone nuts on User talk:Feydey‎ with rampant attacks. - Denny ^(talk) 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Feydey has it, he just responded. Wasn't sure if he was online. - Denny ^(talk) 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got some reason in his/her mind. feydey 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect to Willy on Wheels

I'm uncertain how much concern this warrants, but User:64.251.49.194, a Connecticut school IP in the midst of a month-long block, is redirecting the IP's talk page to User:Willy on Wheels. Figma 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, redirects like that shouldn't happen: someone ought to protect that IP's talk page for the duration of the block. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is sprotected for duration of the block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VoA Bot II

Relatively minor in the scheme of things, but User:VoABot II seems to have some minor coding errors. Twice now, in the span of about two hours, it's shit itself in much the same way - a user creates a page, I come in and speedy-tag, the user removes the speedy-tag, VoABot sees this, tries to revert, but somehow gets my username in both fields ("Reverted edits by Action Jackson IV {information} to revision #120485586 by "Action Jackson IV". [content lost?])"), then leaves me a message in my talk page informing me of this revert, and that my username has been tagged as adding inappropriate MySpace links/etc. Just figured I'd throw a heads-up. Examples can be seen here and here, if the articles have not yet been deleted. Methinks a further beta-testing period is in order. --Action Jackson IV 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input request

I discovered that Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) has posted many copyright violations. I don't have time right now but will search his contributions for more later. Examples are Radio Roo, Pocket Dragon Adventures and Space Vets which I deleted and he recreated after being warned. (and I will delete again right after I finish this message). What to do with this user? For now I blocked for 48 hours for repeated copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see. If the block drives the point home, there's no need to do anything. If he comes back in two days and continues posting copyvios, make the second block longer. I'll take a look through his contributions too and see whether I turn up any more. Shimeru 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fortyfeet

I'm not too sure where else to put this or if it's against any sort of policy or what could even be done, but I figured I'd at least try to bring it to someone's attention. Yesterday, User:Fortyfeet, redirected his talk page to his user page and edited his user page to say he no longer wishes to edit, if someone wanted his account they could have it so long as they changed the user email, and gave the password for it. I undid the redirect because, as far as I know, that's not allowed, but I'm not going to touch the user page unless I know 100% whether or not it is against policy. Thanks. --pIrish 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account in accordance with WP:U. Sharing accounts or passwords is not allowed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another sockpuppet of banned user User:JJonathan

He's back as User:JJive. Aside from the identifying comments on his talk page, the editing pattern and writing style is identical. Also note the edit summary [13] here, when removing the AFD notice (article was created by User:JJonathan) Took this to AIV but no action was taken... --Kurt Shaped Box 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Only because AIV is for obvious vandalism, which this isn't. For someone unacquainted with the case - i.e me - it's tricky to see the disruption. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

JJonathan's MO is basically introducing subtle factual errors into articles (e.g. date-changing, adding inappropriate categories/list additions, addition of uncited info about the vocal range of singers), sandwiched between legitimate style/spelling/wikify edits. It's been going on for months (I've only just discovered it myself) - you really need to look through the edits of his long list of socks before you notice the pattern. Ban one and another pops up and carries on. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)