Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive92

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Deuterium 2 Your help 3 False Accusations 4 User:MONGO block of User:Striver 5 ComplianceBridge 6 Can't sleep, clown will eat me 7 User talk:65.13.184.164 8 User:Pro-Lick sockpuppet trouble 9 User:EKN 10 User:Dbiv 11 Latest Zephram Stark sockpuppet 12 Ambition is (was) back 13 User:64.40.53.196 14 User:Clivefan indefinitely blocked for legal threats 15 Question 16 Wikipedia:Community_Portal 17 Range block imposed on 128.239.0.0/16 18 Block needed for Vigilant (talk • contribs • logs) for perpetual 3RR and Disruption 19 Zephram Stark sockpuppet 20 GNAA 21 Abuse of Administrator function 22 User:Mr. Random 23 User:Luka Jačov 24 Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy 25 Fake Votes on Afd 26 User talk:Ekmai 27 User:Digiterata 28 WCityMike (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 29 List of shock sites 30 User:JzG 31 Irgendwer's blanking of his talk page 32 Vaughan Politics, boiled down to the simplest summary I could make 33 User:Cognition violating Larouche 1 and Larouche 2 34 E-mail spam 35 Block of Terryeo 36 Indefinitely blocked user evading block 37 Request for second opinion at Kazaa Lite 38 Sockpuppet tag continues to be removed, need block for disruption. 38.1 Pm Shef's defence 38.2 Note from Deckiller 38.3 CheckUser confirmed Leotardo a Sock 39 Remaining sockpuppets of banned Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 40 'Jonathan' 41 Long term disruptive user, current excessive unpleasantness 42 Block My Address 43 User:VaughanWatch 44 Rapid block needed 45 Please block IP 128.171.138.XXX 46 Bookofsecrets blocked 47 User Mtmtmt has been blocked by a bot (page moves) 48 User_talk:66.192.179.233 49 David McSweeney 50 Harrassment and abuse 51 64.131.231.66 (talk • contribs) 52 Morton devonshire, the sockfarmer? 53 Legal threat against editor 54 Lou franklin 55 User:WOW! 56 More quixotic legal threats 57 user:Jkelly 58 User:Ardenn 59 User:200.138.194.254 60 Indefinitely blocked user evading block 61 talk:Jesus and talk:Jesus-Mythblocked due to blacklisted spam site 62 Rogerman 63 Problematic user (moved over from WP:AIV) 64 User:Siddhartha21 & Michael Jackson Edit War 65 Advice on removing spam from AfD

[edit] User:Deuterium

This user's userpage, [1], is basically just an attack on group of editors that he has a problem with. I think this is rather inappropriate. Also this user has twice placed this propaganda website [2] in the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy article. I think he may just be unfamilar with wikiquette so I think he should just recieve a warning, but since I have been involved in a conflict with him I'm sure I would appear to have ulterior motives if I warned him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Only the vandals and the admins try to use policy, and he's certainly no admin. But Jayjg was perfectly justified in using WP:RS to delete the blog link, so I can't see what Deut's real problem is Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sceptre. Please see Talk:Anti-Arabism for a discussion about that blog; it's by awell-known professional journalist, which is allowed by WP:RS. JayJG is now arguing it violates WP:EL. I wonder what's next? Deuterium 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it violates both WP:RS and WP:EL. Blogs should only be linked to in highly specific circumstances which this doesn't meet. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, as you can see from the page, I'm not making personal attacks; I'm factually commentating on content in a civil manner, which is specifically condoned by WP:NPA.

Furthermore, lying about an editor (by saying I had twice included IRMEP in that page, when I have _never_ done so, check the history) _is_ a violation of WP:CIV. This is exactly the reason why I am keeping track of this kind of stuff :). Deuterium 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah but the attack pages are not factual, and you have even now accused another editor of "lying", which is yet another violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides the hit list like nature of his user page, this user has also created a page including my name User:Deuterium/Timothy Usher for the sole purpose of attacking me. I ask that this page be deleted as soon as possible, and this user - almost certainly another sock puppet of sock puppeteer Hrana98/24.7.141.159/216.118.97.211 - be banned.

Also note his recent "minor edits" after he's been caught.Timothy Usher 07:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that you haven't stopped attack people critical of your position. I encourage the editors here to look up my IP address so we can settle this once and for all. 128.97.248.132 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake for not signing in. Hrana98 17:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The strongest evidence for the identity of these users is a shared discourse, common themes and a common style. This will be obvious to anyone with the free time and the stomach to read through Talk:Islamism/Archive 4. Just one among a good number of obvious and telling examples:

24.7.141.159: “It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.”[[3]]

128.97.247.141: “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”[[4]]

Another:

24.7.141.159: “...Have a good day.” [5]

128.97.247.141: “...Have a good day.” [6]

The second is, like the Hrana log-in as seen on this page, a UCLA address which, by my admittedly meagre technical understanding, I would guess is the user operating through a proxy server (such as the one provided to access restricted library materials?) from his home cable account. Just a thought. I don't understand these things well enough to say what is going on technically, but from the standpoint of style and discourse, it's clear that this is the same individual.

Deuterium shares all the observed points of style and affects the same mean-spirited and domineering troll-like approach, and in two of three examples he gives of my own purported misbehavior, he is carrying User:24.7.141.159's water. Timothy Usher 07:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to observe that User:Hrana98 has arrived on this page without being notified by User:Deuterium on the talk page that the discussion is going on here. Pecher ^Talk 07:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been monitoring Timothy Usher's talk page knowing he has a bone to pick with me. The logical thing was to follow Tom's postings on Timothy's talk page. Furthermore, reading Pecher's talk page also made it clear where to go. It lead me here. ALT + F and typing my user name alerted me to this post. I'll continue to monitor these pages as long as both of your are prosecuting your little war. Hrana98 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a little research by geolocating the IP address presented via the database at HostIP. Its not surprising that I'm in Los Angeles. Library computers on campus require a user login and that should clearly alert you to my status on campus. User:24.7.141.159 is located in Sacramento, CA. User:216.118.97.211 is located in Middletown, IA. Are both of you (Pecher and Timothy Usher) saying that I'm traveling around the country and I'm these two people and User:Deuterium? If you are, then either I'm a schizoid nut with a private jet and tons of time on my hand or, more plausibly, both of you are being paranoid and fueling troll-like attacks upon me. I only say this because both of you have been resorting to attacks on me in hope of having me banned. Hrana98 10:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As you are aware, UCLA has a set of restricted library materials accessible to students, staff and associates by logging in from one's home address, at which point you get a UCLA proxy address and go from there. Please excuse me if my technical terms are somehow inaccurate. As for 216.118.97.211 his style is nothing like your own excepting the hostility - blocked after second post - but the user's edit history shows that two of four posts [[7]], [[8]] were done unambiguously on your behalf, while a third [[9]]was to hide the observation that this address was acting as your sock puppet. I concede it's possible that this is only an associate of yours (as you claimed when you said re the earlier 216.118.97.211 comment that the page was "being monitored on an outside forum" [[10]]), but even so it's disturbing that you should solicit such edits from your associates.Timothy Usher 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is 3:30 in the morning, do you honestly expect me to sit on campus at this hour or am I not allowed to come home to rest and sleep according to you? Are you going to point me to a Wikipedia policy page to defend this illogical position? Furthermore, Sacramento, CA is 400 miles north of here. Are you saying that I commute to campus every morning via a 400 mile journey? Middletown, IA is 1,800 miles away. Are you now claiming that I'm making that journey nightly too? Give me a break. Maybe you should also claim that I've figured out how to build a Star Trek transporter now so we can revise the wikipedia article on this development. You should also remember that just because someone agrees with or defends me is not an associate of mine. I've never solicited anyone to defend me. Yet, I find it alarming to see that a large number of Administrators have been contacted on your behalf to fight your battles. You've clearly been dealt severe set backs by users who have called you out on your postings. Instead of taking them on in a productive manner (which I encourage you to do), you're trying to censor me and a handful of other editors by wrongly claiming we are all the same people. Please stop this vandetta you have because it is leaving a black eye on this community.

I'd like the Administrators here to see User:Timothy Usher's style of arguing. He starts off with unsubstaniated claims and when they are disproven, he makes even more outlandish claims. This sort of attitude has destroyed the Talk:Islamism page and he is now using his tactics to prosecute a war against me. I look forward to action being taken which addresses my complaints. Hrana98 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

24.7.141.159: “It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up.”[[11]]

128.97.247.141: “It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation.”[[12]] Timothy Usher 10:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you now saying that I'm 128.97.247.141? Can someone keep count of this for me? I can't keep straight exactly how many people I am supposed to be. May I remind you that our campus has 35,000 people out of which at least a couple dozen people (that I know of) know about your (in)famous reputation here via a message board. Whether they choose to participate against you is at their discretion and I, in no way, can be held responsible for anyone elses actions. Would you please answer my questions above. Am I allowed to come home at night? Do I make 400 and 1800 mile daily commutes to campus? Do you have proof that I'm soliciting the entire internet to paint you for who you are? Thanks. Hrana98 11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As if it weren’t already completely obvious, after a few days absence, this user has returned with two of his socks, one on the discussion page[13], and one in the article[14]. See also [15] Judge the tone of the comments for yourselves. Timothy Usher 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm the user at 24.7.141.159--I finally made a user name. I noticed you and your cohort Pecher have vandalized my talk page by accusing me of being 4 different users. I don't appreciate these unfounded attacks. User247 00:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Hrana98 "It is becoming quite clear that you are an argumentative editor with paranoid delusions" [[16]]

24.7.141.159 “Ahhh, once again this proves how paranoid you two idiots are.” [[17]]

User:User247 "You got owned" [[18]]

216.118.97.211"...YOU GOT OWNED..." [[19]]

You seem to be a repost king. Everyone should look at my talk page to see proof of this. My talk page says... My IP address is 24.7.141.159. The phrase "you got owned" returns 73 million hits on Google and hardly qualifies as a plausible means to determine who I am. [20]User:Gren has used the term here [21]. Are ignorantly claiming any user using the phrase is me or my sockpuppet? You are simply nuts because I'm no other user. User247 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to User247 below, where this discussion is continued.Timothy Usher 23:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your help

I really would like to ask you to make me a favour: please unblock User:ROGNNTUDJUU! I think that is a mistake and this user needs a second chance. Best regards, --StabiloBoss 13:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

ROGNNTUDJUU! is an abusive sockpuppet of De mortuis.... De mortuis is not currently blocked, so there is no need to unblock the account he is no longer using. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the sock puppet and the sock master weren't confused here, but I agree that one account should be enough. Does it matter which of the two is blocked? Kusma (討論) 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded to the call of this user. Let's unblock him first and see how he will behave. I think is better to give him a chance. --StabiloBoss 18:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do they need two accounts? Jkelly 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. But if there are two users then it should be unblocked. Let us assume this. StabiloBoss 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one account should be enough, and ROGNNTUDJUU! is not a good user name. Jonathunder 22:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Let us see him how he will behave. ok? StabiloBoss 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Per the block log, Dave Gerard, who has checkuser ability, has blocked this account indef as an abusive sockpuppet. If you would like to ask Dave Gerard to reconsider his decision you are free to do so. Jonathunder 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's give him another chance and we'll see about it. Seems fair enough. StabiloBoss 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply of ROGNNTUDJUU! from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ROGNNTUDJUU%21#Unblock_request:

I only use this one account, which is blocked. I had another account, which was accused of sockpuppetry apparently for the same reason that we have a shared router for the whole house as I explain above. I abandoned the other account and do not even remember the password. David Gerard did not get back to me when I emailed him, nor did Kelly Lynn who according to David had also done a user check. ROGNNTUDJUU! (who wonders why this should not be a good user name.) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please take care of this? I will leave the house in a couple of days anyways, so the problem should not persist. De mortuis... 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it quite annoying that instead of reacting even new ridiculous accusations turn up in this userbox and sockpuppetry paranoia: [22] [23] De mortuis... 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

God, I hate it when people misrepresent what I say. Look at the next edit to that UT page, made ten minutes later: [24] —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you make these ridiculous accusations at all? And why does no one address ROGNNTUDJUU!'s complaint? Quite successful mud throwing. De mortuis... 15:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I started this topic, you should unblock him. What do you wait? --StabiloBoss 15:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I trust David Gerard's judgement more than yours, frankly. I hate to put in so incivilly. ROG^50moreletters was being disruptive and De mortuis' explanations for their accidental checkuser positive are pretty hollow. Syrthiss 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Accusations

• 67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) have tagged my userpage with the suspected sockpuppet template. Both of these users have about 5 edits and have accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Theonlyedge despite the fact that since February, we've only edited one common page (check contribs). I suspect that the above Anon users are sockpuppets of Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who was recently blocked for running a sockfarm. Is there a proper way to go about taking down the tag and proving I'm not a puppet? pm_shef 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally those sock tags have to be backed up by some sort of evidence. You can request a checkuser on yourself, I suppose, at WP:RCU if you like. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted both their edits to yours and Theonlyedge's page, and am about to warn them that it is best not to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without documentation (and even then I'd feel better if it was primarily done by an admin). --Syrthiss 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

69.156.150.188 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is now doing exactly the same thing. user:pm shef and user:Theonlyedge's user pages are both now semi-protected so they're hitting the user talk pages instead. The contribs do not suggest any relationship between the two users. Thryduulf 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note that these IP addresses are in the same range of Bell Canada numbers previously used by suspected socks of Eyeonvaughan (talk • contribs) and/or VaughanWatch (talk • contribs). Thatcher131 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a large WP:RFCU request pending on all these users/ips and more - Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#64.231.242.202 (talk • contribs) and 69.156.148.61 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 09:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

1. After Alan Shefman's son User:Pm_shef writes that he will abstain from editing articles related to Vaughan politics, and confirmed that abstention at 05:55, 11 April 2006 here, "Theonlyedge" goes after Pm_shef's longtime Vaughan target (who he nominated for the AfD a month prior) a few hours later, at 22:02, 11 April 2006 here. Coincidence?

2. The name of Pm_shef's father's company is simply The Edge. It is involved in anti-racism, which we know Pm_shef/ Corey Shefman has been involved in too, both personally and through his edits. The Edge sounds a lot like The Only Edge... a coincidence? See main link to his father's bread-and-butter for 25 years: [www3.sympatico.ca/theedgeq/]

3. Roughly 50% of all Theonlyedge's edits are also articles that Pm_shef has edited. Compare Pm_shef's contributions to Theonlyedge's contributions.

4. Both accounts in question were created within 5 weeks of one another; Pm_shef on Oct 31 2005, TheOnlyEdge on Dec 11 2005.

5. 4 hours after Pm_shef nominates this article for deletion (which he ultimately lost), Theonlyedege comes around and does NOT vote Keep or Delete but rather, after two consecutive Keep votes, adds a comment that the article should be shortened to 2 or 3 paragraghs. This was Shef's way of cutting his losses. See original AfD Keep debate: [[25]].

6. Both users are from Thornhill, as they have both have edited the article on Thornhill and are obsessed with their politicians.

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites Susan Kadis (as well as Michael Di Biase) and negative edits/blanking to their political competitor Mario Racco and political opponents Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper.

8. Why did Pm_shef / Theonlyedge create this article on a previous opponent? So that he can control it. He can keep it down to 2 or 3 sentences and maintain control over content.

9. Pm_shef added the deletion notice of this article to Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board at 22:04, exactly 2 minutes after his sockpuppet created this nomination at 22:02. See edit history Coincidence?

I hope this is enough evidence, but if you want more, I can find more. Leotardo 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MONGO block of User:Striver

Administrator MONGO (talk • contribs) has had a long running conflict with (and clearly often legitimate issues regarding) Striver (talk • contribs) (Striver RFC against JerseyDevil (talk • contribs), numerous Articles for Deletion, etc). Yesterday, Striver launched a moderate personal attack on MONGO [26] which MONGO responded to by blocking Striver for 24 hrs User talk:Striver#Blocked for 24 hours. I believe this block was in violation of the WP Administrator code of conduct regarding not blocking editors you're in a personal dispute with Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct#Blocking " An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest. ". MONGO is not responding well to my having pointed it out (see User talk:MONGO#Latest Striver block) and told me to RFC him. As there's a user block involved I think I need to ANI it.

I have two requests for one or more neutral uninvolved admins to review:

One, is MONGO's 24 hour block of Striver an appropriate sanction given the nature of [27] ? Striver's comment was clearly an inappropriate personal attack; my question is whether it rose to the level of requiring, justifying, or mandating a block in response, or not.

Two, is it appropriate for MONGO to continue using administrative blocks against Striver given the long history of content and other disputes (which I believe are clearly non-neutral relations between them), or should he have asked for a neutral administrator?

Georgewilliamherbert 05:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Georgewilliamherbert has a long standing tradition of protecting Striver, even when all others feel that Striver is violating numerous policies. I cannot ceased to be amazed why some folks defend those whose primary contributions violate WP:POINT, WP:FORK, WP:NPA and a slew of other areas. It should also be noted by the numerous others that have contacted Striver on his talk page, that I am most certainly not alone in my disputes with Striver. admonished for nominating other articles after one of his got deleted, soliciting Afd votes from those that favor his POV, told to stop vandalizing articles, using his talk page as a message board to misrepresent others, asked to not spam for votes, asked to not overemphasize trivialities, asked to not violate POINT, questioned about Forking articles to fit his POV, cautioned about violation POINT, again, discussion about spamming for Afd votes, another editor asks him to not spam him about Afd's, asked to not use false edit summaries, and of course...this is just the very tip of the iceberg.--MONGO 07:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also admonished him several times when I saw him clearly do something wrong, in my opinion, including over this incident (see User talk:Striver#Blocked for 24 hours), and I'm not questioning that he does a lot of stuff which is at least mildly disruptive or abusive. The question is, do you, MONGO, still have a sufficiently neutral opinion and position to be able to fairly and non-abusively judge whether administrative blocks are appropriate for specific grey-area / relatively minor abuses, or not? I don't think you do. I don't think I'm completely unbiased here, either, which is why I'm ANI asking for neutral administrator review. If you want to RFC or file for Arbitration on Striver, feel free... that's not an abuse of administrator power, anyone could do it, and lord knows enough people are frustrated with him. But using the administrator block powers against administrator policy (or, at least borderline) may not be an appropriate response by you against his abuses. This would have been avoided if you'd pointed out his personal attack and asked a neutral admin to respond, as policy says you should. Which is what we're doing now.

If you think that you can do no wrong in combating Striver's abuses... then you do have a problem with abusing administrator powers. Striver has to type a lot to annoy or abuse people. You have a convenient button at a level he can't get at. Two wrongs don't make a right. Georgewilliamherbert 08:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There comes a point that some editors do indeed exhaust the communities patience. Your opinion is noted.--MONGO 08:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If he's really exhausted the communities patience, and not just yours, why not file Req for Arbitration and moot this question of whether you are neutral or not by getting an Arbcom ruling? Or a RfC? Georgewilliamherbert 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Striver means well, and has made positive contributions, but it's clear to me that he now does more harm than good. He has a long history of personnal attacks, POV pushing, vote solicitation, content forking, and generating lame 'articles' to make a point. Is MONGO's 24 hour block warranted? Sure; If I hadn't been on a Wikibreak I would have seen the attack and blocked him myself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If it makes anyone feel better I will go and re-block him myself. Striver is nothing but a constant irritant these days. Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to act as a second admin opinion in future situations where MONGO is considering using admin in regards to Striver if MONGO asks me to, but think MONGO is responsible, from what I've seen, in his adminship, and I don't think that this block was particularly inappropriate. If Striver insists on continuing to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies on an admin and that admin blocks him, that's simply an unwise course of action by Striver, IMO. JDoorjam Talk 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that admins should avoid conflicts of interest (real or imagined) whenever possible. However, I too see nothing wrong with the block in this case. This particular personal attack was mild, but it's hardly an isolated incident. I also note that MONGO left a note on the talk page explaining the reasons for the block (including the ongoing pattern of disruption), as any good admin should. Saying that it's automatically wrong for the recipient of a personal attack to block is not something I can condone. As long as our admins are reasonably responsible, there's no need to tie their hands quite that much. I see nothing in MONGO's actions here that looks inappropriate to me. Friday (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I wish is an appearance of unilateralism in my actions. While I do not believe that I acted wrongly, I'll work hard to ensure others don't feel that I violate any policies.--MONGO 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am getting pretty tired of this defence of Striver no matter what wikipedia policies he violates. If it were any other user he'd be banned long ago but he plays the victim and in response to this a select group of other users viciously attack anyone who takes the liberty of cleaning up his harmful contributions. Mongo should have told another admin about the situation, but the personal attack was still not warranted and the user did deserve his ban.--Jersey Devil 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ComplianceBridge

There is some advertising going on around here. Earlier tonight, an article was created about the ComplianceBridge Corporation. I put an {{advertisement}} tag on it, and left a note on the creator's talk page asking them politely to please read the section about advertising on Wikipedia - specifically the section regarding advertising disguised as valid articles. I cannot find that article anymore, so I think it must have been deleted. But on my watchlist, I saw that the creator, User:Compliancebridge had thrown something on their talk page, and lo and behold, their user page is now an advertisement. I really don't think that this is a user wishing to contribute to the project at all - I think it's just a marketing guy who is looking to take advantage of us for a bit of free advertising. I would suggest an indefinite block of the account, while expressing hopes that the person himself will come back and help with the project. It's up to you - I'm not an admin yet, but I just wanted to let you know about it. Later, zappa.jake (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I'm pretty strongly against this type of thing...but here, there's not even an external link. So as long as he's not using this as his primary website (and, looking at it, god help him if he is), I don't think it's that big a deal (so long as things stay that way). --InShaneee 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blanked the advertisement userpage and left an explanatory note. The use of Wikipedia for advertisement is completely unacceptable. --FOo 05:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, (bitterly) it can't be completely unacceptable, since it's not a speedy criterion. But I won't think about that, it just makes me cry. WHY isn't advertising a speedy criterion? Bishonen | talk 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Can't sleep, clown will eat me

keeps blocking AOL ranges, even specific AOL ip addresses with no history of vandalism, all attempts to contact this user have been treated as vandalism, and all ranges used to do so, have been blocked, Can't sleep, clown will eat me has now protected his own talk page to keep anyone from reporting collateral from AOL IP blocks--152.163.100.65 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In the event you are not trolling and are a legitimate editor, I do apologise, but someone on your and other AOL IP ranges is in fact carrying out massive vandalism, and has been blocked before by other administrators in the past hour. Again, I apologise for the inconvenience. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

and you respond to this comment by leveling another 99 minute block, presumably to keep me from responding? or not--152.163.100.65 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

CSCWEM, can you please respond to these concerns with maybe some diff links of the vandalism in progress? I looked at your user talk page and I didn't see any evidence of being harrassed by anon IPs recently. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

152.163.100.65, if you are having a problem editing, please read Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. CSCWEM, although under WP:AOL you may block AOL proxies to combat heavy vandalism, longer blocks of 99 minutes are generally pointless because of the collateral damage and the fact that the vandal automatically switches IPs frequently. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What solution is there when someone is IP hopping on AOL ranges and has already been blocked for 15 minutes, any? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection, really. And letters from the WMF to AOL asking them to change to a different system. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think that range blocks of AOL should not be imposed without discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that AOL (and Netscape ISP, which is owned by AOL and which I use) reallocates its IP's about every :15. Therefore, blocking the IP vandal pretty much never hits the vandal. It will, however, hit some other schmo using their servers (like me, for example). If you know that it's an AOL IP, don't block for more than :15. If it's a name account that happens to be an AOL IP that the autoblocker catches, there isn't a lot you can do to avoid the collateral damage. This remains one of the Great Unsolved Problems. Short of actually requiring edits from named accounts only and disabling the autoblocker, I can't think of a solution. Geogre 00:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users#How_to_bypass_the_AOL_proxies?)

There are also plans to modify the MediaWiki software so that edits from AOL users would automatically be made to bypass the proxy system by using the HTTPS protocol. This feature is currently still at an early stage, but it may be enabled some time in the future.

This looks like a workable solution to me. Does anyone know when this might be implemented? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually is enabled in Wiktionary already. I'm not sure about it scaling, but it is enabled. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a thread about it at Wiktionary:wiktionary:Beer_Parlour#AOL Notice at the top of Wiktionary where Tawker gives a pretty good explanation about it. The Beer Parlour is our equivalent of the Town Pump. Tawker says the reason why Wikipedia hasn't adopted the system is because it would take too many servers.--Primetime 06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:65.13.184.164

I'd like someone to review User talk:65.13.184.164 and see if his comments about me are in line with policy. I don't want to say anything more about it -- because I'm too upset at this point. I'm pretty sure that it's User:Jason Gortician trying to evade a block. Again, though, I'm too upset to say anything more about this. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the sockpuppet matter but the comments on the talk page look like a minor violation of WP:CIVIL but nothing that extreme. JoshuaZ 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit would probably qualify as a PA, though, wouldn't it? Check the edit summary. -Colin Kimbrell 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pro-Lick sockpuppet trouble

Over at Abortion, we're dealing with a bunch of crap from sockpuppets. We're pretty sure it's User:Pro-Lick, formerly User:Halliburton Shill. The accounts in question are:

• BrushLimpcow (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Ingralamb (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• NColemam (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• O.P.Nuhss (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• M.E.Rhekt (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Donpediac (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• DPG (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

NColemam is blocked for 3RR, and O.P.Nuhss and M.E.Rehkt are indef blocked as sockpuppets. Perhaps a checkuser is in order? Perhaps semiprotection? At any rate, more eyes on the situation are always appreciated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected, and i'd second the checkuser . . . --Heah? 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Heah. I've never done a check user request, but this seems like a good time to find out how it works. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Essjay, that was very helpful. All socks, plus half a score more. It's always a shame to see an editor go out like that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much of a nuisance this editor was to start with (he made a page outside Wikipedia calling for POV pushing and vandalizing) it really isn't much of a shame. JoshuaZ 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure... I guess I meant, of all the different ways an editor can go out, it's a shame when they turn into a sock-farmer. I don't know how to prevent it; maybe some people are just determined to be pains in the neck, no matter what you do. I've been reading MeatballWiki a bit lately, and thinking about how people come and go in a wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time he's done this to that article. See the archive of completed RFCU requests involving Pro-Lick/Shill. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a running report at User:Essjay/Checkuser/Cases/Halliburton Shill to keep track of the socks & IPs that have been blocked. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:EKN

This user seems to be a blatant/vandal troll with various nazi themed edits. They have got by so far by instantly removing a large number of warnings from their page , [28], [29], [30] and attempting to build friendly relations with admins even asking when they get adminship [31]. dubious edits: [[32], [33] [34], [35] [36], [37]. [38], [39]. [40], [41], [42], [43]. , message from another user indicating they are both banned users [[44] (previously discussed here User_talk:SlimVirgin#User:EKN. Arniep 17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in touch with EKN about this, and he or she is very much on their last warning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• • And I promised not to troll anymore. EKN 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

You seem to be suggesting that this user get a new user name (User_talk:EKN#Your_edits). Why is this a good idea when this user is an obvious troll who has posted disgusting anti semitic jokes on two articles, stated Seig Heil on the Hitler page and changed the Polish user template to a Nazi youth template? Arniep 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't suggested s/he get a new name. S/he asked me how to, and I explained how. As I told you yesterday, I'm keeping an eye on this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dbiv

User:Dbiv removed a legitimate Speedy deletion notice: [45]. The article has already been deleted twice: if User:Dbiv objects he should take it to Speedy deletions and request that a new AFD discussion take place, not unilaterally remove the db notice. --Mais oui! 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he can remove the speedy tag and send it to AfD, or just remove the tag and wait for you to send it to AFD, as it is not a speedy. It's not a re-delete speedy, as the content is not identical (the new article is much more detailed), and it isn't a non-notable speedy, as the page makes an assertion of notability. Whether the article would survive AfD again or not is a different thing, as is using rollback to remove the tag, but AfD is where this should go. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Speedy deletion in this situation is only for substantially identical articles; this one is about five times longer than the previously deleted version, and is heavily referenced. If you want to delete it, it will need to go to AfD. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Per Thebainer. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Postponed Longhorn (talk • contribs). Continuing the work of recently banned sockpuppet Vista Delay (talk • contribs). Please ban this one too. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambition is (was) back

If anyone who has been around for a while remembers User:Mike Church, I just deleted Ambition (game) as re-created deleted content; it had reappeared about a day ago. Heads up, it has a way of coming back now and again. And ooh, check this out: [46] it's alive on the French wiki! Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...where it's up for deletion -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.40.53.196

After two strong warnings, has continued to vandalize, now directed at anyone giving the warnings. Only four edits, all bad, but that seems more due to slow typing. Wants to be blocked ... Shenme 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a test4. If he continues, you should report this at WP:AIV which is the location for standard vandalism reports. JoshuaZ 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, I must have ANI and AIV reversed then. Shenme 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Clivefan indefinitely blocked for legal threats

I have indefinitely blocked Clivefan (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for threatening to file a police complaint against another user, in relation to a supposed "physical threat" which was clearly facetious, had already been removed by another user, and for which the 'threatener' had apologised. I have made clear that all he has to do is withdraw his threat or conclude his case and he'll be unblocked. He's been up and down Talk:Clive_Bull and WP:RPP banging on about this supposed threat for days now trying to use the 'threat' to bully admins into reverting edits made to the fully-protected Clive Bull article over the past few months. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

User:Durin has left a message on my talk [47] saying that placing a fair use image on my userpage is "vandalism". He has been removing the image from my userbox and originally did it without asking me or informing me and now I'm accused of vandalizing my own userpage? ManWithNoName 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is against United States copyright law. Please stop. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a violation of our Fair use policy only, although the reason for this is that the majority of such uses really do violate American law. ManWithNoName, did you even read this page Durin linked to in his first edit? It explains why we need to do this. Of course other articles use the image. That doesn't mean you're allowed to use it in your userpage. Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The first time I removed the image, I left an extensive edit summary [48] which linked to the policy being used as the rationale for the image removal. That edit summary also contains a link to a file which has extensive explanations of why this is being done along with why there is no direct notification to a person's talk page. In the vast, vast majority of cases that I have done this (more than 400 now) this has been virtually a non-issue. Over the last week, I talked with two different members of ArbCom, and both agreed that if a person should revert my changes that remove fair use images, that I should revert them and place a message on their talk page indicating to them that continued re-insertion of the images onto their userpage when the user was aware of the policy proscribing such use would constitute vandalism since such behavior is willfully defying Wikipedia policy on the issue. Understand; your userpage is not strictly yours. See Wikipedia:Userpage. It is in fact part of the overall project. You can cause harm to the project via your userpage. Simply because it is your userpage does not prohibit Wikipedia from defending itself against copyright/policy violations of its users. All the best, --Durin 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Community_Portal

Seems to be suffering an edit war, leading to HereToHelp being reported for 3RR. So I've blocked HtH. See Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal if you're interested. William M. Connolley 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range block imposed on 128.239.0.0/16

Due to an organized program of vandalism across multiple Wikimedia projects, 128.239.0.0/16 (assigned to William and Mary College) has been indefinitely blocked, per order of Danny under WP:OFFICE. This block will be removed when the situation has been resolved. Please do not unblock this range without consulting either myself or Danny. You may refer questions to myself or to Danny. We apologize for the (significant) collateral damage. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So WP:OFFICE can block for vandalism now? Nothing on Wikipedia:Long term abuse So I assume whatever it is hasn't hit en.wikpedia yet of if it has it doesn't register above backgroud. Blocking for vandalism makes no sense withing the preview of WP:OFFICE since it is something any admin can do. I any case it would be nice if danny listed this at WP:OFFICE. We had enough missunderstandings lately without adding to them.Geni 18:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is extensive vandalism on enwiki from this group as well; it's just been better controlled. The project-wide block is as much to get the attention of administrators at M&W as it is to halt the vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, AOL next! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I oppose big blocks like this, but folks need to go over to cat:csd and start cleaning out the Augean stables. Those turkeys managed to leave a lot of poop, and if that many CSD's got tagged, you can imagine how many got deleted by admins watching recent changes and new pages. We are really getting a deluge just now, so everyone grab some hip waders and get in there. Geogre 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (And I've smothered about 40 of them today so far.)

Dont say the words "Augean stables" and "smothered" in the same breath! of course then I just went and said them... --Syrthiss 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If more folks don't get in there at the CSD backlog, I shall mix more metaphors until they do! :-) Geogre 10:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked the range by the direct request of Danny. Certain events today have led to the identies of the vandals, and apparently they have appoligzed to Danny via email. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This "WP:OFFICE" thing is getting out of hand. This is a community project. Problems need to be aired -- not dealt with in secret. --FOo 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't really a "WP:OFFICE" sort of thing, all the information was discussed on IRC since it was easier to pass along the information. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but posting to AN/I hardly sounds like handling it in secret. A reason was given, mass vandalism across multiple projects, it is clear that action is being taken to resolve the situation, Kelly has apologised for the temporary inconvenience. What are we supposed to do, let them continue to run riot? Just zis Guy you know? 10:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The original reason wasn't credible. The fact is no mention of this group appeared in any of the places serious vandalism is recorded.Geni 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Geni, would you care to admit that things go on that you, personally, are not necessarily informed about? The bulk of the vandalism took place on minor wikis such as Choctaw and Hawaiian; some of these projects were completely vandalized (every or nearly every page touched). I'm sorry if you think that we have to talk to you before we can take reasonable action to protect the project, but that's not the way it works. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't create strawmen.Geni 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, I thought that here was one of the places that serious vandalism is discussed and dealt with...? Kelly reported that the block was placed because of an 'organized program of vandalism across multiple Wikimedia projects', and provided instructions for admins with questions ('You may refer questions to myself or to Danny'). I don't see anything on Kelly's talk page; if you were concerned about the reason for the block, did you try asking her or Danny why they felt such action was necessary? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that WP:OFFICE actions were open to questioning. Or more correctly that there was any expectation that such questions can be answered. WP:OFFICE does not in any case cover blocks. Further more the general understanding is that office actions will be carried out for legal reasons. With mentions of office but no mentions of legal threats and the vandlaism on en haveing not significantly registered above background you can see why the intial explanation has credibity issues. The get the attention of administrators at M&W explantion makes more sense.Geni 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny has the authority to act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, who, as you may have forgotten, OWNS the computers that Wikipedia runs on. His instructions are to be respected. If you are not interested in doing that, resign your adminship. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please can you stop presenting strawmen. In any case I'd argue it is enough that his actions be tollerated.Geni 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remain an admin on Wikipedia, you will not contravene Danny's express instructions. I think that's clear enough for you not to smell strawmen. If you have questions about something Danny's done or that someone else has done at his direction, I suggest that you raise those concerns privately. WP:OFFICE actions frequently involve sensitive matters which should not be aired publicly. It would be best if all admins would do their best not to interfere with the Foundation's management of such issues. Finally, WP:OFFICE covers whatever Danny needs it to cover: protection, deletion, blocks, desysopings, whatever. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"WP:OFFICE is an official policy promulgated by Jimbo Wales which allows Danny Wool (longtime Wikipedian, en-Wikipedia admin, steward, Foundation employee) to temporarily protect or modify an article." .Geni 17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that Danny has the authority to do what needs to be done to protect the Foundation, and thereby protect Wikipedia. If you don't like that, you are free to find another hobby. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No we've been through that argument. Nothing on Wikipedia:Long term abuse. Therefor they were not much of a threat to en.wikipedia thus if they were pure vandalism (if not then we run into issue that if you are going to lie to protect wikipedia then your lies should at least be credible) there was no need to block on en to "protect the Foundation". Of course I can think of quote a few situations where blocking to protect the foundation would apply however most of them are covered by our other policies. Incerdentaly I can't recall where Danny was authorised to anything other than protection and deleteion (and even then Jimbo hasd indicated that protection should not last more than a week) in the name of the foundation.Geni 18:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On a completely different note, this sort of thing certainly calls into question whether Wikia has a viable business model (formerly Wikicities; it received angel funding according to a recent Signpost). A Wikia wiki is not all that different from a less-spoken-language Wikipedia wiki. I guess the hope is that wikis might be the next big thing à la blogging, but wikis turn out to be very labor-intensive. Without a worldwide "cast of thousands" watching for vandalism 24/7, the Willys of the world will have their way with Wikia wikis. I imagine it may even be a problem for large Wikipedia wikis whose language is spoken mostly in one time zone (eg, German, Japanese, and most others). The English-language Wikipedia is a bit of an exceptional case.

On a less unrelated note, I've put a range block on Loyola College in Maryland (144.126.0.0/16) with a request for their network administrators to contact Wikipedia. While I'm certainly no Danny or WP:OFFICE person, this tactic certainly seems to have worked wonders for William and Mary, so it seemed worth a try in dealing with the self-proclaimed "Loyola College vandal". I hope we will hear from them soon. -- Curps 04:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block needed for Vigilant (talk • contribs • logs) for perpetual 3RR and Disruption

User is most probably Sean Crandall of Megapath.net See WP:RCU. I discussed the situation with Wikimedia yesterday and they relayed they would remove any inappropriate postings made by these users. Wikimedia asked me to translate the English Wikipedia into the Cherokee Language and I am working with Wales staff and our folks to provide Wikipedia with translation tools and a cash infusion to support Wikipedia Cherokee Language Projects. This user is a stalker patrolling merely to harrass me on this site and revert edits. I want him blocked for his harassing behavior. If my account is blocked again, it will in all likelyhood be unblocked. All legal issues with Wikimedia have been resolved and settled and there are no longer any pending issues regarding contributing. I want this user blocked and restrained. His harassment is inappropriate. See WP:RCU. If this account is blocked again, I will contact Wikimedia in the morning and we will cease our work on the Cherokee Language wikipedia if we feel our efforts with the Wikipedia community are a waste of our time and will be constantly subjected to this type of harassment. Wikimedia communicated they WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE OF THIS CONDUCT FROM THESE USERS who are stalking. Sint Holo 05:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add Jerryg (talk • contribs • logs) to the block list as well. He is also participating with the other user to harrass and disrupt editing. Sint Holo 05:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sint Holo continues to remove links to archived talk page discussions. I'm not sure what he wants to hide, but it doesn't help other users in following ongoing discussions. --Jerry (Talk) 06:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I archived my talk page after it was filled with message board dialouge by these users -- all of it harassing and vicious. I never solicited any of their commentary or had even edited from this account. They "stalk" the Cherokee article for purposes of harassment, 3RR, and disruption waitg for me to edit or contribute. Their purpose is to harrass me and drive me from the site. Wikimedia said THEY WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS CONDUCT ANY LONGER. Block this user. Please. Sint Holo 06:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one is fooled, Jeff. You have been banned indefinately from Wikipedia as Gadugi, Waya sahoni and others. So, it seems, you have already been driven from this site due to your repeatedly unacceptable behaviour. Why do you keep returning? Your new sockpuppets include Sint Holo and Tempus Fugit --Vryl 06:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Vryl (talk • contribs). This individual contacted the Cherokee Nation and harassed Dr. Delso until he told him to buzz off and verified I was working on Cherokee Articles and Culture for the CN Cultural Department on this site. See Talk:Cherokee. His conduct is more sinister. Add him to the block list as well. Please. Sint Holo 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Liar, liar, pants are on fire! I have sent exactly one email to Mr Delso, and received exactly one reply. You will note that after this, I confirmed to people about Jeff's ethnicity, when it was in dispute on the Cherokee page. You can see the very polite reply I received from Mr Delso now on my talk page, where he thanks me for the email. Some harrassment. Pls note that Mr Delso did not tell me to "buzz off". Feel free to email him to confirm this.

My "Sinister" apology to Jeff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gadugi&diff=prev&oldid=23635141

My polite email from Mr Delso: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vryl#Email_from_Dusty_Delso_to_me.21

Update: Actually, I must have sent 2 emails to Mr Delso, because I apologised to him for the first one. The point is the same, I wasn't harrassing him, and he responded respectfully. --Vryl 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cherokee doesn't say anything about Sint Holo, but it does show a response from Dr. Delso regarding Jeff Merkey. Are you now admitting that you are Jeff Merkey, who has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia? OneNamelessCat 06:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia can resind anything done by an admin on this site. I have been invited back to work on Cherokee by WIKIMEDIA. So much for the indef block banter. Find another hobby (like Houston Texas and the company you work for there). Sint Holo 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You will, of course, give us the name of the admin who invited you back. --Jerry (Talk) 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it were, you have yet to show something statiing this from a verifiable authority. Until then, you're just a net.kook with a broken wiki fork and a penchant for losing at the legal game. Vigilant 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I don't think megapath will appreciate their network being used by an employee for Denial of Service Attacks and hacking of Wikipedia or it's interwiki sites. Go work on your email clustering software and do something useful. You are better than this. Sint Holo 06:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you threatening me Jeff? Are you making threats against me pointed at my employer in such a way as to prevent my free exercise of expression here at wikipedia? Are you? Naw, I'm not Sean, but I bet you were sweating AGAIN, weren't you? I have worked on WolfPack Clustering from MS though. It was a dog. Vigilant 07:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot, you are going to provide the name of the admin or authority that asked you to 'come back' and you are going to provide some cites for my identity and you are going to provide some cites for hacking allegations and DoS allegations, right? Cue cricket_chirp.wav Vigilant 07:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

By this diff it can be seen that this post was first made by User:71.199.40.199, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.199.40.199 and then quickly edited to read as though it was written by User:Sint Holo.

The following portion of an email header which I received on April 8, 2006, clearly shows that this IP address is being used by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, AKA banned User:Gadugi / User:Waya_sahoni / User:PeyoteMan / User:Asgaya_Gigagei / etc etc etc...

Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-71-199-40-199.hsd1.co.comcast.net [71.199.40.199])
        by ns1.utah-nac.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDC798A38
        for <____@____.com>; Sat,  8 Apr 2006 18:24:35 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <443858CB.3040907@wolfmountaingroup.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:43:55 -0600
From: "Jeffrey V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>

Once again, multiply-blocked user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is back and is up to his old tricks: evading previous blocks, forgetting to log on before he makes edits, making false and unsubstantiated charges, and making unsubstantiated claims of association with top-level individuals at Wikimedia -- which is a bit ironic, given that Merkey is still attempting to pull Wikimedia into Merkey's failed lawsuit, Merkey v Perents et al -- (2005-10-21 #31 NOTICE "PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY'S NOTICE OF COURT ORDER TO JIMMY WALES AND WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND WIKIPEDIA" [pdf]). -- talks_to_birds 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Merkey,

Thank you for your kind words. I have forwarded them to the Board of Wikimedia. Over the course of the day, I will 
provide you with the information you request. I firmly believe that a resource like wikipedia in Cherokee can be of 
enormous benefit to the Cherokee nation as an academic resource for students in their own language. Here is the site
of the Cherokee-language Wikipedia for your perusal: http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8E%A4%E1%8E%B5%E1%8E%AE%E1%8E%B5%E1%8F%8D%E1%8F%97. While it is still small, I am 
convinced it has enormous potential.


Danny Wool
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I apologize for my earlier conduct and public statements and ask Mr. Wales and Wikimedia to accept my apologies.

> I discussed your suggestion about the Cherokee Language Wikipedia with Dr. Dusty Deslo, Director of the Cherokee 
Nation Cultural and Language program.  I am writing a lexicon converter that will convert the entire English 
Wikipedia to the Cherokee Language for the Cherokee Nation.  Dr. Delso at present has me assigned to translate 
several hundred childrens books into Cherokee for our language immersion program for the Cherokee Youth (Tom Sawyer,
 Huck Finn, etc.)  I have been working on these translations and we are switching to the laguage conversion tools 
after I complete them.  I am working with our linguistics experts and the United States BIA on these projects for 
Dr. Delso and our people at present with a complete translation suite of tools for our language.  I have analyzed 
Wikipedia's XML dumps and have setup www.wikigadugi.org for our people and the Native Community and feel confident I
 can modify these tools to translate XML dumps from your site for the Cherokee Wikipedia in both syllabary and 
phonetic formats. 

Now please block all of these stalkers who are on this site for harrassment and disruption. Now. Thanks. Sint Holo 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny seems to have sent you a nice motherhood style of statement. Notice his use of the word "perusal", in relation to the Cherokee Wiki. Are you taking this to be an invitation to edit the english Wikipedia, a wiki that you have been banned many times from for disruption? Is Danny aware of your multiple bans? I assume that he should be informed of this. Or probably will be soon, if he hasn't already. --Vryl 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked two of the participants in the above ridiculous brawl, User:Sint Holo and User:Vigilant, for twenty-four hours, subject to review by other administrators. I shall block others who continue to abuse Wikipedia to pursue personal vendettas. This is not Usenet and your efforts to turn it into a perpetual flame war forum are not appreciated. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing the contributions and userpage of User:Vryl, I have blocked him indefinitely, subject to review by other administrators. He declares that his purpose in using Wikipedia is to "clean up the mess left behind by Jeff Vernon Merkey", and indeed nearly all of his edits for months now have been attacks on various socks of Merkey. Merkey may pose a problem for Wikipedia, but that problem cannot be resolved by blatantly ignoring Wikipedia's basic policies and using Wikipedia as a forum to attack other editors. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've examined the edits of [[User:Talks to birds], particularly this one. Another person here solely to pursue a vendetta against Merkey. I've blocked this editor indefinitely, subject to review by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify Mr. Merkey's status. Is he or is he not banned from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey states he is? Has he been granted some exemption from WP:SOCK allowing him to edit as Sint Holo and TempusFugit despite having been permanently blocked from editing under at least 10 previous accounts? — MediaMangler 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Sint Holo/Merkey/whatever has a legitimate complaint about stalkers, and it's equally obvious that--whatever his previous history--he's made an effort to resolve his differences with Wikimedia and he's making an honest effort to improve Wikipedia. I'm prepared to assume good faith on this subject. He should not be considered permanently banned at this time. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I know this thread has gone on too long already, but please help me understand how WP:BAN would allow good faith when the user has admitted being a banned user? This is a serious question. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and wikipedia policy is sometimes a convuluted as legal documents. --Jerry (Talk) 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good faith should never be enterely ruled out. As you can see above, Danny and Jeff have been able to interact with one another in good faith, and Jeff has offered help with the Cherokee Wikipedia. As long as this goes on, having some chaps pestering him and engaging in behavior that would disgrace a moderated forum, quite against all Wikipedia policy, is a big headache for Wikipedia. That some of them openly admit that this is your sole purpose for editing Wikipedia is very worrying indeed. This isn't a battleground, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of WP:BAN, and we only have Jeff's word that the above exchange actually took place, but you've made the decision. I've got more locomotive articles to work on, so I'm through with this thread. --Jerry (Talk) 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User Sint Holo has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales as a sockpuppet of the banned user Gadugi. I hope this closes this matter and allows us to move on. Friendly Neighbour 06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing the edits of Vigilant (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), it seems that I could not find any which were not focused on banned user Jeff Merkey. It seems that his sole reason for existence on Wikipedia was to import external wars to Wikipedia. I have therefore blocked this user indefinitely, subject to review by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can refer this block to Nicholas Turnbull for review like you did the last two. Oh, I guess not. Surely you remember that Merkey's orders to you were to block my account next. Yes, yes, I know I've done edits against other vandals besides Merkey, but I fail to see why fighting against multiple vandals is somehow of more worth than being focused on protecting Wikipedia from a single threat. At no point have you claimed that any of the three accounts you blocked were in violation of any policy. I would've posted this comment to your talk page, but you seem to have the uncivil habit of removing talk page comments. (And of blocking those whose comments you don't like.) — MediaMangler 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Pinot noir (talk • contribs). "New" user seems unusually concerned about control card reverts. Edits to Talk:Freedom of movement, etc. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Second edit of "new user" concerns subject of sockpuppets??? Ha ha, yeah, right. Shenme 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See also Coving (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -Will Beback 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please ban this guy? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

gods this is boring. Done. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Frakking sockpuppets. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This user bears a closer look by those who know Zephram better. Vista Delay (talk • contribs) -Will Beback 23:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They're all obviously Zephram, as CheckUser confirms. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA

Okay, i'm not sure what to do about this constant trolling, so i'm taking it here. it doesn't need an rfc because it is blatantly obvious and needs no commenting, the accounts used are (almost) all throwaways so i don't want to go through checkuser, and perhaps it should go to arbcom, but that might be unnecessary. It doesn't need an investigation, i need advice on what the heck we do about this. I've only been an admin for a couple weeks.

The gist of it is a concerted attack on the page Gay Nigger Association of America. They are an internet trolling organization or some such nonsense, and i've come to the conclusion that it isn't simple irony at play here.

I came across it following up on a 3RR report on User:The Psycho, who is now indefinitely blocked for evading a block with socks. During his blocks the vandalism continued with throwaway accounts; GNAA was protected for a week, trolling resumed instantly afterwards, and is now again semi-protected by me.

socks involved:

• The_Psycho (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• SlashDot (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (a denial of service attack on Slashdot.com is one of GNAA's claims to fame)
• KingOfDAARt (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• TheNegro (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• YanMill (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.108.201.102 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (suspected)
• 142.150.204.170 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (suspected)
• Sn0rlax (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (not a throwaway, more like a sleeper)
• AncorZonr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Boatfarm (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• WarMach (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jobbersy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

and almost certainly others

pages affected include:

• Gay Nigger Association of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Digg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lolicon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Coppertone girl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hentai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Pedophilia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Jewsdidwtc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (now a protected deleted page, deleted edits for admins)

among others. GNAA has been nominated for deletion 15 times by trolls.

So like i've said, this appears to be a concerted trolling effort with no signs of lightening up, at least on GNAA. so what do we do about this, how do we stop it from happening? People are ready to give up, and the RC patrollers are sick of it . . .

--Heah? 06:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it sprotected for now, and block on sight for new socks I guess. I suspect they will lose interest when it becomes more ocmplex and time-consuming than three clicks. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG. Things seem to have calmed down after sprotection, I'd say leave it that way until you think things have blown over somewhat. If it starts up again, you can always sprotect again. Blackcap (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well that's one way to win an edit war. — Apr. 20, '06 [09:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• I endorse unceremonious blocking of anyone indulging in this GNAA nonsense; this has cost everybody far to much time in the past. dab (ᛏ) 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since I have blocked a couple of these socks as well and was asked to post my thoughts, I would like to say this sprotect should calm things down. I blocked a couple of socks for 24 hours, not really understanding the magnitude of the problem. These socks should be be blocked indef. Really, there isn't a cure-all solution, let's just plug on...--Adam ^(talk) 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed kungfuadam, but it was fun while it lasted ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• A note that these users have been suspected of being the same person as the long-blocked Child p0rnographer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). I don't know what the solution is except to have a bunch of admins have this on their watchlist and will very quickly block indef vandals and sprotect the page before it gets out of hand again. FWIW, having been in the internet community moderation field for a good many years now, I strongly doubt this problem is going to go away. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is a terrible waste of time. But as long as there are trolls and bores (i.e. for ever) and as long as WP allows anyone to edit (again for ever, it seems), trolls and bores will eagerly screw up WP. Since "GNAA" is merely a group of trolls and bores, on balance it seems a good thing to me that trolls and bores apply their piddling intellects to screwing up the article about it: they'd otherwise have more effort left over for screwing up articles about matters of some significance. So let them continue. Of course, it mustn't appear that "GNAA" is a mere sandbox: the vanity of the trolls must be assuaged by the regular rigmarole of page protections, stern warnings, edit blocks, etc etc. -- Hoary 11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I've gone ahead and blocked the older socks and will continue to do so as necessary. I've also put clear warnings on the talk and in the article that trolling will result in an immediate block. Hopefully this will calm down a bit . . . --Heah? 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Administrator function

I legitimately removed a picture from Grendon because it doesn't illustrate the subject of the article, its a picture of somewhere else with some people sat on a signpost, User:Brookie rolled this back, no explanation why, no attempt to counter my reasoning. Am I missing something, or is this bad behaviour? 86.129.220.187 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It was probably an honest mistake; he thought it simple vandalism. Have you tried asking him about it at his talk page? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse? Popycock! No he didn't talk to me about his concerns - and if you use rollback if fills the narrative box for you; I have posted him a note about why I want the picture to remain. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for a photo album: does an article about a village of 477 need 16 pictures? Including one, listed under "Pictures of the village", which is of a village in France? --Calton | Talk 00:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mr. Random

This newbie objects to the British spelling of Haemophilia, which it was created under. He appears to have moved the page, cut-and-pasted the contents, and to now be spawning sockpuppets to vote in the move discussion at Talk:Haemophilia. Could someone not involved in the move discussion go and help explain to him that this is not how WP operates? (And he boasts of using a proxy server on his user page.) Septentrionalis 17:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Article content aside, I support the suggestion on the above talk page of blocking all the apparent socks used in the straw poll there. --InShaneee 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks identified from the talk page indefinitely, and Mr. Random (talk • contribs) for 24 hours for disruption. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Luka Jačov

User:Luka Jačov has been soliciting votes on IRC for two weeks now. Today, he's trying to solicit votes on Wikipedia:Deletion Review#Dis-Connection over an AfD he lost. --VKokielov 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

Please keep an eye on this article. We've received complaints via OTRS regarding the article's POV stance. Any help in creating a balanced article is also appreciated. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OTRS? Is that "Open-source Ticket Request System"? -Will Beback 22:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about writing - but I'll keep a watch out for any unreferenced criticism. --Doc ^ask? 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given their political stance, undeserved praise should be watched out for as well, if not more so. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right Hummus, police that political stance so they don't upset the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and your other favorites. [[[User:Slappy Tahblappy|Slappy Tahblappy]]]

Kinda strange because this article is only like a week old.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It only took you a week to inject more bias, invective and innuendo than any objective observer could stand. A kind of speed record for you and your band of merry men (and women). [[[User:Slappy Tahblappy|Slappy Tahblappy]]]

Yes. It's where most of the emailed complaints go. Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Votes on Afd

An IP, User talk:68.48.32.65, had added fake votes in this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analysis of stream of consciousness. I think a block is in order here. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]--Jersey Devil 23:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now the IP has created a bunch of sockpuppets to vote keep. The vandalism is ongoing right now, please block the user ASAP. Thank you.

• User:Juliena
• User:Chocho12
• User:Qwerty for life!!!
• User:C.E.1959
• User:What is life
• User:Wikipedia lover ^o^

[54].--Jersey Devil 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How ... weird. Socks adding votes after the AFD has closed and article has been deleted. Anyway, I semiprotected the vote page, not that it matters terribly since the article's already poof'ed. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken care of it, and closed the AFD (with the proper consensus). All these users are blocked indefintely and the IP address for 48 hours. Happy editing!--Adam ^(talk) 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Ekmai

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Wik. He repeated an edit to Encyclopedia Americana by User:Eikma who was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Wik on 17 April. Honbicot 00:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Digiterata

I realize suspected sockpuppets are normally reported on the checkuser page, but this User:Digiterata is quite obviously a sockpuppet of User:Normal nick, as evidenced by his editing behavior on the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page. I'm inclined to go ahead and block him, but I've been one of the editors involved in dispute with Normal nick. Please advise. Or, if another admin wants to step in and deal with this, would be appreciated. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WCityMike (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Continues to attack me at [55] Ardenn 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack; WCityMike was reverting an improper speedy deletion tag. WCityMike left civil notes on Ardenn's talk page. Ardenn then vandalized WCityMike's user page. ~MDD4696 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Filed concurrently with a 3RR complaint. Seems to be based on the words "bad faith" in my edit description. If admins wish to address this further, I am at their service. Making more detailed responses at the 3RR location. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He violated WP:NPA by not assuming good faith. Ardenn 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, complainant has used profanity in 3RR feed linked to above. And I believe evidence displayed obvious bad faith. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note 'good faith' page linked to is denoted as guideline, not policy. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• This report is unfounded -- it is Ardenn who is the problem. I don't have time to report it now but will in a few hours in no one else has. -- Gnetwerker 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refer to WP:AN3#User:WCityMike for any furthur information on this incident. I am currently handling it there. Ardenn has been blocked for 1 hour, but I will block again (for a longer period of time) if the problems continue after it expires. ~MDD4696 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of shock sites

Regular edits

• List of shock sites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of shock sites/Uncited (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Admin powers

• List of shock sites/Temp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAI2U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I've stomped around a bit here, and reverted threee times on List of shock sites. Agressive, unfriendly, ZOMG abuse of admin powers, etc. Still think I'm right, certianly could have been more gentle, opening myself up for trout-slapping as appropiate.
brenneman^{L} 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble never ends with that article does it? wasn't it just deleted, undeleted, and edit warred over? I think we'd be better off if just for 5 minutes people stopped edit warring over the list of shock sites article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And I think that we'd be better of if people who want to insert material like "Once again it has been scientifically proven that this is infact fecal matter traveling from the woman's anal region" would review our policies on verification. We don't compromise on things like citation of sources. - brenneman^{L} 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider this defamatory as I inserted no such thing. I reverted your blanking of the page and nothing more. If you find that this statement is not verifiable, you are more than welcome to remove it. I never wrote it and I never put it in the article. - Abscissa 07:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When you replace material in an article after its validity has been explicitly challenged, it seems obvious to me that you are taking responsibility for it. The fact that you refuse to take responsibility for the edit suggests that you should not have reverted in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when the material has not, as you state, been "explicitly challenged." That argument is fallacious and invalid. These edits were hard to differentiate from vanadlism. If someone blanks the entire Hitler article and I revert it, do I suddenly take responsibility for everything written about Hitler? I certainly hope not, otherwise Wikipedia would be a compendium of blank pages. -Abscissa 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaron's edit summary read "removed clean up tag, added a few categories, removed material without citations showing they are shock sites." I'm not sure how this could possibly be more explicit, perhaps next time he should use allcaps. Anyway, you should not have replaced the material without providing the requested citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see here. I do not think your sarcasam is warranted or appropriate and I do not appriciate it. There are many articles such as this one which have zero sources. This does not give anyone the excuse to blank them. Furthermore, again, your fallacious argument rests upon the assumption that shock sites can be sourced: just what source, exactly, would you feel is appropriate? #1 Any reasonable person would find these sites shocking, and #2 these sites exist for the purpose of shocking. There are many, many Slashdot posts used in internet trolling trying to redirect users to these sites; that is why they are there. See Slashdot trolling. -Abscissa 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If these sites actually cannot be sourced, then WP:V explicitly states that the information cannot be included in the article. It is pretty clear: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." You can easily resolve the issue by providing reliable and reputable sources for the facts you want to include. As far as disruption, it's been made clear, particularly at the earlier AFDs, that this article needs sources. Removal of unsourced information is long overdue, and hardly disruptive. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You fail to make a proper argument and continue to Beg the question. I consider contributing further to this particular thread unconstructive because you have, serveral times, failed to demonstrate that which you have assumed in your argument. I am not going to respond further here. - Abscissa 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Specifically implies" sounds like an oxymoron, Mr. Parham may wish to rephrase it. — Apr. 20, '06 [10:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• I've protected the page because of the ongoing edit war. Unfortunately that required me to look at it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, your out of process deletionism has become tiresome. Thinking you are right is not enough to defy community consensus. Silensor 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. There was no consensus to delete "HAI2U" or to blank "List of shock sites". That article is actually going through an AFD right now. Yesterday, he tried to delete entries on "List of sexual slurs" that "only have one source". In other words, I cited many of the entries using published dictionaries (e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary, Cassell Dictionary of Slang) and he tried to delete them anyway.

  When he blanked the "List of shock sites" article, he said it was because the list was unsourced. I found that confusing as the fact that they're shock sites and that they exist can be verified by simply visiting them.--Primetime 06:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron Brenneman has claimed "I'm not put off by a bird standing on some's penis" on his talk page implying that a site is therefore not shocking. I am responding here since he asked to move the discussion here. -- The fact that it is offputting to some and not offputting to Aaron is not really relevant as the site was created as a shock site and is part of internet trolling. - Abscissa 07:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discusssion looks like a real reason to delete all such garbage from wikipedia. Gah! --Doc ^ask? 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Doc is right (as usual). What part of Wikipedia is not a collection of external links are people having trouble understanding? Burn the lot, have one encyclopaedic article on shock site and have it without links because as soon as you allow one the rest will be piling in and we'll be back to the spam event horizon. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what this discussion is about. The AFD underway is about that and it is certain that, for a fifth time, the article will be kept. The thing I find disturbing is using WP:V as an excuse to game the system and blank most of the article without debate by Mr. Brenneman. I also find disturbing the deletion of "HAI2U" even after debate ended without consensus and finally his attempt to blank most of "List of sexual slurs" even though almost all the entries had respectable sources.--Primetime 09:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: WP:V is policy, Wikipedia:Consensus is only a guideline. Therefore, WP:V is more important, and it's not "gaming the system" to say so. On the other hand, there's a big difference between saying something is unverifiable (in which case it should be deleted) and unverified (in which case, sources should be found and included). I nominated HAI2U for deletion, and I had concerns that it was unverifiable. However, those concerns were apparently shared by nobody except Aaron Brenneman, since no one else said anything. A similar controversial AfD closure was done for The Game (game), but in that case, there was a lot of discussion about verifiability, and a very thorough bit of research had been done to back up that the article was unverifiable. No such thing was done here. I'm going to start a section on WP:DRV about this; I think this was done out of process. Mangojuice 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the verifiability policy to justify deleting this article seems to be either system-gaming (I don't like this article, so I will find a rule that it might break) or process fetishism (I'll literally interpret the rules as generalities in every case). I don't see a compelling argument that the existence of this article is damaging to the encyclopedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also, please note that Aaron Breneman also (1) deleted Dominionist political parties even though there was 10 votes to keep and 5 to delete. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominionist political parties.) He also (2) deleted List of themed timelines yesterday even though there were three keep versus three delete votes. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of themed timelines.)^[56] He could have done much more, but I stopped reviewing the log there.

  Also, WP:V is a policy, but whether it is being interpreted correctly here is very uncertain. Editors should follow consensus when the application of a rule is uncertain. In any case, do we really want to have to keep reviewing and discussing Mr. Brenneman's controversial actions? Should someone who completely ignores consensus and is increadibly disruptive have the power to delete articles?--Primetime 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you think not, bring it to WP:RFC/USER. It's not going to be settled here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to waive the "two-person" and "attempt-to-resolve" thresholds on any request for comment opened, and have started threads at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Dominionist_political_parties_Afd and Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_themed_timelines_AfD. - brenneman^{L} 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Will people please get over this 'you deletionist' nonsense? Hasn't the stylus worn out on that record yet? The article should never have existed. It should never have survived VfD, and if our users didn't skew to an under-20 demographic it probably wouldn't have. The reasons are clearly demonstrated above: it is an inherently POV list. I.e. whether something belongs on it or not is 100% someone's personal point of view. In such a case, even a citation is some one person's point of view, and, since books and magazines are fairly unlikely to waste ink on a list of shock sites, it's fairly unlikely that citations will be to anything more substantial than webpages and blogs and other oracles of crankery. There is no include/exclude to the list except some sniggering kid's "Dude, this is so dissssssgusting!" That's not what encyclopedias do, either electronic or print or written on the waters. If the people editing it can't even make an effort to ensure that everything in it is cited, then they're admitting that the article fails the deletion policy, that it is (and they think should be) inherently POV. That they'd be upset is no reason to bring the matter to AN/I. Geogre 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the fact that these sites are a significant part of the history of internet trolling? Nobody has yet responded to this point yet. Furthermore, the list is not inherently POV as there are only a few sites which #1 any reasonable person would find flagrantly offensive, and #2 exist for the sole purpose of offending. For example, look at the Miller test or for an application of Canadian law, Little Sisters. These are not "POV" tests. Again, the difference between a shock site, and say a gay porn site is that the gay porn site exists for the purpose of doing business on the internet. So even if someone finds its content offensive and obscene, it is not hard to differentiate from any shock site. I am also an old user on Slashdot and fermilliar with goatse trolls; your argument and implication that a bunch of under-20 year olds made the article and are trying to save it is wrong. Look at the reasons given by people who voted to keep it: One administrator wrote "Unfortunately, this stuff is notable", and another person wrote "The phenomenon of shock sites / picture collections has been around even before the internet. It is too important not to be listed here." - Abscissa 01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• these sites are a significant part of the history of internet trolling -- Prove it. WP:V. WP:CITE. And WP:NOR. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Notable?" So? That's not the point. If that were the point of anyone arguing against the article, then that person was totally misguided. Are there trolls? Yes. Do they giggle at their scribbles? Yes. Can Wikipedia have an article on shock sites? Yes. Can it have a list of them? No, because a list would require proof that each site on it is, in fact, a site that exists only to shock and that it does, in fact, shock, and that it has been used to shock, and that the shock has been successful. So, when you can document all the trolling that referred to each site and document that each site shocked someone, then you can include it on the list and be verifiable. Otherwise, discuss the phenomenon in a discursive article. No one, that I know of, is arguing that the phenomenon doesn't exist or shouldn't be discussed, and confusing this handy-dandy link farm with an article is the only thing I have yet found shocking about the discussion. Geogre 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Document all the trolling that refers to each site? This is either a joke or totally preposterous. Document that each site shocked someone? They all shocked me at some point, so what sort of documentation do we need?

    Also, I'd like to point out that asking for proof that the shock sites in question "exist only to shock" is a lot like asking for "proof" that vandalism is vandalism. To this effect, see what Meta-Wiki [[57]] has to say. We don't need an all-encompassing a priori definition of a shock site to say that something is a shock site. Avertist 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Document that each site shocked someone? They all shocked me at some point, so what sort of documentation do we need? I think you need to familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. It's real critical that you understand that your reaction to something is totally irrelevant, as are the reactions of your friends and everyone you know. Wikipedia isn't about recording our opinions, our observations, our reactions, our syntheses. (Also, for what it's worth, that you are shocked is your POV.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, and it's all the more reason that Geogre's criteria to make the article legitimate are absurd. Avertist 11:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jeez, is it really so hard to understand? Act out of process if you are certain that the process would have the same outcome, not if you think you know better than everyone else what the end result should be."

Good advice for anybody, I think. — Apr. 20, '06 [10:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] User:JzG

This admin JzG is consistently abusing his priviliges by claiming to be applying policies that he has not actually read. His most serious offence was to list 37 signals for deletion, even though its homepage has a link to independent press articles which clearly demonstrate compliance with WP:CORP. In addition he has deleted a whole load of useful links from an article on real time collaborative editors without any warning. He claimed that WP:NOT says only internal links are allowed, but I can find nothing in WP:NOT to give preference to internal links over external ones. Is there any procedure to have admin privilidges revoked? I have tried discussing the issue with him but he says because he is an administrator he must know best. From his homepage it is clear he is (Personal attack removed), is it really sensible to let him sabotage wikipedia on a whim? Davebrooky 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First step to getting admin privileges revoked - don't level gross insults at their fellow admins. Second step: get your facts right. Nominating articles for deletion has nothing to do with admin privileges, and anyone may do it without fear of having their intelligence questioned by the people behind the article. Whether the article is deleted or not is out of Guy's hands, and in the hands of the wider community. Do not make further personal attacks on editors. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The actual page up for deletion is 37signals. It would help if you would give us specific diffs that point to his alleged bad behviour. It is not our job to make your case for you. You need to provide concrete evidence of exactly what he said or did that you think violates a policy. Johntex\^talk 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Collaborative real-time editor which predates this. Davebrooky is on a crusade to include links to software still in alpha, and seems to think that wikilawyering is a great way to achieve that. It is, however, profoundly disheartening to learn that nominating a company of seven employees for deletion is my most serious offence. My reputation as a rouge admin is in tatters - I must go and do some out-of-prcess deletions. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonus points for irony: arguing the toss about WP:NOT in defence of linkspam while adding blatantly self-referential text to two separate articles. Way to go, Dave. Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is clear to me that Davebrooky needs a time-out. Therefore, I have blocked him for 3 hours due to his personal attack on JzG, which Samuel_Blanning removed from the post here at ANI. Johntex\^talk 22:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Whether anxiety depression well-controlled by dosulepin counts as "mentally ill" is debatable, but thank you Sam and Johntex for dealing with this. What I find a bit troubling is this level of aggression and disputatiousness in an editor with only a couple of days of history. I find myself wondering whether this is genuinely a new user. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

People might get the picture that wikilawyering is merely a boring pastime where people point out details concerning notability and argue their well-thought-out solutions to other editors' concerns. Our friend Davebrooky here has shown us all the true meaning of wikilawyering, where the drama continually... uh... oozes from... uh... where the heck drama generally oozes from in the TV courtroom dramas. (I don't know, it just oozes!) I hereby appoint Davebrooky as the Evil Twin of WikiMatlock. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irgendwer's blanking of his talk page

I've left several warnings on User:Irgendwer's talk page for violating the 3RR at Libertarianism [58] [59] [60] [61] and for making personal attacks against me [62] [63] and generally needing a WP:CIVIL lesson. He has responded to these warnings by repeatedly blanking his talk page over 3 of my reverts and Wr warnings. --rehpotsirhc 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to actually talk to him on his talk page rather than simply slapping a template on it? Your own actions come across a little agressive to me (at first glance, but i may have not seen everything). Just let the matter drop. if he breaks the 3RR he can be blocked since he has been warned and has clearly seen the warning. As for personal attacks, I hate that template with a vengence. Can we not kill it? Seems to me that if someone needs a lesson in civility, the best way to deal with it is by setting a good example ourselves. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I put a template on his page without any further comment because we were already engaged in a discussion on Talk:Libertarianism. I mentioned that making personal attacks is unacceptable and advised him against it [64]. His response was the second personal attack. IMO, nothing needed saying at that point that the template didn't cover. Re your comments about the template, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. In fact, Irgendwer's incivility and attacks on Talk:Libertarianism is a perfect example of how incivil behavior breaks down rational discussion and turn the editing process from a collaborative excercise into a conflict. --rehpotsirhc 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you about warning for personal attacks. Personal attacks are a bad thing and certainly make for a non collaborative atmosphere. I am merely saying that warning via a template is also a bad thing. It also leads to a bad atmosphere. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning templates exist for a reason. If they don't have the support of the community, they should be TfD'd. Johntex\^talk 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My question "can we not kill it" was asked so that i can see if the template has the support of the community or not! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the template has community support, we stray from the task at hand. What is to be done about the aforementioned user? Isopropyl 05:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing at the moment. If' he breaks the 3RR then block, he has been warned after all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to blank your talk page. Some people delete messages as soon as they've read them, so as not to get lost. In any case, anytime someone removes a message from their talk page , you can be sure they've certainly seen it ;-) . Kim Bruning 07:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughan Politics, boiled down to the simplest summary I could make

Since the situation has changed some since the initial flurry of charges and counter charges, (and with Leotardo's renewed call for pm_shef's head), I decided to create a fresh summing-up of the situation. If someone thinks it would be appropriate to cross-post this to RfCU to aid the admins there, I would have no problem with that.

• Pm_shef (talk • contribs) and VaughanWatch (talk • contribs) have agreed on a truce whereby neither will edit Vaughan-related articles. This appears to be holding, at least for the primary account.

• While Pm_Shef and VaughanWatch seem to have reached an understanding, Eyeonvaughan continues to be a problem. He has not even responded to the RFC filed against him. Analyzing all the anonymous IP accounts in the 64.* and 69.* range (Bell Canada) is probably overkill, but three in particular seem to be specifically used by Eyeonvaughan to evade his blocks.

64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Posted support to Eyeonvaughan [65] and attacks on pm_shef [66] on April 10 while Eyeonvaughan was blocked for personal attacks. This personal attack from April 6 by Eyeonvaughan was reposted by the IP on April 10. It is likely Eyeonvaughan was using this IP (and possibly others ) to avoid his blocks.

67.70.148.144 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Also on April 10, reverted attack posts that 64.231.242.202 made [67] and deleted comments on Eyeonvaughan's talk page that had been [68] restored by Sam Blanning. Suspected sock of Eyeonvaughan.

Westernriddell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) admits to knowing Eyeonvaughan and jumped in after a 5 month hiatus to add sockpuppet tags to pm_shef and Theonlyedge while Eyeonvaughan was blocked.

• Leotardo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has not edited an article since March 28. His entire wikipedia activity since then has been to post sockpuppet allegations against pm_shef and Theonlyedge at ANI, RfCU, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchock (second nomination) and their talk pages. The locus of dispute seems to be that Theonlyedge nominated Simon Strelchock (an article he created [69]) for deletion the second time, when pm_shef had nominated it once before. Also note Leotardo trying to stir up trouble by complaining to VaughanWatch that pm_shef violated their treaty by "editing Vaughan-related articles" [70] when all pm_shef did was defend himself from Leotardo's attack.

67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), another Bell Canada, only edits have been to label pm_shef and Theonlyedge as sockpuppets. Since this is more Leotardo's cause celeb, suspect sockpuppets of Leotardo.

67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) ditto

67.70.151.196 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) ditto

• Notwithstanding Leotardo's evidence, pm_shef (talk • contribs) and Theonlyedge (talk • contribs) do not appear to be collaborating, and Theonlyedge has not taken over editing articles that pm_shef has agreed not to edit, except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchock (second nomination).

It seems to me that these, stated briefly, are the core questions.

1. Are pm_shef and Theonlyedge sockpuppets of one another?

• Pm_shef (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

2. Has Eyeonvaughan used sockpuppets to avoid a civility block?

• Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 67.70.148.144 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Westernriddell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

3. Has Leotardo used sockpuppets to edit Vaughan-related articles and IP accounts to attack pm_shef and Theonlyedge?

• Leotardo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Poche1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (note that Poche (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock of VaughanWatch)
• Skycloud (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 67.70.151.196 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Regardless of the outcome of the various checkuser requests, I feel very strongly that Leotardo needs a civility block for persistent attacks and baiting of pm_shef and Theonlyedge. There's a process to follow and spamming your allegations all over wikipedia isn't part of it. Thatcher131 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, I believe you are just angry that some neutral admins have looked at the information and found there cause to believe that Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef. Despite your organized description above, I don't believe it is fair or objective. Here are some more objective opinions below. I invite you to have good faith in this process. Leotardo 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to evidence that Pm_shef (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is using Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet, found here: (From AN/I) That appears to be rather damning evidence. I've never seen any two verifiably unique users have that much in common. — Apr. 20, '06 [10:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I completely agree. So what do we do? I suggest an indef-block for Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and a week for Pm_shef (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(from Checkuser)

Leotardo's comments are endorsed by a couple of admins at WP:AN/I - we don't recall seeing such suspiciously similar behaviour by two verifiably different users before. If confirmed Pm-shef is in deep trouble. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Leotardo 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't normally gloat, but.... Thatcher131 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What a bloody mess. Keeping me up late and all. Anyway, I strongly suggest throwing out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchock (second nomination)–there was obviously massive sockpuppeting going on. If there is a re-vote (and it really is a good idea), someone drop me a line and I'll keep an eye on it. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree (with it being a mess and with renominating Strelchock). Just zis Guy you know? 09:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been "speedy kept to Nlu" by Munckin (talk • contribs), who also seems to be using a misconfigured proxy server (note the backslashes in [71]) -- grm_wnr Esc 10:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple times. I am in discussion now. See below, his config screwed some pages rather badly (including today's AfD log). I fixed. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and vandalism prevented holding an AfD (third nomination). The AfD notice was constantly removed from the article and the AfD page itself was constantly vandalized. As a result, I was bold and took the step of deleting the article; it can and perhaps should be nominated for deletion review, as a roundabout way of doing the AfD. -- Curps 11:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cognition violating Larouche 1 and Larouche 2

The Arb Com has clarified that user pages are included in Larouche 1 and Larouche 2's bans on Larouche pushing [72] Pursuant to those rulings, Slimvirgin and I trimmed Cognition's user page. Cognition has repeatedly reverted his user page. Since I am not an admin, I thought it made more sense to bring this here and let admins enforce the relevant rulings. JoshuaZ 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. I've protected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never before seen an editor who felt it necessary to post a {POV} tag on an old issue of Wikipedia:Signpost, in this case to contest the assertion that a user's edits are positive.[73]. -Will Beback 07:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre behaviour. Just zis Guy you know? 09:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail spam

Roblefko (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), having been dissuaded by means of blocking from spamming his external website here, has now taken to doing it through Wikipedia e-mail. Is there anyway to prevent this? I've threatened to block him, and informed him how very pissed off I am at him, but I'm aware and he no doubt is too that blocking him won't actually prevent him from sending the e-mails. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasjust coming to write the same. Here is what Ten of All Trades said to me earlier on my talk page

Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with Roblefko (talk • contribs) right now. You might drop a note on WP:AN/I asking someone else to look into it. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days, and I can't keep on top of the situation. Unfortunately, I don't think that blocking disables the user email feature—and anon IPs can email anyway. If he won't quit, someone might have to contact his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an issue for the media foundation to me as it could be a way for rogue users to spam other users, SqueakBox 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

His ISP is AOL--do they have a spamming policy? It's a disturbing thought (and no doubt we'll be accused of telling people not to stuff beans etc. etc. for having this conversation) but if this were to become a trend it does seem like the foundation would have to look into it. Do we, in fact, have a policy about what is and is not appropriate use of the Wikipedia e-mail function? Chick Bowen 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If we dont we should as junk email is not nice or useful. He is using an AOL email address, it is just Robfleko@ so obviously set up specifically to spam, SqueakBox 04:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually checked out the link and was delighted to see that the wiki had already attracted Willy on Wheels, who had been moving a couple dozen pages. Kusma (討論) 04:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree that there should be a way to block a user's email function if it is abused for spam. Kusma (討論) 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Should there be some policy at Wikipedia:Emailing users instead of just how-to? There would presumably need to be some way to enforce any policy that was agreed upon. Chick Bowen 04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Entirely annoying, I know. However, I'm not sure that this rises to an actionable item. If an anon or blocked user can't generate a mailing list or harvest mailto:'s, then I don't think that the "e-mail the user" feature is really something that's going to lead to spamming. It is annoying, and it's bad, and it's something we should address, but it's not quite on the same level as having one's actual e-mail address harvested by the C1Alis advertisers. Geogre 15:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Terryeo

I've blocked Terryeo (talk • contribs) for 24 hours disruptive editing at Dianetics. I know these things can be controversial so I invite review of this situation. Terryeo disagrees with the block and says he was upholding the WP:RS guideline. See User_talk:Terryeo#Blocked, Talk:Dianetics#Xenu.net_references, and User_talk:Terryeo#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.23Personal_websites_as_primary_sources for the rather unfortunately long details. Friday (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Terryeo has an ongoing RfAr. This might be relevant to that so I hope this latest incident makes it onto the RfAr somehow. --Cyde Weys 04:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks by recommendation of the ArbCom [74] but has since returned to his old habits at Ustaše as 216.194.2.22 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (identifying factors: personal attacks[75], anti-Croatian POV, unnecessarily reversing date formats, adding Category:Roman Catholics, attempting to whitewash the Bleiburg massacre [76], putting "see [[]]" around external links). Any administrators care to enforce this block? Demiurge 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I put an indef block on this ip, since its only contributions were from today and were only in the Rms125a-style of edits. Syrthiss 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As it's a raw IP block, I suggest that you replace it by a one month block, which should reduce the problem without potentially locking out a legitimate editor who may inherit that IP in future. --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

done. Syrthiss 17:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for second opinion at Kazaa Lite

Several IPs, probably related to www.kltforums.com, continue to reinsert a link to [77] to the external links section of Kazaa Lite. I would appreciate a second opinion from another admin on the actions of myself and these users. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO your actions were correct. I've sprotected the page for now. Repeated attempts to insert spam without using the talk page eventually rise to being disruption on the part of this user. JDoorjam Talk 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet tag continues to be removed, need block for disruption.

Users CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Mangojuice (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Deckiller (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Jaranda (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Syrthiss (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Thryduulf (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) keep on removing the sockpuppet tag from their ally Pm_shef (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his sockpuppet, Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). There is a CheckUser investigation taking place, as well as allegations of sockpuppetry to be found here. A sockpuppet notice on Theonlyedge's userpage continues to be removed by these people. Please block them for disruption. Leotardo 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You realise that you're violating WP:CIV, yes? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-04-20)

The category has been speedy deleted. You have no evidence of sockpuppetry and the so-called category was nothing more than a diatribe. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What it was was evidence of sockpuppetry. Those allegations have been re-posted in that category. There is a checkuser request here, which I'm sure will find that Theonlyedge is the sockpuppet of Pm_shef. But since it appears as if you're not familiar with the evidence, it is posted again at the bottom of this message.

The other vandals were listed in good faith and with all due civility, because each of them removed the sockpuppet tag from Theonlyedge's userpage.

Here is the evidence of vandalism and sockpuppet tag removal:

CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) here and here and here and here.

Deckiller (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) here

Jaranda (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) here and here

Syrthiss (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) here

Thryduulf (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) here

Not the mention Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)here and here and here.

Evidence that Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef:

1. After Alan Shefman's son User:Pm_shef writes that he will abstain from editing articles related to Vaughan politics, and confirmed that abstention at 05:55, 11 April 2006 here, "Theonlyedge" goes after Pm_shef's longtime Vaughan target (who he nominated for the AfD a month prior) a few hours later, at 22:02, 11 April 2006 here. Coincidence?

2. The name of Pm_shef's father's company is simply The Edge. It is involved in anti-racism, which we know Pm_shef/ Corey Shefman has been involved in too, both personally and through his edits. The Edge sounds a lot like The Only Edge... a coincidence? See main link to his father's bread-and-butter for 25 years: [www3.sympatico.ca/theedgeq/]

3. Roughly 50% of all Theonlyedge's edits are also articles that Pm_shef has edited. Compare Pm_shef's contributions to Theonlyedge's contributions.

4. Both accounts in question were created within 5 weeks of one another; Pm_shef on Oct 31 2005, TheOnlyEdge on Dec 11 2005.

5. 4 hours after Pm_shef nominates this article for deletion (which he ultimately lost), Theonlyedege comes around and does NOT vote Keep or Delete but rather, after two consecutive Keep votes, adds a comment that the article should be shortened to 2 or 3 paragraghs. This was Shef's way of cutting his losses. See original AfD Keep debate: [[78]].

6. Both users are from Thornhill, as they have both have edited the article on Thornhill and are obsessed with their politicians.

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites Susan Kadis (as well as Michael Di Biase) and negative edits/blanking to their political competitor Mario Racco and political opponents Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper.

8. Why did Pm_shef / Theonlyedge create this article on a previous opponent? So that he can control it. He can keep it down to 2 or 3 sentences and maintain control over content.

9. Pm_shef added the deletion notice of this article to Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board at 22:04, exactly 2 minutes after his sockpuppet created this nomination at 22:02. See edit history Coincidence?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotardo (talk • contribs).

---

That appears to be rather damning evidence. I've never seen any two verifiably unique users have that much in common. — Apr. 20, '06 [10:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I completely agree. So what do we do? I suggest an indef-block for Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and a week for Pm_shef (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Leotardo is part of a group of users, along with VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan, who are bitterly opposed to the current political situation in Vaughan, Ontario, and that pm_shef, who acknowledges being the son of a local politcal figure, has been attacked by them for the past couple of months. Vaughanwatch was recently found to have used over 30 sockpuppets. While Vaughanwatch and Eyeonvaughan were banned for personal attacks and sockpuppet abuse, a slew of attacks started coming in from AnonIP accounts belonging to Bell Canada. Checkuser requests are pending on Eyeonvaughan, Leotardo and the other pm_shef attackers. I think that all confirmed socks should be banned but any blocks against the primary accounts should be suspended until the situation gets sorted out and we know exactly who is attacking whom here. I don't think any of these editors should be editing articles on Vaughan politics, obviously they are all too closely tied to the situation and unable to put aside their passions.Thatcher131 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. My view is that we should delete the lot and come back when the fuss is over. This is an encyclopaedia, our policies are based on externally reported sources which require the perspective of time. Wars like this just prove beyond doubt that the encyclopaedia format is poorly adapted to covering current events. What we need is a sister project to cover current events. We could call it something snappy like "wikinews". Last time I looked inside this can of worms is centred about a bunch of poeple who fail WP:BIO because they have yet to be elected to any office at all. But that could be my faulty memory. The bad taste left in the mouth by VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan is not a faulty memory, though. Just zis Guy you know? 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I only removed the sock tag because it was an anon posting it. Any anon edit to a user's page that I notice usually gets removed as vandalism and the anon warned with a {test}. All that being said, I warned Leotardo to leave the situation alone above here and suggested to both sides that they back away from the situation until the checkusers were refused or completed...but here he is pushing his evidence again (and has replaced the sockpuppet tags on theonlyedge's page since my warning). If the blocks mentioned above go through on theonlyedge and pm_shef (who I agree from the evidence could either be socks or meat, whatever the IRL relation between the accounts), I propose a week long ban on Leotardo as well for harassing another user. Syrthiss 13:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

-Look I haven't done any harassment, other than add a sockpuppet tag to a user that for a long time only appeared to me as a sockpuppet. But I guess when you're on the wrong side of the fence, on the wrong side of the issue, you get blamed even when exposing the truth. It's really silly, actually.

In any event, I am now entrusting Wikipedia admins to add the Sockpuppet tag to user:Theonlyedge and connect it to the allegations of sockpuppetry page here. Everytime I put it back, somebody on their side takes it off again.

I also request that the evident harassment and elaborate use of admin time on AN/I and Checkuser stop finally against me and other users. They will not stop until all of your minutes are taken, and until we're not able to edit anymore. I count 7 different complaints on AN/I, 6 different complaints on Checkuser, an elaborate RfC and 3RR reports. They are not fair to us, as evidenced with Syrthiss above statement, don't want to co-operate, and rather than defusing situations, it just makes things worse.

To the suggested Theonlyedge and Pm_shef blocks: don't let Syrthiss and Thatcher131 dissuade you. It's a sockpuppet, plain and simple, so punish it. And withdraw his second AfD nomination for an article that his login Pm_shef failed to win on the first try. This should send out a message to everyone about the kind of behaviour expected around here. Leotardo 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pm Shef's defence

• As you'll have noticed, I have tried my best to not get involved with this whole nonsense, but now that people are proposing week long bans for me, and indefinite bans for a completely innocent user who i have never met before in my life, I felt the need. A couple things need clearing up here.

1. When I started on Wikipedia, I was heavily involved in editing articles related to Vaughan, Ontario, that soon landed me in hot water for conflicts of interest, as I acknowledged that I am the son of a local politician (which led to this attack group digging up all kinds of innappropriate information about me).
2. A month or two ago, Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) began making PoV edits and accusing me of PoV pushing and bias, despite the fact that he, and later VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) were never able to substantiate their claims.

   Never? You can't mean now. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3. After Eyeonvaughan and Vaughanwatch began to get blocks for personal attacks, including one involving Defamation that has yet to be resolved, Leotardo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Poche1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Skycloud (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) popped up, literally out of nowhere, and dove right in to the whole Vaughan conflict. Here, you'll notice that Skycloud and Poche1 have only ever edited Vaughan articles and that the vast majority of Letoardo's edits are Vaughan-related, with none of his other edits being substantive.

   Your first 25 edits were all Vaughan-related (see here), as were Theonlyedge here. Nice try though. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

4. In terms of Theonlyedge, the simple fact is, I do not know this person. Please, check our contribution histories, before the last two weeks when this whole conflict broke out, we had only edited 5 or 6 pages in common.

   You mean the Vaughan pages? Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bearcat and I have edited far more of the same pages than that, does that make us sockpuppets of each other too? No. It means that we have similar interests, since when was that against wiki rules?

1. There's a difference between sharing interests and sharing IP addresses.

   And Bearcat isn't named for your father's company. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Since then, I have endured relentless personal attacks, numerous instances of defamation and slander and still stayed involved with Wikipedia. For what? Now to be blocked because of the suspicions of someone who has been tagged as a puppetmaster since literally the day he registered his account?

   Such absurdities. YOU are the person that tagged me as a puppetmaster the day I registered my account. And if you are blocked it's because of the evidence of sockpuppetry, not favoritism. Leotardo

3. Finally, it is probably prudent to note that for the past two weeks or so (maybe a bit longer, im not sure), you'll see that I have not edited anything related to Vaughan. After working it out with User:VaughanWatch we decided that it would be best for the Wiki community if both of us stayed away from Vaughan articles, and focussed our efforts elsewhere on Wiki.

   Not true. You made this edit here yesterday. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I belive that this last point especially, but really all of the above, demonstrates extreme Good Faith on my part, and an extreme lack of it from Leotardo. Not one of Leotardo's so called "proofs" that Theonlyedge is my sockpuppet holds water. With even the most basic of inspections and knowledge of the Vaughan-conflict, you'll see that the "evidence" is nothing more than more thinly veiled personal attacks with no actual proof beyond "some of their edits are similar" Not to mention that theonlyedge created the article that I led a veritable crusade to delete in its first nomination. Regardless, the fact that this sham of a complaint is even getting this amount of attention is frankly insulting to the hard work I've put in to editing articles on Wikipedia, from Canadian University related topics to Debate topics and so on.
  

Good faith? Are you kidding me? You labelled me a puppetmaster on the first day based on no proof, which STILL hasn't shown up. The 9 pieces of evidence holds up. I just hope that the Checkuser investigation is thorough and checks every IP that both of you have ever tried to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotardo (talk • contribs) .

If you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message.
pm_shef 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave me a message too if you'd like. Leotardo 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to get involved anymore, but I just can't ignore the way Leotardo keeps screaming that there's no proof of his sockpuppetry. I don't know if this is true or not, but anyone interested in that evidence can have a look here. It was not confirmed by RFCU despite a request. Mangojuice 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So they reverted my edits, big deal. You removed the sockpuppet tag from Theonlyedge like maybe 6 other users, that doesn't make you a sock-puppet. Leotardo 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

-There is no better time for more evidence of sockpuppetry than now.

Let's look at another coincidence. The following AfDs were added seconds before his sockpuppet added a second AfD to a Vaughan article that he failed to delete the first time.

22:04, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board (→Candidates for deletion - added a bunch of failed election candidates)

22:03, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Colin Atkins)

22:02, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Atkins (d)

22:01, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Colin Atkins (afd)

22:00, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Michael Baldasaro)

22:00, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Baldasaro (d)

21:59, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Michael Baldasaro (afd)

21:58, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Anthony Barendregt)

21:58, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Barendregt (d)

21:57, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Anthony Barendregt (afd)

21:56, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Rick Barsky)

21:55, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Barsky (d)

21:54, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Rick Barsky (afd)

21:54, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Rebecca Blaikie)

21:53, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Blaikie (second nomination) (d)

21:51, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Rebecca Blaikie (fixed afd) (top)

21:50, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Rebecca Blaikie (afd)

21:48, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 11 (Jeff Sloychuk (politician))

21:47, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Sloychuk (politician) (d)

21:45, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Jeff Sloychuk (politician) (afd)

21:43, 11 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niki Ashton (second nomination) (unsigned)

Leotardo 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Again if somebody can add this "allegations of sockpuppetry" tag to user:Theonlyedge that would be great, since these guys keep on removing it. Leotardo 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how posting pm_shef's contribution table is supposed to convince us of anything related to Theonlyedge. Thatcher131 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's supposed to show that he was creating AfDs for "failed election candidates" for 20 minutes, until last but not least, he went after his very first AfD nomination, using a sockpuppet to do his dirty work. Leotardo 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that Leotardo decided to stick his sarcastic comments inbetween mine, thus disjointing my arguments, rather than putting them all afterwards as most respectful users do, is simply a further example of him not assuming good faith. As well, the above list of my contributions proves nothing other than the fact that I was honouring my word to User:VaughanWatch that I would no longer get involved with Vaughan related issues. I'm sorry if I happen to be interested in Canadian politics. - pm_shef 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• GOTCHA. So you used a sockpuppet to get around your agreement to stay out of Vaughan politics. Yeah you were "honouring" your word alright... Leotardo 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Boy, if you only spent a fraction of the energy you're spending on denigrating and attacking pm_shef on, instead, lecturing proven sockpuppteers, like, say VaughanWatch, someone who -- quite a coincidence, eh? -- seems to have exactly the same interests as yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Leotardo, what on earth are you talking about? Got me? All what I've said above proves is that you have consistently violated, and continue to violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. - pm_shef 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The so-called category has been deleted and protected. Categories are not to be used for diatribes. Re-create it or anything else similar, and you'll get blocked for a couple of days. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note from Deckiller

The other day, I added pm_shef and theonlyedge to the chckuser (along with some of the dozens of two-edit users claiming these two to be the same) per e-mail request from shef. No response yet. I also unblocked one of the many "new users" who were accusing them of sockpuppetry and put them on checkuser to be fair. If any of my other actions need to be clarified, please contact me on my talkpage. And Leotardo, I believe you were also added to checkuser to keep this issue balanced. — Deckiller 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser confirmed Leotardo a Sock

It is probably relevant to this discussion that Checkuser has just confirmed that Leotardo, the main proponent of this theory that Theonlyedge is my Sockpuppet was in fact a Sockpuppet of VaughanWatch. - pm_shef 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good; this matter is close to being (if not already) settled. Has it been confirmed that you and theonlyedge are different users? — Deckiller 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, the checkuser that was requested hasn't been done yet. - pm_shef 05:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Two issues from the Vaughan mess haven't specifically been addressed: has Eyeonvaughan been using anon IPs to avoid his civility block, and pm_shef/Theonlyedge. Neither Kelly or Mackensen mentioned them when they revealed and blocked VaughanWatch's sock farm (about 45 socks now I think). (I assume that Eyeonvaughan is not an obvious sock of Vaughanwatch, or else that would have shown up.) After all their hard work I'm not about to bug Kelly or Mackensen for clarification. Maybe the accusation was blow over now that the principle source is out of business. Thatcher131 06:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Checkuser on Theonlyedge and pm_shef was inconclusive per Mackensen. Develop some different interests, guys. Thatcher131 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good to hear. And I have done so, see my contribs. Hopefully we can move on and help improve Wikipedia now. - pm_shef 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining sockpuppets of banned Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

User Sint Holo has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales himself as a sockpuppet of the banned user Gadugi (who by his own admision is Jeff Merkey himself). However, he still has a known sockpuppet and a known IP address he recently used. They are 71.199.40.199 (talk • contribs) the IP number Sint Holo used when not logged and TempusFugit (talk • contribs) created to stalk the people who remember his previous sockpuppets' antics with (oh, irony!) sockpuppet accusations. TempusFugit did ot hide he's Merkey: he used log files from wikigadugi.org - a server operated and owned by Jeff Merkey as the "proof" of his sockpuppet accusations. Blocking the accounts should be done quickly as Merkey usually gets a meltdown (personal attack & legal threats) after losing an account. He's already hinted some action against User:Jerryg on his Talk page. In fact, the meltdown has already started. Luckily not on Wikipedia but on Jeff Merkey's personal page [79]. The material posted there seems to ask for a libel suit from Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales. Thanks in advance for blocking the sockpuppets. Friendly Neighbour 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a strange article. A lot of it does not seem encyclopedic to me and I can understand why the person described is not happy with it. De mortuis... 16:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month and the sock indefinately. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Great thanks! Friendly Neighbour 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We have a new one. It's 67.166.115.221 (talk • contribs) (another COMSAT IP number from Utah, as all previous IP numbers used by Merkey but one) who made legal threaths (most probably libelous) which are direct continuation of previous Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's antics on Wikipedia. I believe this IP number should be blocked. I the past one months blocks on the IP numbers Merkey used were good enough (he never returned to the same IP number after a block). Thanks in advance. Friendly Neighbour 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Jonathan'

Yesterday NSLE blocked Jonathan 666 (talk • contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (known sock/meatpuppet). This user, who has used numerous 'Jonathan' accounts, keeps being blocked as a sock. He claims he is being blocked as a sock of Daniel Brandt - and that he is innocent [80]. Mackensen has now confirmed by checkuser that he isn't Brandt. I previously promised him that if he stuck to the '666' account, I would have any block reviewed. So I am asking for any views or further information.

It may well be that this user is disruptive (see [81]). But he does not appear to be a banned user, and continualy blocking him is only encouraging him to create new accounts. I'm inclined to unblock this account - instruct him to use only one account - and put him on an informal probation. I'll do that (or someone else should) only if there is consensus here - or no serious objections.--Doc ^ask? 22:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair - sockpuppet allegations are not to be used lightly. If he really is disruptive, let's block him for that, not on an unproven allegation. I'm not unblocking though, waiting for more comments. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unblock him. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with all the above. Friday (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, now unblocked - but suggest others keep watch. --Doc ^ask? 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

666 didn't trigger an improper username ban? I won't go rouge and block him, but that seems inappropriate. JDoorjam Talk 04:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider that username blockworthy at all. Juvenile maybe, but that's no reason to block. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that 666 doesn't become a trigger for a username block. As an indicator of malicious intent, it's very weak, and a mere number is unlikely to give widespread offence. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long term disruptive user, current excessive unpleasantness

and a few other excursions from the WP envelope. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&curid=3793659&diff=49372139&oldid=49314319 is a good entry point. Midgley 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The user in question is 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I wonder if this is really the right place to bring this, up, but...

Wow. I'm surprised that anon hasn't been indefinitely blocked for his history of disruptive trolling, harassment, bullying, and almost total lack of any useful contributions. Looking through his very first edits (ignoring 81.111.172.198 for now), I see him delete one of your talk comments, then accuse you of both vandalism and bias, then repeatedly accuse the next editor who comes along (who happens to be an admin) of personally attacking him, while insulting you some more at the same time, etc. He's become somewhat less obvious (and more devious) since then but it's clear that he either really loves argumentative disruption or is literally unable to stop doing it.

As for his comment in the link you provided, it is written so immaculately and in such detail that I find it hard to believe he could possibly be so ignorant of exactly the right Wikipedia policies and procedures to have presented such incredibly misleading "evidence" of his points. In any case, while he is clearly very clever and does have a few vehement supporters somehow, he is also clearly picking the wrong fights (with at least 4 admins, even going so far as to accuse 3 of them of gross misconduct in the same post). If that isn't blatant trolling, obviously I don't know what is.

–Tifego^(t) _{06:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)}

I've seen a chap who writes like him - [82] and is noted on the Whale.to site for his opposition to MMR [83]. An NTL homeworld page [84] combines some of this. The BMJ editor was moved to remark in general terms on it. Am I paranoid or is this someone who "joined" WP in order to attack me, rather than to write an encyclopaedia? Midgley 08:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you can make a good case for him having been Wikistalking you? [Unfortunately it appears you reacted at some point with something similar, but you might have evidence for something much longer-term and more serious.] Otherwise it is simply harassment, which is not as well defined.

Also, why do you think Ombudsman, Whaleto (john), Leifern, WeniWidiWiki, and Pansophia support [or are contacted in relation to you by] 86.10.231.219 so strongly? How are they related?

–Tifego^(t) _{18:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)}

I'd not observed WeniWidiWiki doing anything remarkable. Are you sure about that? I agree, making a WP:POINT by registering the username he was pretending to have was in retrospect a mistake, but the chap was _very_ annoying. Ombudsman and Whaleto are linked by being anti-vaccinationists and I think opportunism, Leifern has an interest in a particular additive nowadays essentially removed from immunisations, and states that he is not an anti-vaccinationist, merely a critic of some vaccines and will explain some of his association in his own words at to medical claims community and was cleverly touched off over Thimerosal by 86.10.231.219. Midgley 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to say all of them actively support that anon, only Ombudsman and Whaleto do from the edits I've seen. I mentioned the others because I noticed 86.10.231.219 sending "please look at this" posts to all 5 of them to support comments of his made against you. That doesn't necessarily mean anything on its own; he became enemies with at least one editor he used to give such messages to. –Tifego^(t) _{02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

And yes, this user did little else before launching attacks on me when he became identifiable on WP, and was immediately clearly associated with attacks on the british medical association (which owns the british medical journal) where there had been previous diatribes. He may be upset that I commissioned the writing of a filter that eliminates his comments from teh BMJ when read with Firefox - the editor didn't ask for it, but did define the problem. Pansophia may have been lead astray, but received a certain amount of advice form admins in the first article edits, and didn't take it anything like graciously. Looking at Pansophias edits, I think I discern an improvement with maturity after that initial phase, follwoed by some clever working by 86.10.231.219 and a worsening of attitude, not so much to me, but to WP standards. Left alone this trolling will spread. Midgley 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think this needs more community input before any sort of action can be justified. As it says at the top of this page, this is not the place for disputes or reports of abusive behavior. Are you pursuing RfC or mediation? –Tifego^(t) _{03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

I have asked on his talk page if he will consider mediation[85] and got another attack[86]. I think it may mean "no", and it contains an assertion that 86 is not in dispute with me. I have considered posting to the WP Requests for mediation page, which I have open but do not adequately understand - it appears to need all parties to sign up to a request. I'm in favour, and if anyone is willing to take an interest and explore mediation I'd be grateful. . I've also relisted that talk page on MfD[87] as it is very clearly a collection of attacks, and I submit not beneficial to WP. I am aware that several people who might otherwise co-sponsor an RFC are inhibited by the expectation of personal unpleasantness being directed their way - I'd say that if the cabal (Tenofalltrades describd them, not admiringly, as a lynch mob) currently adding and linking criticisms of me to their talk pages seriously thought they had a case they should have presented it as an RFC - I may be subjective in thinking that like presenting the appearance but not substance of a username, such alternatives to established WP procedure are aimed at increasing the irritation and turmoil rather than solving a problem, but I'm probably right. Advice on an RFC would be appreciated - I'm involved in one on User:Whaleto which is probably also a factor in this current unpleasantness, given the linkages. Midgley 12:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this being policy, but I would think that if he declines mediation, then requesting arbitration is acceptable. (Or, I wonder if the unofficial Mediation Cabal would be willing to help?) Also, your second edit diff above (about "another attack") highlights one of your own comments, is that intentional? –Tifego^(t) _{18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

That second diff - the item to which attention is directed is on the left, or above my comment, (which is also relevant.). I have commenced an RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 I would be grateful for opinions. Midgley 20:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block My Address

Please block this (my) IP address from editing, permanently, to stop vandalism. This is a shared static IP address for a school. - From "The Only Person from this IP who cares about WikiPedia" ...posted at 05:07, 21 April 2006 by 203.87.12.34 (contributions)

If you care about Wikipedia then please don't troll us. Cheers! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this trolling? A look at today's contributions shows that most are to the sandbox and that others are entirely stupid additions to the article on a Swedish politician. This may not be grounds for a ban, and it may be inappropriate for a user of this IP number to ask for one. But if I were in the same position as this person claims to be, I might well ask for the same thing. Yes it's odd that somebody who either doesn't have or doesn't bother to use a username would know how to make this request here, but "assume good faith" or anyway let's start by being polite. -- Hoary 08:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it trolling. On the other hand, its being a shared school IP is precisely why it should not be banned. The collateral damage is simply too high. This user may feel they're the only one who cares about Wikipedia, but unless we trace this IP back to the prestigious Troll Academy or the Vandal Vocational School, I think we have to take our policy of assuming good faith to mean that we don't want to ban the good editors along with the bad here. JDoorjam Talk 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, he (possibly being a newcomer) possibly thinks that they're actually doing some damage to the site, which they aren't (it'll be revreted within minutes in most cases). --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 16:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:VaughanWatch

Apparently VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is currently blocked. Since there is nothing in the block log for that account, it sounds like a sock was blocked and that has locked his IP address. My heart bleeds. Just zis Guy you know? 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps blocked this sock a few minutes ago.--Adam ^(talk) 11:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to check AboveToronto (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and CopperTopOnTheEdge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) as well, they seem to be VaughanWatch socks per their edit contents. - pm_shef 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid block needed

Permabanned user:Bonaparte registered as User:Deutsche and resumed trolling and stalking myself. Please check User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry and block his latest sock as speedily as possible. He causes a lot of disruption and blanks the pages I work upon as "copyvios".--Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hrs by Sjakkalle. Syrthiss 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would a sock of a permabanned user only get a 24 hour block? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

They're indef now. As discussed on WP:AN, the blocking admin only blocked for the trolling, and asked whether indef was appropriate.

[edit] Please block IP 128.171.138.XXX

After the James Levine page was semi-protected to stop this anonymous vandal from adding his libellous molestation allegations, they were posted to Boston Symphony Orchestra, Munich Philharmonic Orchestra and Lorin Maazel. list of edits. The Lorin Maazel page doesn't have any link to or connection with Levine. Short of semi-protecting every page in Wikipedia, I'm not sure what we can do to stop this vandal apart from blocking the IP. Grover cleveland 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The vandal is now doing the same thing from IP 168.105.175.63. Please could that be blocked as well? Thanks Grover cleveland 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Both IP ranges seem to be from the University of Hawaii, probably the medical school. Grover cleveland 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bookofsecrets blocked

I blocked Bookofsecrets as it appeared to be a pretty transparent sock of Jeff Merkey, who is indefinately blocked. In light of the following message on my talk page, I am posting here so more experienced admins can review this. I will defer to whatever consensus emerges on this. Jonathunder 17:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider your block. Even though he recently scribbled a message from Merkey onto my user page, I really don't think Bookofsecrets is a sockpuppet of Merkey. I've interacted with both far more often than I like to think about. Bookofsecrets has his own trail of sockpuppets seperate from Merkey's which have in the past operated at cross purposes to Merkey. Bookofsecrets acknowledged his past use of sockpuppets, apologized for it and has since been reasonably well-behaved. He appears to me to be very gullible and his actions in behalf of Merkey, while misguided, are being done in good faith. — MediaMangler 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the user claims to be the brother of Jeff Merkey. --InShaneee 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Context suggests that this may mean "fellow-tribesman". Septentrionalis 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this block is justified. I, and a number of other editors, have had a long history of interaction with Bookofsecrets, and never have I suspected him to be a sockpuppet of Waya Sahoni or Gadugi. Bookofsecrets is certainly following in the lead of Waya Sahoni. Yet, however misguided he may be, two editors having the same opinion, with accounts that were obviously not created as single purpose accounts, is not a grounds for blocking as sockpuppetry. I fail to see any strong correlation between the two. They have different writing styles, different temperaments, completely different IP ranges when they don't log in, etc.; I could go on. This blocking is solely based on Bookofsecrets' support for a banned user on Wikipedia, while we have no real evidence for sockpuppetry other than likely false conjecture. Realize that I am not saying that Bookofsecrets is right – I am saying that he should not be blocked as a sockpuppet of Waya Sahoni or Gadugi. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

See my original arguments on Jonathunder's talk page. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like goodfaith pagemoves, though I'm not really sure that "Fooian foo (Queen)" is well thought out. Syrthiss 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked, since it doesn't seem to have been vandalism. I agree though that "Queen (Queen)" is a pretty confusing disambiguation that is more of an "ambiguation", so I did revert the Queen-related pagemoves. -- Curps 21:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:66.192.179.233

Please block this IP, has engaged in 4 acts of vandalism today[88] and was previously warned and blocked. --Mmx1 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This would be much more appropriate at WP:AIV. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David McSweeney

In accordance with a complaint to the Foundation (OTRS Ticket #2006042110016363, please add this this page to your various watchlists. It is a recipient of increasing vandalism. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrassment and abuse

I posted something similar last week under the title Do admins deserve harrassment?. Because of my blocks today, a few disgruntled vandals have taken to emailing me abuse.

1. Subject: YOU REPLY TO ME HOMOPHOBE; Text: I AM A GAY RIGHTS ACTAVIST AND YOU BLOCKED ME... PREPARE FOR SUE
2. Subject: your mom; Text: i think that you are afraid of gay people
3. Subject: hello; Text: i think you suck because you blocked me
4. Subject: you suck; Text: why are you so gay i think i hate you
5. Subject: I hate you gay homo hater; Text: WHY DO YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE?? YOU NEED TO BE SUED
6. Subject: I HATE YOU LONG TIME; Text: YOU DONT MAKE ME HAPPY WHY DID YOU BAN ME YOU HOMOPHOBE
7. Subject: you suck; Text: you are gay and why did you block me is it because your gay?
8. Subject: hi, i hate you cause your a homophobe; Text: hi, i hate you cause your a homophobe

Us good-faith editors and admins don't deserve this harrassment. My post last week proved it. But still it continues. We don't want more people like Knowledge of Self leaving because they've lost faith in the project. I've already stepped up my punishment for attacking me and homophobia (instant final warning), and it could be time to issue harder blocks for WP:NPA. Will (^E_@) T 21:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly advise you not to block people who harrass you. Let someone else do it. If the vbandals are using the wikipedia email feature to mail you then just turn it off by removing your email address. If not then set up a filter to delete thier emails before they go to your inbox. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While it is great to always keep up appearances of absolute impartiality, let's not get so caught up in it that vandals and trolls can immunise themselves against blocking by insulting every admin that they encounter. Jkelly 21:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your blocks today have mostly been anon IPs. (How is one supposed to know in advance that an anon will attack you personally?) I looked at a couple, Whois says that 216.170.63.150 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a non-portable IP, so a longer block should have little collateral effect (unless I misunderstand the whois output). 206.167.188.122 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a school district in Quebec; they might take action if someone has been vandalizing and e-mailing slurs from one of their machines. A named user should get a nice long block, although I could see why you would want someone else to confirm it. Thatcher131 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How would someone go about getting the IPs that sent it in gmail (they aren't sent from WP) Will (^E_@) T 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You cant easily. Just killfile them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know if you can, unfortunately you posted a real life e-mail address on your user page. I would never do that. I assume that wiki mail would allow some traceability. If you look in the internet headers of the e-mail message (usually hidden by most program but they should be accessible) there may be some identifying info there. I don't really know how gmail works. The childish tone of the messages and their similarity suggests to me they all came from the same person and I'm going to go on instinct here that it was from a school either the one I identified or another one. Possibly someone trying to get under your skin after seeing your personal e-mail and age posted on your user page. For starters I would remove your e-mail address and age from your user page and delete the history (if you can) so it can't be recovered. And only take wikipedia mail, which hopefully is more traceable. Unless the e-mailer slipped up and allowed some identifiable info into his g-mail messages this particular case may be out of reach, though. Good luck! Thatcher131 21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ignore them. They are trolls, and the sum total of their worth to society falls somewhat below that of a festering heap of dogturd on the pavement. Develop a thicker skin. Just zis Guy you know? 21:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On a related note you should take a look at mediazilla bug 5672 in which I have proposed a blacklist type system for the email feature to stop these accounts from using the email me feature to harass you even when blocked. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that would be possible, considering that most of that is taken care of using external programs. --InShaneee 01:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The first time I got a really abusive e-mail from a vandal, it had been sent from a school web address. I found the School's website and forwarded the item to the head teacher. I got a nice apology from him, and an assurance that the vandal had been more than blocked. He deserved all he got, both for his words and his stupidity in using an identifiable address. If abuse comes from school or corporate addresses (I realise it seldom does), this might be an effective response.--Doc ^ask? 09:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 64.131.231.66 (talk • contribs)

Anon IP is making edits to several articles about Agatha Christie novels wherein the user does not correct the articles, per se, but rather writes in bold letters exactly what is wrong with them. Despite reverts from several users and polite advice and warnings on both the articles' and the user's talk pages, the user continues to re-insert their commentary in the articles themselves. I don't want to scare away a potentially knowledgable newcomer, but at the same time, it would be nice for someone more experienced with both policy and handling this sort of thing to maybe keep the situation settled? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

EarthLink, Inc. ERLK-CBL-TW-NYC, might come in handy--64.12.116.65 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morton devonshire, the sockfarmer?

It seems as though, after the incident at the AFD the other week, Morton devonshire has now gone back and blanked the talk pages of virtually every single person he spammed, and what's odd about it, is that it now looks like about 2/3s of the people contacted don't really exist, having only a tiny handful of edits before the AFD stacking, and virtually none after, upon closer inspection, it seems as though most copy and pasted fully formed user pages within moments of registering. A few of the more obvious cases might even be justification for a request for checkuser--64.12.116.65 02:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Would you care to log in and confirm your request? True, Morton is on one side of the politcal spectrum in a number of contentiously edited articles, but it would help to know who speaks against him. Thatcher131 03:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not really concerned with what end of the politcal spectrum he's on, I'm more concerned with the sockfarming, pageblaking, etc.. especially the etc--64.12.116.65 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...no. He's not blanking, he's removing his solicitations, which is generally polite. --Mmx1 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He's removing his solicitations from many people who were created the same week as the AFD and have only a hanful of contributions total, that's not polite, that's something quite different--64.12.116.65 04:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• speaking of which, his last 15 or so edits were basically userpage vandalism, including vandalism of random AOL users, as well as vandalising random ip user pages, then unvandalising them, not to mention the repeated blanking of other people's talk pages--205.188.116.65 01:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat against editor

209.214.14.138 (talk • contribs) has made a legal threat against me on his/her talk page because I have reverted linkspam he/she has posted repeatedly to several articles. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted said legal threats and I suggest a block and possible page protection, especially if the person replaces the threats. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A block will be very difficult to set. This editor has used three different IP addresses today, 209.214.14.184 (talk • contribs), 209.214.14.15 (talk • contribs) and 209.214.14.138 (talk • contribs), all registered to BellSouth. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone else in the range 209.214.14.*, but I haven't checked all of them. Maybe a range block for that set? JoshuaZ 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that's a dial-up bank for BellSouth. I have no idea what the collateral damage would be. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And he's now switched to 209.215.55.111 (talk • contribs). A range block would have to include 209.214 and 209.215. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I suspect that that is too large a range for a long block, maybe block them for 15 minutes? JoshuaZ 03:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection of the articles in question might be a better solution at this point. -Loren 03:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, although is our main concern the spam or the legal threats? Semi-protection only deals with one of those problems. JoshuaZ 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is too big a range, it is 209.214.0.0/15, and mediawiki only allows up to /16, not even mentioning that would be 131,072 addresses.... Prodego ^talk 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I take issue with both the spamming and the legal threats. But blocking isn't really a feasible option due to the offending anon being behind a dynamic IP, hence the only way of stopping the continued addition of linkspam is to prevent anon users from editing the pages in question. I'm not terribly familiar with the allegations the anon is making having not been involved with the articles in question, but someone may want to tell the anon to state his/her rationale for including the external link in question on the article talk page to gauge the general consensus, which IMHO, will be the only long term solution to this problem. -Loren 04:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

. Can someone hurry and semi the pages and then maybe the anon will be willing to talk? JoshuaZ 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll semiprotect the page, but I'll leave it to people farmiliar with the article to engage the anon in dialouge and request unprotection when the time comes. -Loren 04:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: It appears the sites in question were first linked to by 216.114.82.71 (talk • contribs), registered to Palm Beach Community College. Possibly the same person judging by the anon's comments. -Loren 04:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I used to take classes there back in 2000,2001. Completely unsecured computer labs, and an uninterested administration staff. His legal threats appear to be baseless, but if you'd like I can call my friend who's a PBCC student, and ask him for the phone number for PBCC's appropriate staff department. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the links inserted by the editor are to gilbert-wesley-purdy.blogspot.com ("Virtual Grub Street"), which apears to be the work of Gibert Wesley Purdy. Purdy is a poet, translator and critic. He has a post office box in Lake Worth, and may well have a connection to PBCC. While I regard the legal threat as baseless, I am concerned that he is only ten mile or so from me, and I have been very open about my identity. However, I now am fairly sure I know who he is. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Try contacting BellSouth, perhaps? NSLE _(T+C) at 11:16 UTC (2006-04-22)

It's a possibility, as far as the legal threat goes. I need to think how I would approach it. Any contact with BellSouth about the spamming is more problematic, and certainly shouldn't come from me. I'll defer to the judgment of others on that issue. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

PBCC has a large campus in Lake Worth. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I used to live off of Lake Worth Road 2 or 3 miles west of the campus. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than continue my personal issues on this page, I have opened a discussion at User talk:Dalbury#Response to legal threat. I woild appreciative advice from seasoned editors. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Purdy has now set up a new blog vgs-wiki-watchdog.blogspot.com ("Wiki Watchdog") solely to decry his mistreatment, but promising more to come.--Beth Wellington 03:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

5 February 2007 -- Purdy links now blacklisted. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lou franklin

I have blocked Lou Franklin for one month on his eigth 3rr violation[89]. The pending arbcom ruling suggests that blocks of up to a week should be used for the first few 3rr vios or editing of pages on which he is banned from (which, if the ruling is affirmed, will include the page on which he recently violated 3RR.) seeing as how no ruling has yet been handed down and Lou Franklin is continuing his revert warring, it seems best, in my opinion, to leave him blocked until the arbcom decision is handed down or the month is up. But it is a lengthy block, so if another admin cares to review the situation, please do so. --Heah? 04:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is actually Lou's ninth block. No complaint here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He's left an unblock request on his talk page with the usual bitching about the gay cabal. I'd remove it but I think a more uninvolved admin should do the honours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ral315 dealt with the unblock request. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WOW!

Do you think (s)he could be a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels. I have blocked him/her for a 30 mins to see. What do you think? Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indef block per the username policy seems appropriate. Then again, if you're willing to take the time, I'd say that a better option would be to unblock and see what happens, since he has no edits. If he goes on a WoW rampage, than block again and revert the mess, otherwise, we have a new fine contributor. Blackcap (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats going to be a very unpleasant entry in the Wiki if its a legit user. Or should I say an exit? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not a proper noun, therefore it is spelled "wiki", with a lowercase w, unless it's at the beginning of a sentence.

Sigh. Use some common sense. WOW can mean lots of things. It could be the word wow in capital letters. It could mean world of warcraft. It could mean willy on wheels. Leave it alone until it vandalizes. ...assume good faith.... Additionally, do you really think a 30 minute block will do anything to willy on wheels? Their accounts have to wait a week or so before they can move anything, and anyone making an obvious or semi-obvious willy on wheels account has absolutely no intention of ever using it, they're basically being made to troll. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is currently blocked indefinitely. Someone should at least add one of those "inappropriate username" explanations on the user talk page, if not unblocking. –Tifego^(t) _{17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

OK, I've added {{username}} onto his/her page. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, do we really need to be so worried? That could have referred to nearly anything, Willy on Wheels or not. If he starts making page moves, Curps' bot will catch him. Ral315 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More quixotic legal threats

User:Tommysun was warned and blocked before for legal threats. Now he has made some more: [90]. Please let him know that such argumentation is not tolerated on Wikipedia as he doesn't seem to be taken us seriously. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Jkelly

Jkelly, I assume an administrator, has done more than just voice his opinion about École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. He has already gotten one picture deleted. He first removed the picture from the article. Then nastilly taged it as an orphaned image. (That means an image that is no longer being used under fair use.) He has decided that the images part of an WP:NOR skeem. However they are being used for primary information such as the latitude and longitude. Also the fair use rational can be found on the image:Garneau.PNG and user Jkelly has not argued any points to the contrary. The rational in short is that this image is orphaned into the main article. (see bellow).

Fair use rational for École Secondaire Catholique Garneau

This image, GoogleMap of Garneau.JPG, is being linked to the article École Secondaire Catholic Garneau; though the picture is subject to copyright and WP:Fair use#Counterexamples indicates that it is generally not permissible to have a detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, or in this instance Google Map I (CyclePat) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. WP:Fair use#Counterexamples states that "the only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use." As actually discussed with the main article of École Secondaire Catholique Garneau#Mapping and charting#Google Maps there are in fact contreversial map disputes about the territory.
   1. For example: Garneau is located at 6588 carrier street, Orléans, Ontario. However, when trying to locate Garneau via Google Maps or Google Earth there are some discrepancies. This Google map which allegedly localizes Garneau High school actually pinpoints just in front of the MIFO. The Google map for MIFO, 6600 rue Carrière, is pinpointed at approximatelly the same location.
2. The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the the error actually exist within the google maps online software as well as google earth software.
4. It may be considere a historical depiction significant to the general public.

Again, in short we must determine if this is original research first. Not simply jump to conclusion and start erasing everything (such as here). Taking into consideration that anyone can clearly see that factual information (Primary information) for the address of the school exists. That the primary information for the Mifo exists. That Primary information that is input into google maps is used to give the primary information (the map). This is all Primary information and the only thing that is being summarized is the obvious fact that both adresses pinpoint virtually the same location. ANYONE can see that! Hence I propose, as suggested in WP:NOR that this is not original research.

This said User:Jkelly had no right in removing this information. Not only that but he should have advised the uploader of his motion to delete the file. I request futher analisys be conducted to ensure there where no mal intentions and that appropriate disciplinary actions be commenced. Please help! --CyclePat 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one of the Wikipedia image experts, but I'd say this is exactly the kind of image we can't claim fair use for, because it probably has a monetary value that our use of it would affect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry that an image you uploaded and were attached to got deleted due to copyright concerns, but that is sometimes going to happen when images you upload aren't under an unfree license. If you'd like to contribute media to Wikipedia, we will very enthusiastically accept things created by users themselves. You can upload media that you create, or media that is under a free, reusable license, to Wikimedia Commons, where all of our projects can use the content. I'm also sorry that you were put off by my edit to an article you contributed to. I think that my edit was a good one, but if the regular contributors to that article disagree with it, I'll be happy to discuss it further at Talk:École_Secondaire_Catholique_Garneau and explain why I think a section about the fallibility of online mapping software doesn't belong in an article about a secondary school. As for marking media that we only have on our servers under a "Wikipedia:Fair use" defense as orphaned once it is no longer being used in any article, this is part of our regular unfree media cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use for more information about our handling unfree media here at Wikipedia. Jkelly 19:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"...explain why I think a section about the fallibility of online mapping software doesn't belong in an article about a secondary school." Ha, beat you to it: [91] Seriously, I agree that Jkelly did the right thing here. (Except for the accidental double-negative in the comment above: "when images you upload aren't under an unfree license.") FreplySpang (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you reply but I believe You fail to adress the issue. Or I should say you fail to go into details. I have done so at key point #1, afformentioned, and I indicated that WP:FU allows for the use of these images because it is a disputed territory. Replacing the images with something else is no longer an option. I have left futher comments at talk:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. Thank you again. --CyclePat 20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE... SOMEONE HELP! This is turning into vandalism. He's Jkelly is removing important information. This time it's worse then before. I think he is trying to be WP:DICK. He is removing all the pictures. [This what I think it should look like and this is what it looks like now École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. --CyclePat 20:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat, there is no hurry. A civilised discussion should clear up the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat, I am not sure if the image belongs or not. You may be able to make a fair use claim. But during the discussion the possible copyright violations should be removed from the article. The potential harm is real and caution needs to be the priority. regards, FloNight ^talk 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that "Google maps pointing to slightly the wrong spot" doesn't qualify as 'disputed territory', much less is it worth noting in the article (as it is now). --InShaneee 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, Google map screenshots cannot be claimed as "fair use". If the Google map had lead to significant national news coverage, and the mistake was no longer available on Google Maps, then fair use could be claimed. --Carnildo 22:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ardenn

Ardenn (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked for incivility and disruption for one hour by User:Mdd4696 at 2:44 4/21/06 (admin description of block here). Since that time, user has conducted over seven separate personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, within 48 hours' time in less than a day and a half: 1 (calling admin a "known troll"), 2 (used STFU, abbreviation for "shut the f—k up"), 3 (taunt/insult), 4 (threat), 5, 6, and 7 (contains personal attacks in item nos. 4, "payback"; 8, "your ignorance is apparent"; and 9, "stuck her nose where it didn't belong"). — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 19:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I — quite respectfully — ask that someone respond to this query, unresponded to for four hours. Admins are obviously on the noticeboard as per other items, responded after mine, have since been resolved by them. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Resolved. Obliged. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:200.138.194.254

Somebody please do something about 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log); I've just about lost my patience with them. He/she has been repeatedly making edits in violation of the Manual of Style (sometimes undoing attempts to bring the articles back in line with the MoS), wasting both my time and everybody else's as well as making Wikipedia as a whole look unprofessional. I reported the situation at WP:AN; as can be read at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive36#Repeated MOS violations, no decisive action was taken, and the user continues to edit despite countless explanations from myself as to why his edits are not in compliance with Wikipedia's style policies and guidelines. Template {{Mos3}} (which I left on the user's talk page some time ago, to no effect) says "Continuous changing of content in articles to break agreed-upon MoS rules, when you have been asked to stop, is often seen as vandalism. Constant vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia". The user in question is making the same edits over and over to often the same articles (recent examples include [92], [93], [94] and [95]), and each time I've cleaned them up and asked that he/she stop, but they just carry on. It's obviously time-consuming and counterproductive for my sake and everybody else's further down the line to keep having to tidy up after these edits, and the user doesn't seem to be listening to what I am saying, so I think there needs to be some degree of administrator intervention here. Please help. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Followup to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinitely blocked user evading block: Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is again evading his indefinite block under the IP address 216.194.0.35 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (evidence: [96]). Can an administrator enforce this ban please? Demiurge 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, that was fast! Demiurge 22:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk:Jesus and talk:Jesus-Mythblocked due to blacklisted spam site

The following two pages are blocked from editing due to a blacklisted spam site - can the offending link be removed from them please Talk:Jesus-Myth#No Criticism Allowed and Talk:Jesus#No Criticism Allowed. Thanks Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have converted the external link to plain text. The page can be edited again. (FYI, you could have removed the link yourself; no admin powers are needed for that.) Eugene van der Pijll 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I did try before posting here but got a "blocked due to banned spam site" error. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way; the page was blocked because it contained a link to wikipediareview.com, which was blocked by Essjay for linking to the doubleblue site (see meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Wikipedia Review. The links were to the thread on WR about doubleblue, so it may be better that they are removed entirely. I'll leave that to people who know more about this situation, though. -- Eugene van der Pijll 00:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Others should be aware that one or more editors have been posting links to a site that reveals personal information about Wikipedia users. It had been, at last check, cut down quite a bit, but at one time posted the name, address, telephone number, children's names, and photograph of at least one Wikipeidan, with other information on several others, and may well do so again; that particular user has been forced to leave Wikipedia as a result (the information was used to contact his employer, much like the Gator1 situation). I blacklisted the link to prevent further disclosure, but the users in question have used Wikipeida Review to circumvent the blacklisting, requiring that Wikipedia Review be blacklisted as well. I've posted to WR on the subject, and let them know I will remove WR from the blacklist if they remove all links to the other site. Sorry for the collateral damage.Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good that these links are banned but if you have admin powers you don't realise what us mortals have to live with! I've blanked the links on these talk pages but it's in the edit history if anyone wants to undo my "help". If they appear anywhere else I assume I'll have to post here again to get them removed. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to post directly to my talk page, and I'll take care of it (and if I don't, someone else will; my talk page seems to be a community picnic anymore :-D). Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll make sure I bring sandwiches and tea! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed WR from the blacklist, but if the same group is found using it to bypass the blacklist, I'll list it again. If anybody catches them doing it while I'm offline, delete the links (and the revisions containing them) and request emergency listing on Meta. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rogerman

I was contacted by Rogerman the other day, in regard to a checkuser that had been filed. Apparently, users Rogerman (talk • contribs), TheDookieMan (talk • contribs), and CaliforniaDreamlings (talk • contribs) had all been editing a series of articles, gaming 3RR, etc. There was concern that they might be sockpuppets, however, Syrthiss (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) confirmed by email that they were meatpuppets, rather than sockpuppets. Rogerman contacted me in a blind panic, terrified that his IP and other personal information would be revealed, and begging to just be blocked, rather than outed (apparently, he's a student, and was concerned of reprocussions from school administration). After calming him down, and assuring him that we don't release personal information about non-vandals, I was able to work out the entire situation: He had begun editing the articles, and when reverted, recruited his roommates to help him. (Points to him for not simply sockpuppeting; meatpuppeting is bad in practice, but at least brings in other editors.)

After working out all the details, and giving him a lecture on the importance of talk pages rather than reverting, and the evils of meatpuppetry, I promised him that I would raise the issue here. Unfortunately, I've been in and out the last few days, and haven't had a chance to post on it yet. As such, here is what I am going to do:

• I am lifting the indefblock on Rogerman, so that he may participate in this discussion, with the warning that any further disruptive behavior is subject to blocking, and that sock and/or meatpuppeting won't be tolerated. I'm informing Syrthiss, the blocking admin, via his talk page of both my unblock and this post.
• I'm leaving the blocks on the other two accounts, pending discussion here of what can be done with them. From my discussions with Rogerman, I believe he understands the importance of abiding by policy and has conveyed the same to the other two users; I would tend to support unblocking if the users promise to behave, but will leave that to others to decide.
• I'm volunteering (and making it a condition of my unblock) to have an informal mentorship with Rogerman; where he has questions, or where others are concerned about what's going on, I'll have a look and seek a resolution.
• I'm reccommending mediation on the issue that started the edit war, and will leave it to the parties to define the scope and scale of said mediation.

If I'm overstepping here, or if others know of extenuating circumstances, please make it known here. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple notes, since I was the ne who brought the sock/meatpuppetry to attention:

1) Are we absolutely sure that it was roommates and not him? I only ask because, as far as I'm aware as the person who requested the Checkuser, this was never actually verified. As noted at WP:RCU, the signatures were as identical as the articles being edited, and with vastly similar knowledge and agendas, which is what raised the question.

The issue which started the "war" at Joseph Sobran has been resolved, as any consensus within the article was warped due to the meatpuppetry. Any mediation that outside parties may desire will not be opposed by myself, but probably won't be necessary.

Either way, I'm glad to see some resultion come to this regardless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the unblock, and can confirm the feeling of panic that he conveyed. I have only Rogerman's word that the other two were meats and not socks, so badlydrawnjeff's concerns may be valid. I trust Essjay's judgement in this. --Syrthiss 02:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, if you will be mentoring Rogerman, please keep a very keen eye on his future activity. I'd like to ask that you research the recurring conflicts that this user introduced and sustained in the past, in other articles and talk pages. His tactics were not confined to the isolated circumstances of the Joseph Sobran article. Please carefully inspect his past activity with consideration for what the patterns may suggest to you about the basic intent of his involvement with Wikipedia. I did not suspect the puppet issue until it was announced that he had been blocked, and yet I had already observed potentially deeper levels of bad-faith behavior in this young man's conduct elsewhere in the Wikipedia project. If you are unblocking him, I urge you to be strictly intolerant of even subtle dishonesty, and of any moves to infuse articles with POV. Projection70 03:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've worked with Rogerman almost since he arrived. I do not endorse everything that Projection70 says, but he is correct that there are other issues with this editor besides puppetry, such as POV pushing and incivility. I think that a mentoring relationship can help. I'm sure many users will be watching this editor's future contributions. It sounds like there is possiblity for growth and improvement. -Will Beback 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrast the way Rogerman represented himself to Essjay against how he originally represented himself on his user page. He portrayed himself for Essjay's benefit as a humble student who is afraid to be outed due to possible reprocussions from school administration, and who recruited his roommates to help him as meat puppets. He stated on his user page, however, that he is a married, small business owner from Orlando, Florida, who spends a significant period of his time day-trading. Although he suggested to Essjay that he was terrified of being outed, he openly declared on his user page that his wife is pregnant with their first child, "Roger William Cohen-Petersen," thus telling the world a great deal about his purported identity. The user page also says that he graduated from college. Is he someone who has graduated from college but lives at school with two roommates and a pregnant wife, while day-trading and owning a small business? Might be possible, but remotely so. Essjay, I applaud your compassion in unblocking him, but with the apparent incongruities I also thank you for keeping an eye on his progress. Projection70 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic user (moved over from WP:AIV)

Chinamanjoe wrote: Yofoxyman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) - has made personal attacks on Johnleemk (swearing, insults), and on disscussion pages (neil young, stevie wonder, many others) been warned several times, by various users. very persistent. possible 24 hour ban? Chinamanjoe 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC) From what I can tell, the statement is accurate. JoshuaZ 00:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this user created the account to vandalise, and attack others. If you take a look at his contribution log, you notice that he hasn't yet made one useful edit. He has just been vandalizing and but claiming to be "reverting edits".

I have been trying to put the truth out on a number of pages however Chinamanjoe continues todelete it. He should be banned for his refusal to allow people to properly discuss the information which he is trying to pass off as fact. Yofoxyman 01:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you two are in an edit war- and Chinamanjoe has already violated WP:3RR on Talk:Annie Besant. The edits are not vandalism, but are disputed. The proper way to handle this is to civily discuss this on the talk page and come to a consensus.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've warned both to remain civil. --InShaneee 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Siddhartha21 & Michael Jackson Edit War

• Siddhartha21 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) on at least a once-per-day basis (presumably to avoid 3RR), changes the opening section of Michael Jackson to remove the descriptive monikers "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko." This is despite a general concensus and vote that determined that the descriptors should remain. Siddhartha21 feels that despite this editoral concensus, the terms should be removed. Please help! --Mhking 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on removing spam from AfD

An anonymous IP address has added multiple votes to an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy body count. I've erased some of them (retaining the ones where he's actually made a defense of the article above "It's good"), but now I'm having second thoughts — unless there's blatant vandalism/trolling/NPA's, should this type of content be deleted from an AfD? I'd appreciate an admin dropping by to take a look. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If each additional vote is from the same user/IP, I'd say feel free to remove them, as long as you leave a comment saying you've done so. If they're from a user you have good reason to suspect is a sockpuppet (i.e. first edit, saying "Keep!! Artikle is leet w00t !!!11!"), leave a note such as <small>User's [[Special:USERNAME/Contributions|Xth edit]]. ~~~~ after the vote, and the closing admin'll take the possible sockpuppetry into account. Blackcap (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, transparency is key. In the rare event that a comment is actually deleted a note should be left for the closing admin. Alternatively, leave it in place and annotate it, or move duplicates to the talk page and again leave a note to that affect. In this particular case, if the closing admin is on the ball they'll be disregarding that anon's contributions anyway. AFD is a process of determining community consensus, after all! --kingboyk 07:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)