Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive138

The timing of Reterole's account creation and unblock request is slightly suspicious, but seeing as 192.138.214.102 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) is a SharedIPEDU belonging to Suffolk University, I've had to lift it on good faith. So be aware of any further vandalism and sockpuppetry from Yatuern and co. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(sigh)This is all rather thrilling... Yanksox 04:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OF COURSE IT'S THRILLING! I think these admins are awesome, they're better than the Jimi Hendrix Experience. If I had to make each one a band it would be, Yanksox is Led Zep, Tyrenius is the Beatles, Alphachimp is ELO, Crzrussian is the Rolling Stones, and Samir is David Bowie. THESE ADMINS ARE TH3 COOLEST! I LOVE THEM! <3 ~~Kimberly

I believe User:Abu badali is unfairly harrassing me! He continually is retagging my images and listing them for deletion. After a big discussion, the fair use images probably should (or will be, anyway) be deleted. But now, I think he is unfairly targeting the images that I upload just because I argued with him. And the new images I uploaded were created by me anyway, so he has no right to retag them as not being created by me. Please, I need some help in dealing with him. Thank You. - Ivan Kricancic 12:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point to an image or two which were marked by this user but for which you provided all the necessary information? Or are you saying that he is marking images which are missing this information? If the latter, the way to stop this from happening would be to provide all the necessary information and this would not really be grounds for a complaint. --Yamla 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuation from an early incident in which Ivan asked for administrative assistance. Some people do not agree with Abu's tagging, while it seems it does follow policy. I would have hoped after the issue comnig to AN/I that Abu would have ceased interacting with Ivan as it was clear Ivan felt it was malicious, however during the AN/I discussion it seems Abu went ahead and kept filing for Ivan's image uploads to be deleted. It seems to be at the very least a bad judgement call and did no good in helping to difuse the situation or ease a fellow editors worries. If Abu is randomly going through the list of images that needs tagging and finding Ivan's I guess that is fine, however if he went through Ivan's contribs to find image uploads then that may be a different issue. --NuclearUmpf 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu Badali is asking legitimate questions about the gfd-self tags on images such as

WP:PUI); please do not delete AB's posts there as "harassment" [2]. ×Meegs

19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali is unfairly targeting me. Polite or not, it is still harrassment; if I politely asked a girl if I could touch her ass, it would still be harrassment. I want nothing more to do with Abu badali, as he just serves to irritate, frustrate and drive peopel away from contributing to Wikipedia. If i see his posts as harrassment, I will delete them. - Ivan Kricancic 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We got thousands of image upload each day. Many of these are copyright infringements. There is a small number of people who understand the copyright laws, wikipedia copyright policy, the tools we have to facilitate the dealings with the images. Some of them devoted most of their effort to the unthankful job of sorting the images. Sometimes they are named the image police. Sometimes they are rude, but we can not live without them. Please do not make their life more difficult by harassing them, just provide the necessary info and try to be nice and maybe they will be nice in return. Unfortunately the demand for Abu Badali to leave you along is similar to the demand to traffic policeman to leave you alone. It would never happen. abakharev 09:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User has been warned repeatedly about submitting copyrighted information, and continues to do after my personalized warning. -- Merope ^Talk 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

More information: This user is persistently creating articles that are copyvios. He has four {{

for requests like this please use

t-e

21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of worries me and I think a policy needs to be made regarding gathering of information. As a previous debate raged here earlier I think you have to tag the page as the start of an RfC or something to the liking. I think users shouldnt keep "attack" pages but I think we need to draw a clear line eventually as to what constitutes one. Considering the information is sourced with dif's I dont think its really an attack page. --NuclearUmpf 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Also not kind of worried about the offsite communication as numerous voters are not MfD regulars yet have found themselves to that page to vote, all being admins listed on the page. Perhaps we just need a page where people can post stuff like this for review by the community or something. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue... on the one hand suppression of dissent and on the other possible aggravation caused by being included on such a list. As such, I'd suggest we encourage people to keep such lists privately 'off wiki' for future reference and express dissent in written form rather than as a list of disputed actions. Some sort of consistent response to these would be a good idea though since it comes up fairly often. --CBD 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The "aggravation" stems from the admins actions. Nobody is included there id he did not violate policies. If someone has killed someone, well you can decide to mark him on the forehead as former killer or not. You can also go and say, we keep it only in an archive, and don't mark the forehead. What I see here is a perpatuation of a two class WP society. The admins can leave there markers on other peoples forehead, whether valid or not. But regular editors can't even collect evidence about the admins. I lately was denied AWB access by

(Talk)

20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mega Corruptive" would be a great name for an industrial band. And as far as I can make out, AWB use is left to administrative discretion. --InShaneee 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gathering data is good. Disrupting is bad. If people complain why not move it offsite? At least temporarily? Willingness to play well with others says more than any analysis of the content. WAS 4.250 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how this data collection page is disrupting. Offsite? Hey, how shall this be done? I have the FF browser and the wikipedia server. That's it. Shall I move it to meta?

(Talk)

20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking Geocities would probably be a better idea. --InShaneee 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming "OMG ADMIN ABUSE" is disruption in and of itself, as is complaining "The MfD isn't going my way". --InShaneee 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is complaining about a MfD but about the proccess being undertaken to eliminate information from Wikipedia that normally would not be removed. People have half completed RfC's all over Wikipedia and I doubt any admins are specifically hunting them down. However since an admin who is on the list found this it got sent to MfD. I believe this came up earlier and was stated that pages like this needed to be tagged as RfC's in proccess or something similar. As for disruption I don't really see how its disrupting anythnig if someone would have never taken it to MfD in the first place and left it alone. Perhaps if he moves it and removes the wiki-linking of names that will help, then noone will stumble on it? --NuclearUmpf 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the MfD is proceeding, so this is not the place to complain about its validity. --InShaneee 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually the place to complain about admins abusing procedure, especially if its seen as being done to cover up their own issues of the past. Since this user is asking for admin assistance regarding an incident, I really do not see a better place. --NuclearUmpf 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

...Except that no administrative actions have occured here. Anyone could have nominated that page for deletion, and anyone still can vote. --InShaneee 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has copied the entire contents of the abuse page, word for word onto the MFD. I replaced it with a link (note it is already linked at the top) and he reverted. It is a complete duplication of the abuse page and a link would be better to include as there is no point posting the same information over and over again. I won't revert again since I'm obviously one of the abusive admins, but for the sake of clarity and readability and just plain common sense, can someone please remove the duplicate material and replace it with a link? pschemp | talk 19:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

the fact that I copied it to the MfD, is that the orig may be altered. I have an updated version on my user page now. So I really would like to know which of the facts are wrong on the original page. That's why I copied it. Annotations can also be made better if the stuff is copied. Please go and say what is not violation of policies. Golbez who brought this to MfD right now, has done so only after he abused again.

(Talk)

20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, it isn't admin abuse to want a readable page without the same exact information as the page proposed for deletion pasted in there again. I'm writing this now because I fully expect someone to come along and tell me that removing duplicate information and repleacing it with a link to the exact same information is harassment. Which it isn't. The whole point here isn't whether it is true or not. No one is going to go through and annotate anything. This issue is whether its appropriate to be sitting around in an encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG wikiadmin conspiracyz!!!11one

Please do not troll here, your comments are not helpful in difusing the current situation. --NuclearUmpf 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation is not helpful for Wikipedia, and my comment was no more harmful than much of the nonsense being passed around in this discussion.

Danny Lilithborne

00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you mean by this situation. A user/editor believes they are being targetted by admins who are attempting to hide information ... this situation is indeed not helpful at all. The more thought out response would be to explore the allegations not make trollish comments. Attempting to debase the conversation really serves no purpose to easing the editors feelings or solving their complaint. --NuclearUmpf 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting an entire page that is up for MfD ON the MfD is just NOT our practice. Tobias has inserted it three times already, and it has been removed by three different discussion participants. I've warned him to be careful of 3rr. In my view he's in violation in spirit already. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Are they all admins, are they all people voting delete? I mean if they are you would see why according to this discussion he all see's them as one. If people who are on this list are removing it then ... well it kinda goes toward his point, not that I agree. I just think he should keep the page without the wiki-linking so noone can claim they stumbled on it or its distracting anyone, and he should tag it as a future RfC. --NuclearUmpf 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it makes his point for him...but only for people willing to believe in the Secret Admin Cabal(tm). And opinions about the fate of the MfD belong on the MfD. --InShaneee 20:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to argue this point with you, but the information has already been immortalized in the MfD log now, so whatever was attempting to be accomplished is now really moot. The discussion here is about admins deleting pages that contain misdeeds. As for Secret Admin Cabals, if you do not believe any admin would work with another admin for a negative purpose then you probably do not believe in meat puppets either or two users working to circumvent 3RR. Same principle, not every admin has to be stewing over a bubbling cauldron plotting world domination for their to be an issue. --NuclearUmpf 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well now. As far as I can tell the mature response to the original request here was "fuck off, troll". Everything since has been nothing more than gratifying the troll's ego and providing more comfort for those who wish to see Wikipedia reduced to anarchy. Jaded? You betcha. Guy 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this responding to me? If not please refactor your comments. I am not sure who here has said "fuck off, troll" or anything else in your post. If you are in fact jaded then you may want to take a step back and lower your wiki stress levels for everyones benefit. --NuclearUmpf 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who Guy was addressing the comments to. That is obviously egregious incivility and personal attack and serves only to promote "anarchy". Guy, if you are that stressed take a break from whatever it is that is causing you grief. It's a big wiki and there is always something else to do. --CBD 11:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record:

• 2006-09-24 12:52 User:Golbez starts MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse
• MfD says: Items sent here are usually discussed for eight days
• 2006-09-25 23:35 User:Alkivar (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse" (*poof*... and in a flash it was gone) [3]

"Usually" != "Always" ... Tell you what, Tobias. As was suggested before, if you want to start an RfC, a mediation request, an RfAr, or any other of our normal dispute resolution mechanisms, where rules of fairness and civility apply, everyone that is involved can give their views, and if you're willing to abide by the results of that dispute resolution process... I'll undelete the page for you and put it in one of those places, Just decide which, and say when, and I will be happy to help. But if you want to maintain a biased screed with no chance for anyone else to reply or rebut, and maintain it indefinitely, well... maybe you will find it a bit harder to get someone to help you. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the page being poof'd and keeping it poof'd. The page served no legitimate purpose on the project. Take it to MySpace. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The page should not have been deleted out of proccess. That is my only complaint. Its funny that an admin would do that when the issue is brought up that they may be trying to hide information, then delete the page when its on MfD. --NuclearUmpf 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Danny Lilithborne

20:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A collection of a persons own quotes are not a personal attack. Unless they were in fact personally attacking themselves. --NuclearUmpf 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone's own quotes can be used by another with the intention of painting them in a bad light, as was the intention here.

Danny Lilithborne

20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You pointed me to NPA and it does not list this phenomenon, it actually implies this list was ok. It states that saying someone is acting like X is ok since you arent calling them an X. In this case that is not even being done. If I missed something no NPA please quote it here. I also want to point out that the page was not deleted per NPA and was not reported under WP:PAIN where it would have been then, still making it out of proccess, instead the MfD was simply closed.--NuclearUmpf 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having problems finding an autoblock that is blocking User:Agr723. The block was initially placed on User:Js2Jo. This user is trying to edit from 205.188.116.137. I know how to find autoblocks, I'm just not turning anything up in this case. I certainly placed the block on Js2Jo but there does not seem to be any outstanding autoblocks. Nor on the IP address. If someone could find out what's going on and unblock Agr723, I'm sure he'd much appreciate it. --Yamla 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... AOL proxies. That's your problem. I believe the following is to be used: Js2Jo(Autoblocks • block log). Ryūlóng 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have one word for you, Yamal, "n00b" HP 50g 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hp 50, I'm going to have to point out to you that Wikipedia is not a game, please be

Konstable

05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you were using the toolserver autoblock script then because of some downtime that wasn't being updated for quite a few hours, I've just restarted it. --pgk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's serious. I'm pretty sure it's just a guy in my neighborhood we call "Bobo" who's hassling me and my friends again. Could someone please tell him to stop being a jerk. Thanks.Joshua316 00:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems more of a username violation anyway. Recommend implementation of

WP:USERNAME actions prescribed for these situations (in short, blocking?}. --physicq210

01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, he/she/it is now indef blocked. --physicq210 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request granted HP 50g 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, an edit summery you made, "Go away, Bobo. You know my dad's a magistrate and would never let this suit get off the ground." is not appropiate. I kindly ask you two, to take your legal hassling somewhere else. HP 50g 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, report username cases like this to

82.32.80.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP address has been used to make a grand total of 16 edits, all in the last 2 months. Every edit appears to be related to "Jack Andrews" and appears to me to be vandalism. The user seems to have been adequately warned and appears to me to be someone who is just here to cause problems. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• With such a long time between edits, a block is unlikely to affect them. Please keep an eye on him so we can react immediately if they post again, or add the IP to User:MacGyverMagic/Watch (bottom of first list) and mention this discussion in your edit summary. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was perusing the user creation blog and noticed the following:

"03:01, 26 September 2006 Asdon (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Hicking"

Asdon's user page notes:

"This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia."

--A. B. 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

However, Asdon was never blocked. I don't know why the {{indefblocked}} template is there though. --physicq210 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Update:

• User:Prolfain wuhhd... added the notice.
• Check out User talk:Prolfain wuhhd... -- has had warnings
• Prolfain wuhhd... is now blocked

--A. B. 03:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is our friend in North Carolina. He just dropped a note on my talk page [4] asking me to help. I think he is genuinely "trying" to give up the vandalism habit, but doesn't quite get it, i.e. is not taking full responsibility for his actions, and is failing to recognize the harm he's done. Since I'm disinclined to be his babysitter at the moment I'm ignoring him for the time being, but do as you please. By the way there are probably at least a hundred "sleeper" socks of his around such as the one you found, and the one that moved his own MFD page just now. Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Some other personas I found; some have been addressed by admins, others have not:

• JacksonHaus (talk · contribs · block log)
• Ti Exi Yexyes (talk · contribs · block log)
• A Texas Guy (talk · contribs · block log)
• Robotic Power (talk · contribs · block log)
• 2005 glens (talk · contribs · block log)
• Snuffbandit (talk · contribs · block log)
• Mr. Remington (talk · contribs · block log)
• Hirschten (talk · contribs · block log)
• Shrembble (talk · contribs · block log)
• Wentvo Ede (talk · contribs · block log)
• Seeksee (talk · contribs · block log)
• 194.247.241.29 (talk · contribs · block log) (maybe, maybe not)
• Hacl the Boar (talk · contribs · block log)
• Country Jeb!! (talk · contribs · block log)
• Hoki Joinhouse (talk · contribs · block log)
• Birbirbir (talk · contribs · block log)
• UEL (talk · contribs · block log)
• Madvac (talk · contribs · block log)
• Geezers (talk · contribs · block log)
• Doggy-teddy (talk · contribs · block log)
• Dirkenstein (talk · contribs · block log)
• Brockingham (talk · contribs · block log)
• -----------------Reidsville--------------- (talk · contribs · block log)
• Jake Mayo-Dan (talk · contribs · block log)
• Oteraham (talk · contribs · block log)
• Ohadi (talk · contribs · block log)
• Kevin tapp (talk · contribs · block log)
• Jonesville (talk · contribs · block log)
• Kinokos (talk · contribs · block log)
• Shinigan Hill (talk · contribs · block log)
• February 2004 (talk · contribs · block log)
• Kundermyst (talk · contribs · block log)
• Swashbuckling beer (talk · contribs · block log)
• Dark fire (talk · contribs · block log)
• Horginhuvin (talk · contribs · block log)
• Wentworth Jed (talk · contribs · block log)
• Swanierra Mo (talk · contribs · block log)
• RCRCRCM (talk · contribs · block log)
• Larry the Cable Quinn (talk · contribs · block log)
• Zecholikni100 (talk · contribs · block log)
• Wozwu (talk · contribs · block log)
• Scrantotandus (talk · contribs · block log)
• 63.19.155.51 (talk · contribs · block log)
• Davie County (talk · contribs · block log)
• Alfred Burns (talk · contribs · block log)
• Cfuller43 (talk · contribs · block log) (maybe, maybe not)
• Quahog Guy (talk · contribs · block log)

I’ve run out of time to do anymore digging on this one.--A. B. 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Out "friend" is not trying to reform, but to continue to vandalize and then get some sort of recognition for it. He does this all the time, this is not reform. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have received a complaint from Josh Humphries that the deleted page "Josh humphries is clearly GAY" has apeared among the top Google results for his name. I don't think anything can be done about it now, but for the next time: when you protect a page with an offensive/attack title against re-creation by vandals, be careful to delete it after a few days before the search engines and/or Wikipedia forks catch it. - Mike Rosoft 08:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an interface to Google that allows removing individual pages from the cache. I don't have the link here, sry. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a broader issue, maybe we need a "temporarilly protected" template in addition to the longer-term {{deleted}}. The short term one could be deleted after 48 hours or so... just used to stop a vandal on a creation spree (which as I recall does happen quite a bit). Being vigilant is a good idea in the meantime though, but mistakes are always going to happen. --W.marsh 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I submitted the request, it my take a while to be actioned. Guy 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, it can be removed from the cache (which is really not the point because the cached version only contains the {{deletedpage}} notice) - but can it be removed from the Google results? - Mike Rosoft 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This user, from his edits, is almost certainly a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user:LaGrange.--Brownlee 14:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

the ip 209.18.49.15 is a high school computer network IP, the network has over 500 computer. there has been over 79+ and counting each day.... vandalism that i could count. Student (at least from the school) should NOT be able to edite. (or at least not without an account)

--209.18.49.15 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of the policy on school IP, but I put the repeatvandal template on the atlk page. ~

t-e

22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, already there. ~

t-e

22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request the block of

Incidents like this should be reported to

t-e

22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this diff. The next diff on the article shows that in the same minute, the same user reverted his/her own edit. This isn't the first time I've seen this - maybe it's only coincidence, but perhaps it's getting more common.

Are users such as the one above aiming only to get their comments into the article histories, thereby avoiding vandalism warnings and possible banning, while knowing that their edit will remain pretty much unactioned forevermore, ever viewable in the history? --Crimsone 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could be just a user experimenting with Wikipedia; this sort of thing happens all the time. If the user or IP doesn't have a history of vandalism; best is to put a {{

test-self

}} on their userpage. I just did for the diff you mention.

It should be noted that the inappropriate comment left in this case (calling Chris Moyles an obscenity) probably is not a legal issue (you can't sue someone for libel just because they call you naughty words); plus, old article versions aren't indexed/followed by search engines (at least those which pay attention to robots.txt).

--EngineerScotty 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I've seen it, I've assumed it's someone seeing if wiki really works, and, when they find out it does, deciding they don't want their comment their after all. It still needs "test" warning. It seems to occur with new users. Tyrenius 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Another plausible theory (I don't know if it applies in this case) is that the edits are being made by two different users behind one router, such as in the case of a school's computer lab. One person taps the other on the shoulder and says "heh, heh, look what I did", and the second person reverts it. Neil916 (Talk) 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, for what it's worth, I haven't been doing as much RC Patrol as I used to, but in what I have done in the last week or so, I've issued an unusual amount of {{selftest}}s. Then again, if they are reverting it immediatly, I'd say it's less of a problem, if anything. --InShaneee 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering whether or not to deal with this myself, but instead of spamming up

Over 40 (possibly more by now) user/user_talk pages contain:

Wikipedia is great!

The best source of information. [http://www.matei.org Dr.Matei] And it really is!

All these pages that link to the spam site click me. So I'd suggest blocking all these users, and speedy deleting all the pages that contain the link as they are obsolete and useless.

Of course, all the users which have placed the link is of course their only contributions.

I'd also suggest blacklisting the website. - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

Good luck!--Andeh 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whoever the spammer is; he/she isn't going to get the affect she likes. I believe that URLs on user and talk pages are not indexed by search engines--all outbound links have the nofollow attribute set. Also, note that the site has been added to the blacklist; I've nowikid the URL above.--EngineerScotty 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, clean up is now over and pages deleted and spammers blocked. Might be able to find more about the spam via the remaining pages that link to the page.--Andeh 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn edit conflict - I blocked all (almost) the users and deleted all the pages (someone else got to a few before me! :D), so it should be gone now.

Cowman109^Talk

19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is apparantely part of some college class at Purdue: www.matei.org/currants/2006/09/26/the-controversal-world-of-wikipedia/ (blacklisted)

Naconkantari

20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The page belongs to one Dr. ScottSorin Matei at Purdue ([5]), perhaps an admin ought to contact the good professor and let him know that Wikipedia doesn't appreciate breaching experiments; and will treat them as vandalism in no short order. --EngineerScotty 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Given the choice between publishing his whois info and encouraging people to call, e-mail, or comment on his blog; versus ignoring him, I vote for the latter. (I expect there's nothing a blogger hates more than being ignored).
  Thatcher131
  21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This user's talk page is full of vandalism complaints and threats to block. I've discovered another: to the Discussion page under

• 62.171.198.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - for convenience.--Andeh 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with at AIV. This is a school in the UK and the last edit was 7 hours ago, so the kiddies are probably asleep by now, so no action. In the future we can try longer anon-only blocks.

Thatcher131

21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

220.68.74.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This diff says it all:[6]. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked, but I think in the future you shouldn't respond to his messages. Don't entertain him. —Khoikhoi 03:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And another: 211.192.251.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 03:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the IPInfo and Traceroute tools on the IP talk pages, it looks like Maggie's using Korean proxies. Maggie's obsession with disrupting Wikipedia is getting a little frightening. I really wish she had given up with WhiskeyRebellion. Captainktainer * Talk 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

She's been getting help and advice. After she got knocked off as Wolf Star, she was invited to go over to WR. That she's war dialing open proxies is not attributable to her genius. Geogre 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can use a resolution process to resolve my disputes? How am I supposed to do this without using proxies if you keep blocking my ip address? Also, Geogre, it would be nice if you didn't make personal attacks against me by saying things like "is not attributable to her genius". Okay. I'm asking for a mediation or an arbitration to resolve why I was indefinetley banned the first time for making a personal attack against RyanFreisling. If I had been (rightfully) blocked for a week or even a month, I would have learned my lesson, and I never would have made all these socks. The indef ban was wrong and I am asking for a resolution. Maggie

I don't know anything about why you were blocked originally, but your account Lingeron was headed for an indef block on it's own, aside from the fact that it was a sock. Even if you shouldn't have been banned the first time (which I doubt), your actions since that time more than deserve an indef block. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Users banned by the community can appeal their bans to the Arbitration Committee or (theoretically) to Jimbo. Such appeals should be by email. See

WP:ARBCOM for a list of the people on the committee. —Bunchofgrapes (talk

) 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I issued the original indefinite ban in May of this year and here is the original ANI discussion of my proposal to do so. Maggie's the most abusive and unreasonable user I've ever encountered, for my part. She wasn't in any "disputes". Not unless you count it as a dispute that she would like to turn the encyclopedia into a political soapbox, and the community wouldn't let her. Each of her socks has been disruptive in and of itself; that, taken together with her rather narrow subject-matter, is how we recognize them. Here's an attack on Wikipedia posted on her site. Maggie, that you have a hatred of Wikipedia doesn't constitute a dispute, you know. How exactly do you see it being mediated? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

That malicious attack was ungrounded and unsourced, Bishonen, and doesn't speak well for you. I have a dispute, and that is that your indef ban on me was unwarrented. And since when do disputes get resolved on ANI? As for the accusation of how "abusive" I am, I find you the most abusive admin that I have ever encountered. The article I wrote was a direct result of repeated admin abuse to me, personally, and to others, and I delayed posting it on my site for a couple of months -- until it was obvious that nothing was going to change. The ANI smearfest speaks for itself.

I was never given the same opportunity through dispute resolution that any other user gets -- no rfc, no mediation, no arcom. Similarly, when I was banned, my page was protected so that I wasn't even allowed to defend myself there. And although I am ready to admit my part and my wrongs, I am also ready to dispute the indef ban, as opposed to a temp ban, and to show how it was done wrongly, out of process, and not a community ban at all.

Another important point, Bishonen, is that you told me that you were giving me another chance to edit, under another username, and promised me that you, yourself, wouldn't block me. And yet you have blocked me over and over again. What was your rationale, for instance, of blocking Buckyball-z your block Buckyball-z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Or for the blocking of Laplander, or Leavesofgrass, or JesterBuster? Incidentally, four of these are not my socks. Maggie

Apologies to the community for feeding, this will be my last post on the subject, but that's a fine illustrative wolfstar "important point" for the readers of ANI. I didn't block those socks. FreplySpang blocked Buckyball-z and Laplander, Mackensen blocked Leavesofgrass, and Ral315 blocked JesterBuster. Block log entries here: [7], [8], [9], [10] Bishonen | talk 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

There was no reason for Whiskey Rebellion to get blocked either. Whiskey Rebellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Maggie

I have blocked the IP abakharev 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well he admitted to be using sockpuppets and his language is already looking to foreshadow some disruption - I'd support indefinite blocking him and blocking those IPs if they appear to continue through his block again.

Cowman109^Talk

21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a community permanent ban originally but this was rejected because it appeared that, at the time, he was interested in contributing and he was producing good work, albeit his anti-Muslim or anti-Turkish edits were beyond what can ever be accepted. Well if he has returned and started disrupting, I propose again that we ban him from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I also note that GW had the explicit opportunity to be unblocked if he promised to (and followed through with) avoid personal attacks, edit warring, and other disruptive behavior. Instead, he chose to wait out the block, possibly using sockpuppets. If he had any intention of reforming, he didn't have to wait 6 months to do so. Powers ^T 16:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have been waay off base here but nevertheless, we shall hopefully soon see Glen 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a second thread started below on same editor - combined for efficiency Glen 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GreekWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a long history of blocks for politically motivated personal attacks and nationalist hate speech and was blocked for 6 months in January, is back to his old ways. He got a warning for this [11] attack on another contributor two days ago, and he is now trolling talkpages as an anonymous IP, 86.140.42.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Self-identifying as GreekWarrior here: [12], further instance of hate speech here: [13]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I now see he's apparently also identical to 86.140.42.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who already earned a 24-hour block on 22 September [14]. Self-id as GreekWarrior: [15]; abusive edits: [16], [17], [18], [19]. I suggest an indef community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Update 2: Also 86.137.172.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.143.173.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same story, back in August. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Update 3: Independently of me, someone filed a RCU, digging out some older IPs that take us back into May, showing that he was also evading his January block all the while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse that. He has tested and stretched the communities' patience far enough with POV-pushing and personal attacks, as evident above.

Bryant

07:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that NickOfCyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evidently the same user, judging from his editing profile, though seemingly showing more of the Dr Jekyll than the Mr Hyde side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This case brings back memories of Argyrosargyrou (talk · contribs) (RfArb). Could the two cases, GreekWarrior and Argyrosargyrou, be linked? Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 10:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh happy memories... ;-) Okay, no, that was actually before my time. But I've heard of the guy. He was around after his ban as Thrax (talk · contribs) and got himself quickly in trouble too, but I actually think he's different from GreekWarrior. His style is all monumental stupidity and blustering; GreekWarrior is a tad more intelligent when it comes to actual content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, using VoA's comparison tool for GreekWarrior and his most active sock with this guy showed: Done: edit comparison between Argyrosargyrou (973 scanned) (5 block(s)) and 86.138.0.221 (463 scanned) (2 block(s)) finished. (no matches) Glen 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Per latest checkuser findings I have now indefinitely blocked GreekWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Socks are fairly obvious now knowing the pattern and spoken to CU clerks a bit more. I will keep my eyes open. Thanks all! Glen 23:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Moly, that's alot of messages in a short amount of time. I'm dropping a message. Yanksox 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped for now. I will make a note if he starts up again. JoshuaZ 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I rolled them back: Aside from the spam of it, he accidentally put all of these talk pages in a category, and half of the users haven't edited for months. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Did Kappa only post to a specific type of contributor to influence the result or did he inform everyone who was previously involved in it some way. As long as such a mass mailing has a fair chance at backfiring because he also contacted interested deletionists, I wouldn't oppose it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • He only contacted inclusionists and did so specifically using the category in question. He says so in the message. He also refused to consider contacting anyone but inclusionists. See his talk page. JoshuaZ 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All I know is I "voted" to delete in the AfD, and no one was coming to my talk page to let me know about the DRV. At any rate, as far as I know we've never come close to establishing that "vote spamming" or what have you by itself is actually anything blockable... not really sure what intervention is required here from admins. --W.marsh 13:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• That DRV needs to be closed and rerun without the spam. And Kappa needs to be trout-slapped. Guy 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take "Reasons DRV needs to move to a consensus-based model" for $400, Alex. DRV's the only place that vote-stacking would theoretically work, being the only pure straight-vote process on WP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Or we could just, you know, suppress vote-stacking. Oh wait, WE ALREADY DO THAT. I'll take "Process wanking" for $100, Alex. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a bit worse than vote stacking, as this is a long, long, long time problem with articles pertaining to only one subject. It's a ridiculous monomania. It's not Kappa's first foray into the darker side of astroturf for a high school. Geogre 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

George, that's a strong accusation. Do you have any relevant difs? JoshuaZ 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is rather extreme; he's just going past a long list alphabetically, and judging by his contribs he's about halfway there. Since the disruption is obvious, I'd be in favor of blocking him until the DRV is over. >Radiant< 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• There is too much lobbying going on with deletions. Articles for deletion are listed on wiki projects to get people to vote protectively, or worse this. Schools in particular have historically been the subject of much lobbying (
  Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch) for instance. I don't even bother anymore, it won't stop until every school in the U.S. and mispelled variations are stubs on Wikipedia. Equendil Talk
  17:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this someone's sockpuppet? I rolled back their first two edits ever here. An attempt to sabotage an RfA like this is very odd. I just left a blatant vandal warning.

I just went ahead blocked indef after the user removed my warning. This is too strange. Comments?

masterka

05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried checking further back. Are you 100% sure they didn't revert some blanking without mentioning it in their edit summary? If not, that block is fine. Posting comments using someone else's signature is something I have an absolute zero-tolerance for. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a clear case of vandalism - compare the date when the adminship nomination started with the dates of the comments. Obviously, the user has copied them from another user's RfA. - Mike Rosoft 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I even recognized which RfA they were copied from. See

Could we get the article semi-protected for a while? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gwernol 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use

Cowman109^Talk

01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the edits by 65.118.45.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP has been making very politically stilted edits to several articles including ones related to the Viriginia Senate election and labor laws. This wouldn't normally peak my radar except that the IP is owned by "National Right to Work" (http://www.nrtw.org), which is a political action group. Does this make it to or cross the border of inappropriate editing? --StuffOfInterest 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits appear to have been reverted, I gave them NPOV0 on their talk page. Nwwaew 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please investigate TDC for violating his content revert parole. This user is limited to one content revert per article per day due to past infractions [22]. TDC is reverting material he disagrees with from the Sandinista National Liberation Front article. Three times yesterday [23] [24] [25], twice today [26] [27]. Abe Froman 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohh please! The additions to the article, like comparing the research of a respected historian to the movie Red Dawn, is childish vandalism, and all of this was spelled out on the talk page. The above user continues to insert this ridiculous material, including the bad faith use of tags, also a defined form of vandalism, as an attempt to goad me into a block. If an admin does look at this, please take this into account. These were not content reverts, it was reverting vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the dispute here, but this is certainly a content revert by TDC.--csloat 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you join in on the pile Sloat, but I am allowed one content revert per article per day and I justified it on the talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to argue on this board. TDC is limited to one content revert, per article, per day. This user had two today, and three yesterday. Abe Froman 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We will most certainly have this conversation here if you are trying to get me rail roaded, and I self reverted myself to remove any sense of impropriety. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC continues today to violate his revert parole of one revert per article, per day. [28] [29] This is the third consecutive day of violations. Please investigate this user. Abe Froman 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he is removing a lot of nonsense if you ask me...I say good work TDC.--MONGO 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The following ip: 209.18.49.15 is the ip address of

Please take a look at his Contributions, there must be over 500 vandalisms that I can count for! every single edit is a vandalism or spam!

All of the edits including the one from today have been vandalism.

Please Act! —The preceding

Has been blocked for six months Glen 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel good about this. I would be unhappy if I was blocked from my school with thousands of other attending students and faculty FOR 6 months. Isn't that a little bit too harsh?--Ed^{talk c E} 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as account creation is enabled, I see no problem with blocking this continuing vandal IP address. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But even if someone has an account, won't he or she still be blocked because he or she is using the said school IP? WhisperToMe 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

True...can we verify that subscribed users are not affected?--Ed^{talk c E} 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ipblocklist says the current setting of the block are: "* 01:00, 27 September 2006, Pilotguy (Talk) blocked 209.18.49.15 (contribs) (expires 01:00, 27 March 2007, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Please have an authorised represenative from your school contact me to have this block lifted)" --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As for those of us who wish to contact the school: Its telephone number is 610-351-5600 [30]; e-mail the Parkland School District at [email protected] WhisperToMe 02:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No contact needed, unless the school has a student policy regarding logging on to an online community server. (Believe it or not, but Wikipedia would normally be included in Computer Use Policies)--Ed^{talk c E} 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Most school districts have those policies, so I would call them anyway. WhisperToMe 05:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Quibble: Let's suppose that this was a computer class having "fun." If so, the block should be for three months, not six, as semesters end and kids get shuffled. My feeling is that they'll hit the block, get dissuaded, and won't try again. Therefore, a 6 month block is definite overkill, and 3 months is possible overkill. Of course, folks can continue to use Wikipedia while blocked, but not edit it. Geogre 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)