Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive168

[1] - why would listing an account and email used by banned user blu aardvark be taking things out on Miltopia? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's a somewhat long story involving drama best left unrehashed. Milto LOL pia 13:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Miltopia's contributions you can see he came here to vandalize furry articles. He also used his livejournal to bring all these people in to vote delete on the furry articles and a lot were deleted because of this. Follow this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreenReaper#Why.3F

Miltopia is from Encyclopedia Dramatica doing what they do best. He was already indefinitely blocked twice for harassment of MONGO. I think he only got away last time because he deleted his LiveJournal entry. I recommend Miloptia be community banned.

I looked at the community ban list and it appears that Miltopia was trying to get the furry articles deleted because Encyclopedia Dramatica's article was deleted. Miltopia may have been doing this to

Clerk note • Miltopia has been subject to CheckUser and was not found to be using socks. Cheers, ✎

Neutrality Project

) 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem much grounds for accusation of sockpuppetry here either. From the summaries in the edits leading up to the one linked above it seems clear that Miltopia was complaining that he was 'followed' to the page and reverted... that the reverted text related to Blu Aardvark doesn't really seem relevant. If the reversion had instead been on George W. Bush that wouldn't make a strong case for Miltopia being president of the United States. --CBD 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Miltopia has a history of stalking my edits...I can provide ample diffs if needed, or refer to the evidence section on the last arbcom case I was in, as mentioned by myself and Musical Linguist.--MONGO 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, MONGO, but the checkuser proved there was no socking involved. Cheers, ✎

Neutrality Project

) 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Never said he was using a sock account.--MONGO 05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence of meatpuppetry, not sock then. The meatpuppetry for Blu Aardvark to get Blu Aardvark's vandal tracking information removed. The sending of meatpuppets to vote on Afds using his Livejournal. -

DyslexicEditor

21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing out this thread

Everyone ignore DyslexicEditor here. I edited out links to articles not to be endorsed by Wikipedia s reliable, left comments on the talk page of that article AND the Wikifur article, and the editing out of Wikifur links has stood after many editors have continued the article since. His comments about me bringing "all these people in to delete the WikiFur article" is crap, since I was the last voter. His characterizations of my motives on the Wikifur deletion discussions are so false that it is inconvenient to explain why; instead, editors should read up themselves on what I said. To see my comments on why the article was deleted, please see these pages: the AFD and the DRV (in which I semi-argued for re-opening as a bad closure, despite endorsing deletion.

And please don't let MONGO hijack this header either. Everywhere where I'm brought up he comes around, looking for a way to get me banned, regardless of the relevance of his grievances to the situation. It's ironic that he says I'm stalking him when he shows up at everywhere I do to defend myself. Both MONGO and myself submitted evidence regarding my behavior during a recent arbitration "hearing" or whatever they're called. His is here (posted first, notice - MONGO had been editing this for a while before I ever showed up) and mine is here. ArbCom looked at both of them, did nothing to me (although Fred implied I should sorta continue to lay low, which I have) and found that MONGO didn't relate to other admins properly. So this has been dealt with.

In summary, here are the issues:

1. Miltopia may be socking as Aardvark or Hardvice - simply false. Already had a checkuser done. Ask Dmcdevit for details if you're unsure. In order for me to be either of these people, I would've had to have fooled far, far more cunning internet people with much less regard for privacy than Dmcdevit or any other Wikipedia Checkuser wielder.
2. Miltopia and the Wikifur deletion - old news also. Read the edits for yourself, DyslexicEditor is way off target. Don't flatter me by saying I can pull the wool over the eyes of two admins and get this deleted via trolling.
3. Miltopia, MONGO etc. - old drama. Been dealt with already. Stop bringing this up, MONGO.

Now enough with the constant, drama-seeking shots in the dark. WE'RE DONE HERE. THREAD'S CLOSED. Milto LOL pia 05:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you stop being brought up, then there will be no need to for me to mention the facts. I am sure the stalking of my edits by you is now over anyway.--MONGO 05:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That goes both ways MONGO, don't feed the troll, and theyll eventually die of starvation :) Cheers, ✎

Neutrality Project

) 19:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

engages in quite obvious sockpuppeteering at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ajaxf. Most socks are spa's, but at least User:Sigeway seems to have been used before. Any proposals for remedies? ~ trialsanderrors 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

At the time I gave Daniel10 what is hopefully a couple of friendly but strong warnings. He seemed to stop by himself, so my plan currently is to wait and see if he does anything else suspicious before any further action. Of course, I don't mind if anyone more experienced with this sort of situation feels otherwise. Raven4x4x 09:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see at least one more case of attempted sockpuppetry. Maybe we should at least shut the sock Sigeway down. Of course that's just the kind of thing 10-year-olds do, but we should be clear that this is not something he can get away with, on WP or in RL. ~ trialsanderrors 09:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I confronted the matter directly. Hope that's okay by all of you.

31415

20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I could use a second look at what's going on at

I have not broken any editing policies on the article, or even

WP:1RR, nor do I intend to[2]. I merely pointed out this to MrDarcy after he threatened me on my talkpage, commented that he has no grounds to block, as I have not broken any policy nor are the edits bad faith. I consider it extremely poor taste for it to be claimed as "wikilawyering" when it was the mere stating of fact that it would be abuse of power. And referenced the comment with specific polcies. [3]

Unlike what MrDarcy has claimed, another editor experienced in the specific field mentioned and has contributed to multiple other articles related to it, has removed the same edit as I did too,[4] and agreed via concensus on the talkpage. The information, added by one new editor is of little relevence to the section that it was placed in, and something about a similar and more widespread detorgatory term "hair metal" was mentioned in the very opening paragraph already. No other user who frequently contributes to the material on the glam metal article had stated that they agree with the inclusion of the sentence, they have only aposed it after discussion on the talkpage.

MrDarcy has yet to point out what (if any) policies I am in violation of, that warrants a threat of a block. I have made sure to be in violation of non, in following with the Wikipedia editing policy, Yet when I point this out, he wikilawyers by claiming I am wikilawyering. -

Deathrocker

17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Enacting the same revert once per 24 hours just to stay on the right side of your 1RR parole is a textbook example of bad faith editing, as you're obeying the letter of your parole, but not the spirit. Given that the content you're removing is properly cited and germane, a block would seem to be in order if you persist. Anyway, I welcome other admins' opinions on the matter. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The revert parole in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker was more complicated than a simple 1RR; it also included restrictions against doing more than two reverts to an article per week, or three per month. Looking at the glam metal page history, it appears that Deathrocker has been reverting the addition of the "hair farmers" sentence since at least November 25 [5] and has made at least 3 reverts to the page between December 7-11, [6] (This revert was reverted: [7]) [8] (sentence re-inserted: [9]) [10] (sentence re-inserted with references: [11]) [12] (sentence restored the next day: [13]) and a more recent one on December 28. [14] He was blocked for 24 hours (by User:Luna Santin) on December 9 for these reverts to glam metal. Since the first 3 were reverts, the fourth this month (on December 28) warrants another block. Since the revert parole has been misunderstood as a simple 1RR (as I thought during the arbitration case that it would have been, but that's beside the point), I will block Deathrocker for 48 hours. Since this block will be his fifth block resulting from the case, I could have still blocked him for up to a week; but it looks like the revert parole, as it was laid out in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker, hasn't been understood very well. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for missing those extra restrictions. I saw the 1RR clause and focused on that. Thanks for your help! | Mr. Darcy talk 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried

WP:DR? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not with the content dispute itself. We have an RFC that will handle that. It is the mis-application of this tag rather than the application of an "npov" tag to the appropriate section of the article. This was suggested and ignored. Ovadyah 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that it is not the one section only that I am disputing, but the article as a whole, for example, note I have also added a citation request for the intro, in the second sentence.

ውይይት

) 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A citation request is hardly grounds for applying a totallydisputed tag. It is a technicality. And in any case, the tag was applied before the recent citation request. Ovadyah 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that I dispute the article as a whole, and I dispute the sentence in the lead for which I asked a citation.

ውይይት

) 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that a citation was added, making your tag even more inappropriate. Ovadyah 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It was finally added at 20:19 UTC... I still dipute the article for many reasons that are clearly laid out on the talk page.

ውይይት

) 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take this content dispute

Doc

^g 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Wizardary Dragon for bringing neutrality to the discussions about me. I can assure you I do apologize for any mistakes I made in the past and I definitely intend to be a better Wikicitizen in the future and move forward from here. There are some issues with the article Barrett Vs Rosenthal {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal] that I would really like help on. I would like people to really understand how this ruling in my favor, protected ISP's, blog owners, and users who post things written by other people. Wikipedia can be mightily protected from nuisance lawsuits as they host the words of others. I have not been able to keep the final words in the article. I'm going to re-open that topic on that page. I hope I have some support. The plaintiffs in this case have been spreading information about this case that is clearly unfactual. This paragraph found on page 39, are the final words of the 41 pages. From the Supreme Court decision, I quote: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." Unlike those who wish this removed, I feel there was definitely a purpose for Judge Moreno to have added this. All I want as an editor, is the verifiable quote from the Supreme Court of California quote [15]. I would also very much appreciate being able to edit my own user page and have my links restored where they have been systematically removed. There are some excellent articles on this case: [16] [Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet] and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. I'll gladly rewrite my page about my Wiki experiences. I send healing energies and thanks tonite from the jungles. Ilena 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• And this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with using Wikipedia for self-promotion and furthering your vendetta against Barrett, right? Only your past history does rather invite scepticism here. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am attempting to get the verifiable facts from this Landmark Supreme Court Case properly on Wikipedia and request help. Barrett's vendetta (6 years of SLAPP suit against me] was decided in three California decisions, yet the facts are not being allowed to remain unedited on the page. Thank you.Ilena 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect I'd rather rely on the judgement of neutral third parties as to the importance of the case and what constitutes fact here. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This does look like a

conflict of interests concern. I haven't actually looked into this case, so I can't comment on the specific details unfortunately. ---J.S ^(T/C

) 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, I think the best course of action is to fully address the issue of learning wikipedia's "ropes" so to speak before you try to make broad, sweeping changes anywhere. I can look into any links you provide, as I have said on my page. However realize that change rarely happens instantaneously but rather tends to take time. Cheers, ✎

Neutrality Project

) 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. You can see I provided 3 links .... one is the government's Supreme Court ruling [17]. These are just two (of over 300 Googleable articles)... one from law.com. Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. This is far bigger than me ... it affects millions of users etc. Best from Ilena 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that the issue of neutrality is an important one. Recall it was a lack of such neutrality and calm thought that lead to the sticky situation you were in previously. I would suggest what would be best is simply to present the links and your opinion on the talk page, and let a person less involved in the case (on either side - including yours) add in what they feel is pertinent. That is why I offered to look at them, since I really have no interest in either side, except insofar as I want to diffuse this conflict. Cheers, ✎

Neutrality Project

) 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This case is mentioned in the article on Barrett. In that article, Ilena's request for the concurring opinion's statement is included in the description of the case. There, is is notable. It was removed from the article on the case itself, because the notability there is somewhat different. Barrett v. Rosenthal is notable for the precedent it set regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (a federal statute). The case is rightfully called a 'landmark' case that may end up in the US Supreme Court. However, the case is not notable for dicta in the concurring opinion. I understand Ilena's wish for rebuttal there, but the case is properly described. If it would make her feel better, however, I see no problem with including that statement. It is a correct statement.Jance 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The offending material is taken from [22] and subpages, forgot to include that. One Night In Hackney 20:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor seems to have relented for how. I've left a warning on their talkpage that they will be blocked if this continues. I'll keep an eye on the sitiuation and will issue a short block if he or she doesn't get the message. Rockpocket 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found that

Catchpole

22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually I report this on the vandalism board, but that is the wrong place I guess so I'll report here. Leyasu has once again made his/her daily appearance on wikipedia using British Telecom socks. 217.44.161.233 81.145.241.210[23] --Wildnox(talk) 17:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also to explain the difference in IP's the one is a regular BTnet connection, the other is broadband. --Wildnox(talk) 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

AOL uses BT Modems, thats proally why its showing as BT. Am i the only person who had the brains to message the user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.161.233 (talk • contribs)

When and how did you message the user?--Wildnox(talk) 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked (for 24 hours) the IP that Leyasu used most recently on Gothic metal, but I still think that Gothic metal should be semi-protected again - this time, for longer. He's been revert warring on that page for over a year, and it's time to let users who are in better standing with the community (i.e. not banned) decide which content should go in that article. If he shows up on that page again in the next several days with another IP, I recommend that the page be semi-protected again. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the page has now been semi-protected. I've also in the last week noticed the user

WP:SSP but I am unsure whether or not it will be noticed. --Wildnox(talk)

19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Try a Checkuser instead. As to the semi-protection, I entirely agree. When I was dealing with Leyasu, it was the sole way to maintain a minimum of stability of the page.Circeus 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is a no go; one was put up before but Leyasu's edits are too old to use with checkuser. --Wildnox(talk) 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please look at user:MariusM's user page? The section on his userpage titled "Tiraspol Times" appears to me to be a rant against user:William Mauco, with diffs and quotes showing how he was right and Mauco was wrong. Mauco has responded on the userpage, and it has turned into a threaded discussion on the userpage. Both users have been blocked multiple times for edit wars, by me and by another admin.

I asked Marius yesterday to remove the comments from his userpage, as I knew this would only cause trouble, and appears to violate

I would agree. Looks inappropriate to me, at least to the extent that it's discussing another user (comments strictly questioning the legitimacy of the newspaper, while apparently ill-founded, would be acceptable). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've removed the content starting where he begins discussing user:William Mauco (which didn't leave much) and left a note on his talk page with the appropriate links. I don't normally ever edit another user's userpage, but the comments here seemed inflammatory and disruptive, given these two users' prior history. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Would someone look at

Looks like the only thing the editor is concerned with is removing an image and some related text from the article over and over for almost 2 months now. I see a warning has been placed on his usertalk.--MONGO 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been at a loss about what to do with this situation. Ginkgo100 recommended a revert-and-ignore approach [24]. On the positive side, SoLongBaby has got me to do some additional editing to the article. --

Ronz

06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I, though I'm not an admin, would suggest a block, maybe one week in length. I hope that's realistic.

31415

07:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked him why he wants that specific image and text removed?

►

09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

His edit summaries [25] indicated that he thinks it's spam. Dina 15:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A week's block seems excessive to me, since I see no evidence that these are bad faith edits. I could protect the page for a while, if it persists. I think the goal here is either to make him understand and failing that, to make him give up. Dina 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Dina. Looks like a misguided user rather than an out-and-out vandal. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(not admin) I would probably agree too. For the time being, he or she appears to have stopped. I would suggest waiting to see if the image or text is removed again, and if so leave a firm message on his or her talk page telling them to stop, and if they do it again, blocking for 24hr. Any better?

31415

18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

S/he did it again, and I reverted, placing a note on his/her talk page asking directly why s/he persists. I hate to say it, but if it happens again today, a 24h block might be in order, just to get his/her attention. I don't like it, but the non-responses to Ronz don't make me optimistic that I'll get a response to my note. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a 24hr block under the circumstances you describe. Dina 19:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, would protecting the page for a week not solve the problem better? If the user is intent on disrupting, they'll move to another page and be blocked. If not, they'll give up. Dina 19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the user is a well-meaning editor that doesn't know English very well? It would be a pity to block if it was his/her intention to make good faith edits.

31415

19:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter in my mind. The user is constantly removing good material, without explaining their edits on the article's talk page (where their edits are opposed by several editors), and without responding to questions on their own talk page. If the reason is because they don't know English well enough to respond or do anything other than remove content, then I think we would all be better served by the user editing the localized version of Wikipedia in their native tongue. As it stands now, they are disrupting the English Wikipedia; whether their edits are in good faith or in bad faith is for the most part irrelevant. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Under which circumstances, we should probably protect the page for a short time, or block the user for a very minor amount of time as a get-attention block, maybe from 12h to 24h depending on the admins' feelings on this. Cheers!

31415

19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has again performed the same edit with the same edit summary on Dental floss. I have issued a "final warning" (for lack of a better term) to the user on their talk page. —bbatsell ¿? 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so this editor is getting to the point of being a WikiTroll (and that's saying something, coming from me). I would suggest a 24h block without waiting for the user to violate their so called "final warning".

31415

23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protected to cool down the disruptive edit war. I have no opinion on any blocks as of now. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. A few comments: I think part of the problem is that SoLongBaby's command of English may be poor, judging by his use of the word stub in his edit summaries and on the talk page (I can't figure out what he means by "stub" at all). I do think he understands much of wiki policy since he's avoided a sockpuppetry situation and actively avoids 3RR problems. --

Ronz

01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)