Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive26

Contents: May 29, 2005 - June 4, 2005

User:Albertofan and User:Shadows2005

Albertofan (talk · contribs) is running around creating a large number of hoax articles which sound convincing, but have absolutely no apparent factuality behind them -- Alberto Sanchez, Alberto (album), Elizabeth Sanchez and Cynthia Vargas all seem to be fantasy. And then when these articles are disputed, Shadows2005 (talk · contribs) is coming along behind and reverting the disputed tags, the VfD headers, and the Talk pages. RickK 00:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Moreinfo (talk · contribs) may be a sockpuppet of Albertofan - just removed a bunch of text from Talk:Alberto Sanchez (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Alberto Sanchez|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noel (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Explain them why vanity and hoaxes aren't allowed and tell them not to remove text or tags. If they keep doing it despite warnings, we can simply block them. (Maybe a welcome template can put them towards the correct policies?) Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Fire Star Is Always Right

Hello everyone. I seem to have attracted an antipathetic individual on the

User has been blocked for having an improper User name. RickK 05:12, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Usernames should never include the name or a variation of one of another Wikipedia user. Of course, you can do this by mistake, but if they're in dispute with said existing user, it's a violation of policy. Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas

• 1 [1]
• 2 [2]
• 3 [3]
• 4 [4]

Raported by --Witkacy 08:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• He only appears to have reberted 3 times on any given page.Geni 09:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

History of Pomerania:

• (cur) (last) 08:59, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
• (cur) (last) 08:54, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:52, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (→Baltic Pomerania - correction)* (cur) (last) 08:51, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
• (cur) (last) 08:48, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:43, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Vitjka)
• (cur) (last) 08:32, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:19, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Add - Baltic Pomerania (Pamarė))

Gdansk:

• (cur) (last) 08:53, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
• (cur) (last) 08:47, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:40, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
• (cur) (last) 08:34, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas add it to alternative names)
• (cur) (last) 08:27, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Stop vandalism Vitjka, in Lithuanian is "Dancigas" as well)* (cur) (last) 08:10, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:02, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Add)

Goldap:

• (cur) (last) 09:04, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
• (cur) (last) 09:03, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:57, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
• (cur) (last) 08:49, 29 May 2005 Witkacy
• (cur) (last) 08:48, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:45, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Vitjka)*(cur) (last) 08:40, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
• (cur) (last) 08:36, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Add, correction)

etc. --Witkacy 09:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

In each case an insertion followed by three reverts.Geni 09:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The first addition is counted as a "revert".--Witkacy 09:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

no it isn't.Geni 09:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, and what's the difference between the violation of today, and this one? --Witkacy 10:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

the example consisted of 1 insert followed by 4 reverts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 May 2005

4th revert on Gdansk [5]

4th revert on Goldap [6]

5th revert on Goldap [7]

4th revert on Pomerania [8]

--Witkacy 22:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this time User:Zivinbudas unquestionably broke the 3RR rule. He is up to his 4th revert on Pomerania. See: history, original modification,revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4. Balcer 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

And the fun continues, he has just done his 5th revert on

Gdansk page: history, first modification, revert 1,revert 2,revert 3, revert 4, revert 5 Balcer

23:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Brazen violation of 3RR rule in progress, by User:Zivinbudas

I suppose he knows he broke the 3RR rule, and right now is going all out until he is blocked. The latest are his edits on

• Blocked. When he's done this before he's come back in on dialup IPs - if you see these doing the same edits, note it here and we'll block the /16 again - David Gerard 23:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

He reverted now as 85.206.192.144 (talk · contribs).--Witkacy 01:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

blocked.Geni 01:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It is his 4th? 5th? visit here. If anybody can tell me exactly how to range ban this persistent troll, I will. On other note, Witkacy, I commend you for reporting him so many times. Keep this up, he will get what's coming for him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

for range blocks see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Range_blocks but I don't know the range he is useing.Geni 02:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#Zivinbudas, he was coming in from 85.206.192.0/22 (covers 85.206.192 - 85.206.195). I cleared Geni's single-address block, and placed a range block on this range. Let me know if he shows up from somewhere else, and I'll take further action. Noel (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a tiny problem: I've started an

ArbCom Request on him. Now that he's blocked he won't be able to reply even if he wanted to (which I seriously doubt given his lack of cooperation with the community, but still). What can we do about it? Halibutt

06:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd say drop a short note on your RfAr informing the ArbComm (who haven't started to vote yet) that Zivin is temporrrarily indispos3d, and it will therefore be several days before a response can be expected, and asking them to please take that into consideration (e.g. maybe wait to see if Zivin does eventually have a response). (Not that I think anything Zivin can say would make a difference, frankly; the behaviour has been too far out of line). Noel (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take down that range block; it's affecting another user (User:AndriuZ). I'll protect all the pages Zivin was warring on before I do so. Noel (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I protected

Siauliai, and Sudovia, which seemed to be the worst targets of his current rampage. Let us know if he picks up again, and what the targets are. Noel (talk)

23:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This user has continued to revert war (e.g. here and here) on Baltic pages. There are so many I simply cannot protect them all - this editor is already responsible for more protected pages on Wikipedia than all other editors put together! So I have again wound up blocking the entire Lithuanian ISP he is using. (I am working with the other Lithuanian editor who is affected by this to allow that editor to continue to edit.) I have unprotcted all the pages, so that people can work on them. Noel (talk) 20:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Kaschner (I)

Kaschner (talk · contribs), a delusional person with dreams of disrupting Wikipedia, set me up for fraud: he, or one of his colleagues, under the name of Jake Bell, forwarded me the text of a hoax article (this I didn't know atthe time) to use as my first contribution. However, the motives of Kaschner and the organization which he belongss to recently became clear: to disrupt Wikipedia; this I found extremely low and demeaning, so I dropped out. I sent a message to Kaschner regarding his arrogant behaviour, and he in reply sent me a reply [9] and [10] consisting of numerous copies of a message and totalling 1 MB in sze, under the sockpuppet User:The Moons of Endor. Of course, this denied me access to my talk page and eventually caused my computer to hang. Is there a way to deal with users like this? I'm expecting some retaliation in the near future. Wellmann 14:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• And how can I revert the damage done to my talkpage, by the way? Wellmann 14:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, calling the guy delusional isn't helpful, but he was indeed disruptive with all those copies. He also removed this section and the one above from the page. I've banned him. Mgm|^(talk) 14:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) And if he (or one of his colleagues) comes back? Wellmann 14:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've got your talk page bookmarked. I'll keep an eye on any similar edits. Mgm|^(talk) 14:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

User:BeBop

• 1st revert: 22:39, 28 May 2005 (done as 63.209.14.211 (talk · contribs))
• 2nd revert: 23:44, 28 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:50, 28 May 2005
• 4th revert: 12:18, 29 May 2005

Reported by: cesarb 15:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:CryptoDerk and page deletion of dispute resolution for the dispute (the user was recreating the top pages on Special:Wantedpages and removing the speedy deletion tags on them). --cesarb 15:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• They don't meet speedy deletion criteria! A speedy delete tag article death penalty. Speedy deleting articles that don't meet the criteria worse than vandalism or 3RR it article death. At least put it up for VfD so the rationale behind keeping it can be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.161.12 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 May 2005

User:Kaschner (II)

Kaschner posted this on Wellman's talk page which prompted him to remove the section in which he complained about him and the massive duplication on his talk page by User:The Moons of Endor. This kind of talk is unacceptable. How should I proceed? Mgm|^(talk) 15:55, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Mgm, thanks for reverting back the vandalism User:WelIman did to my pages. I think we have here an arrogant kid who thinks he's mighty clever. (Or maybe even a group of such kiddies.) He's operating from German Telekom dynamic IPs (84.154.*.*). He has once called himself "Jake", and he's just fooling 'round: playing "intellectual" (actually, boring and rather stupid, IMO) games trying to show off how clever he is. I guess he's somewhat miffed that we found and erased all his childish hoaxes last time. See User:Lupo/rechts#Known hoaxsters for more links, in particular Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive14#The Fort Bleakeley vandal and the "cipher" crap at the VP. I feel quite a few accounts are in for permablocks. He'll then, of course, just create new accounts. Lupo 16:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• I actually believed he was being framed with the "fort"-hoax but now he did this to your userpage, I think they may actually be the same person. Mgm|^(talk) 17:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Hello. FYI, that was not me, Wellmann, but a cleverly created double having (almost) the same name and talk page. The only difference is that one of the Ls is actually a big i, and of course, it lacks one N (WelIman (talk · contribs). I have a very strong hunch that this is the retaliation that User:Kaschner was referring to. Wellmann (talk · contribs) 17:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I feel like an idiot for not noticing it wasn't you. I checked for i's and such but forgot about the ending n. Sorry again! Can we block Kaschner for threatening the real Wellmann? Mgm|^(talk) 17:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• The threats keep on coming. (see User talk:Wellmann). Isn't it time for Kaschner to be blocked now? Mgm|^(talk) 14:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• You're going to block me? Why? Think twice before you block me. You just might get what you desreve. Why don't you block Wellman? Why me? Kaschner 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

threats to dissrupt wikipedia. Hmm I think we have a case.Geni 19:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked as troll/vandal account with no good edits - David Gerard 22:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the IP range (84.154.0.0/16) is the same range used by the Osmanoglou troll, a Deutsche Telekom dial-up DHCP range. There is at least one good editor on en: who actually uses this range, though, so don't block it long-term without being on hand in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 22:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:Kaschner. I never thought there would be an end to it. Wellmann 11:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Angel77

This is more than a bit odd. Angel77 (talk · contribs) has just arrived, and is pasting a long screed about "attack by cheese dreams and his army of sock puppets" to a series of User and article Talk pages. I and others have been removing them, but there's a copy on his own Talk page for easy viewing. It probably doesn't count as vandalism, and I don't know of any policy that's being violated, but it's peculiar behaviour, and I can't help thinking that it's not just a piece of isolated weirdness. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 May 2005 Thaanks; yes, it really was me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You may be under attack by cheese dreams and his army of sock puppets. Victums should report any abuse to Angel77 discussion page.

Anyone who believes they're under attack by CheesDreams should in fact report this to the arb com so his ban can be reset or adjusted. Angel77 is making it look as if it's something official. Also, religion articles are always controversial and may well be attacked by others. It's not fair to pin it all on Cheese Dreams when there's no evidence. There's no need to post these warnings. If there's any attacks there's always someone smart enough to ask what further actions should be taken. How does a new user know about CD anyway? Mgm|^(talk) 14:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Has it occurred to anyone that Angel might actually be CheeseDreams? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself; this looks an awful lot like a

Strawman sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk)

15:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the user. As far as I could tell all the postings were just reviving old conflicts. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

User:83.109.158.147, aka User:83.109.133.41, etc

• 1st revert: 05:22, 29 May 2005 (as 83.109.158.147 (talk · contribs))
• 2nd revert: 05:20, 30 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 05:35, 30 May 2005
• 4th revert: 05:38, 30 May 2005

Reported by: Alai 06:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Note that from talk page comments and edit summaries, these are pretty clearly the same person, despite the different IP addresses. Note also the gross misuse of the term "vandalism" (meaning roughly, they won't let me insert my blatent POV unchallenged). Alai 06:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Ardavan

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
• 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
• 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: -- RezaKia 15:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Me and my friend Hanifjazayeri, both from France, are having trouble with a person calling himself Ardavan on some occassions and at other times 216.132.69.157 and at other times. I think the two are the same because they both revert to the same page content, and both speak the same, and are very offensive. In the discussion section, at one point he shows that he is clearly biased by saying to my friend I HATE YOUR GROUP, (by the way he doesn't offer any evidence that it is HIS GROUP. Later on he writes that doesn't accept abusive language, only after one of the moderators complains. (You will notice from his signature mark that he wrote that comment two days later but posted it from my friend to make it seem that the person swearing and using rude language wasn't him. My friend and I wrote a number of times that Wikipedia should not allow such people to misuse such a useful tool on the internet. But he just replies by calling us terrorists! I don't know if there is a way of stopping the user, because he just signs in with different names and the last digits of the IP automatically change when he reconnects to the internet. Is there anyway to stop the page from continuously being vandalised?

User:Heegoop

• 1st revert: [12] 00:49, 30 May 2005
• 2nd revert: [13] 14:17, 30 May 2005
• 3rd revert: [14] 16:16, 30 May 2005
• 4th revert: [15] 17:37, 30 May 2005

Reported by: Firebug 19:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Repeatedly changing "American" to "United States" on multiple articles, despite lack of consensus for this alteration. After his 3rd revert in less than 24 hours to Hasbro, I warned him on his Talk page of the 3RR of the rule and the possible consequences of violating it. [16] He performed a 4th revert anyway, despite being warned of the 3RR before this. Firebug 19:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I've blocked him for 12 hours as this seems to have been a first offense, though he did revert after you warned him; otherwise I would just have warned him myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

User:Emico and sockpuppets

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

Reported by: DJ Clayworth 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

While these are technically from different anons, a quick look at the history of this article will show that the text added is essentially the POV original research of User:Emico, which he reverted a few times a few days before. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico. DJ Clayworth 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Xiong on Starfleet FAC page

I don't know how much good this will do, but I would like to record that I am offended by the statements this user left on a featured article candidate page. I am not complaining becuase he objected to it, only becuase the objection itself was invalid followed by attacks on the article and those who wrote it. The user objected because he "didn't like" the article and thought it simply would "never become an FA". To begin with, as per Wiki guidlines, an object to an FAC must specify a correctable action to fix otherwise it would be inactionable. Had that been all that occurred I would have gone about my business. But, the user then commented that the article was of interest to no one but "trekies" and that I had rounded up a "couple of my buddies" to attempt to make the article into an FAC "when noone was looking". In a final insulting closure, the user stated that the article had been put together in a "Vietnamese sweat shop" and should be deleted. This actions border on personal attacks against both myself and the article, are completely inactionable, and have no place on Wikipedia. I ask this user be sanctioned, if not blocked for a certian period for posting such things. -

• Husnock, I understand you put a lot of work in that FAC, but this is certainly not the place to complain about objections people make on FAC: Xiong's choice of words was strong, but you are taking this too personally. Besides, I think you are partly misunderstanding him. He did not pretend the article was put together in a "Vietnamese sweat shop". You will have to discuss your disagreement with this user on the FAC page. Admins cannot (fortunately!) sanction people for their opinions about articles. Phils 21:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, maybe Im getting hot for small reasons. In any event, here is the exact quote for all to see:

Oppose in every way possible -- and the repeated nomination is simply invalid. I'm sure I could nominate any page here a few dozen times, and eventually it would pass when nobody was looking, or after I'd rounded up a few of my buddies to plump for it. No intrinsic change has been made to this page, nor can it ever be improved to FA status without becoming something altogether different from what it is: fancruft, an elaboration of details from a fantasy universe. Every time I see this come up on FAC, I like it less. The addition of character headshots makes it much worse; they are irrelevant to the topic of the page, which is ranks and insignia. They tell you in the Army, You don't salute the man; you salute the rank. Dribbling little bits of fanwisdom in among the images does not an article make. Nothing about this page is notable. Nobody outside Trek fandom could care less about anything here; so far as I know, nothing about it has ever had any effect even on other fancruft, such as Empire ranks and insignia, let alone on anything in the Real World. There is not even a description of the Vietnamese sweatshop where they sew the things up. Everything about this page is hermetically sealed, contained within a fantasy universe. Move to Wikifan or, failing that, Delete. — Xiong熊talk* 17:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I have bolded the lines I find most offensive and which border on personal attacks. About the Vietnamese thing, My father served in the Vietnam War and I take tremendous offense to having an article I wrote connected with "Vietnamese sweat shops". The user should never have said something so demeaning and yes, possibly even racist. I leave this to the admins for action. A racist remark in an article should warrant some action. At the very least, this is recorded now and my views have been heard. -

Husnock

21:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Husnock, you're taking Xiong's remarks far more seriously than they deserve to be taken. Yes, they were obviously rude and uncivil but I don't see how this one post is actionable. If Xiong had a history of such outbursts towards you and/or other editors, then you could document it in an RfC and take it from there. But if this is an isolated incident, I urge you just to step back and ignore this. Naturally, since you put a lot of effort into the article he's disparaging, it's hard not take this personally, but you should make an effort to do so. And just because you are angered by his rude comments is no reason to attempt twist one of his remarks into a racial slur. If I thought this remark was racist, I'd be the first to block him, policy be damned. However, his comment appears to me to obviously be a reference to the common practice of using cheap Asian Pacific labor to create clothing, such as in this particular case, costumes for Star Trek. I find it quite absurd to claim that this comment is racist - and not just because Xiong is currently a resident of China - and even more absurd for you to use your father's service as a reason to claim special offense on behalf of the Vietnamese people. Let's not make this incident any more than what it is: just another editor making intemperate remarks. Just ignore him and he'll probably go away, and if he keeps it up, then appropriate action can be taken. Gamaliel 22:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Upon reexamination of what he said, I see now he could have been referring to where the insignia were made instead of the people who wrote the article. I still dont thinks it funny but, yes it's probably not racist. In my

Husnock

01:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

More problems with User:Xiong

Okay, I'm back. I hate to be the whistle blower, I hate to be the problem causer, but I am starting to have a problem with this guy. After the entire nastiness on the Starfleet FAC page, I happened to be seeing what linked to the article and came up with: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color. On the talk page, Xiong has this to say:

As I move around the project, I see literally dozens of these outbreaks of cruft, obsessive repetitive articles. I just came from a quick look at knots; there is the one expected article at

Pom Pom (Homestar Runner) -- useless cruft, useless even to the otaku

who create them, since they have far more detailed materials available for them to drool over.

Look, if he were to put these comments on VFD, I'd be concern. If he were to actually disrupt the editing of these articles, I'd be concern. As for now, he is entitled to his opinions, even if they are borderline rude or outspoken. I suggest you take a page out of Don't Sweat the Small Stuff (

ISBN 0786881852) and move on. -- AllyUnion (talk)

05:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, if he loves to complain about the "cruft" so much, he should elaborate how to make them non-cruft. Take the Star Trek article. He's right on one particular point... in that the article details stuff that fans already know. The solution here is to improve "cruft" articles so they can educate the non-fan, and interest even the fan the things behind the story. Every character that has been created was created with an image in mind of something. There is a backstory more to than the character itself. Same with the show. If he views knots to be "cruft"... I'd be more interested in the history of how the knot (whatever particular knot) became to be. Why was it tied this way? What makes this variant from its original better? Is it a variant at all? What makes it so special? He is correct in stating that one liner stub information is not useful for the Wikipedia, but he is also incorrect that the information does not belong in the Wikipedia. In fact, the information does belong in the Wikipedia but needs to be expanded further to highlight things we don't know. Maybe to the stuff the hardcore fan knows... maybe stuff that only a producer or director knows (and finds out by a reference book or biography or whatever...) But I think Xiong's issue is that we have so much knowledge on the Wikipedia that is focused on cultural novelities as opposed to real encyclopedia information. But you know what, I'm not expert in Biology, Physics, etc. I may know stuff about computers but I can not say for a fact that I'm an expert. I guess part of the reason why we have so much "fancruft" information is that some of us find "fancruft" information so fascinating over the other stuff. Plus it seems to be easier to learn "fancruft" than it is to learn Physics, Biology, etc. Xiong's issue is not a new problem, nor is it a problem that has previously been discussed before. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AllyUnion makes a great point. Despite his previous disputes, Xiong makes a valid point about some articles being crufty. If pointing out that something is cruft makes him guilty of personal attacks, I suppose I should also be guilty, as should the tonnes of people who regularly vote on VfD. Hell, I'm also guilty of the other side: I've written some crufty articles based on fiction. The only difference between, say, forumcruft and Trekcruft is that there are more fans of Star Trek than there are of specific forums. If someone points out that an article seems crufty, instead of taking it as a personal attack (regardless of whether the accuser was civil or not), maybe you should try to make it appeal to the non-fan instead of just the fan. Ask Xiong what can be done to make it less crufty. If all he does is complain without making constructive criticism, then you'll have more of a case. --Deathphoenix 13:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are all valid points. The only things that would really solve concerns like mine and others is creating some kind of "Wikipedia:Civility Committee" that would have the power to review people's postings and assign blocks and bans if someone appears to be behaving extremely improperly to people but not to the level which so considered vandalism. BUT, on the otehr hand this leads to the road of censorship and also having some kind of secret police force on Wikipedia would be a very bad idea. This is an unpleasant situation that reminds of "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". We dont want to infringe on people's rights and free speech but dont want people chased away from Wikipedia due to harrasement and name calling.

As for Xiong, it is very valid that he has not committed page vandalsim nor has he slapped VFD tags everywhere nor has he disrupted articles with unwarranted edits, reverts, and slander. In fact, just last night the potion wore off and Hyde Xiong when away and Jeckell Xiong took his place. He made some very positive and constructive comments about

Husnock

15:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good for you, and good for Xiong. :-) I don't think the Civility Committee is a good idea since we already have groups of people who do these very things. The administrator's noticeboard (the base and /Incidents pages), where you posted this, is probably the closest to the Civility Committee as you can get: people post here to report on users who may need to be blocked. The

Arbitration Committee is a final step and hands down binding restrictions/punishment on the involved parties. Therefore, I think the Civility Committee is superfluous and unnecessary. --Deathphoenix

17:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Enviroknot

• 1st edit: 02:53, 30 May 2005
• 1st revert: 17:12, 30 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:40, 30 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:58, 30 May 2005
• 4th revert: [21]

Reported by: Yuber^(talk) 21:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This user has been identified as a sockpuppet of many other users, please see his RF:AR here. He has been reported for 3RR on some of his other accounts.Yuber^(talk) 21:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yuber has put this in in bad faith: the 1st edit and the so-called "first revert" are good-faith edits attempting to form a consensus with Mel Etitis. Yuber has already been reported on this topic for starting a revert war.Enviroknot 21:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the four reverts had the same exact wording.Yuber^(talk) 22:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. Yuber, thanks for providing the first edit as well as the first revert, which was very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • For anyone checking this block, the fourth diff should be 21:18, 30 May 2005. The text reverted to four times was: "Dhimmitude is also mentioned ... in Surah 9:29 of the Koran: "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • User:Enviroknot has complained about this block on the mailing list, claiming that User:Yuber also violated 3RR at Dhimmi by using 199.181.178.37 (talk · contribs) to make one of the reverts. I know of nothing linking Yuber to this IP address, but I've left a note for Yuber asking him to stop reverting so often on this and other pages. I've also e-mailed Enviroknot asking him to show me that he didn't revert the text cited above four times, but he hasn't responded, except with invective. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The diff on the first two edits combined with the discussion page for the article paints a very different picture from what you are claiming. Good-faith edits to a page never count as reverts.

Your comments on the mailing list like "However, I won't be responding to any further e-mails from you to the mailing list" do not help: they indicate that you are not interested in operating in the open and in good faith.

Your comment "Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The problem with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of miscalculation is inevitable from time to time" could easily be construed as an insult itself. I have read the byplay and there is no "invective" but the quite real frustration of a persecuted user who was wrongly blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 May 2005

So-called "good-faith reverts" count just as much as "bad-faith reverts", except in cases of vandalism, and edits to the talk page are irrelevant. This user account and other sockpuppets have been editing-by-revert since they arrived, and I've no idea what you mean about reading the "byplay" and finding no invective: unless you're me or Enviroknot, you're unlikely to have read all his e-mails to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "good-faith revert" with the exception of vandalism cases. There are plenty of cases of good-faith edits being misconstrued as reverts by admins who are persecuting users for some personal reason.

I have read all the emails on the mailing list, and have checked your history and the user's history. I've also checked the Request for Arbitration that you included this user in. You appear to be in the wrong here, and I have stated so.

Claiming that an edit made during the working out of a consensus is a "revert" is counter to Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a revert and also counter to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. The behavior of other admins on the mailing list recently towards new users is frightening, as it is showing a marked cliquishness and hostility towards newcomers that you epitomize. Besides calling you a rogue admin and then pointing out Wikipedia policies you have violated, what has Enviroknot said to you? I would ask the same of him but you have rendered him incapable of putting forth any responses on here for me to see, and you have already stated that you will not discuss this in good faith and in public on the mailing list.

This block and 3RR report are in bad faith. I urge any admin who comes by to remove the block immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 31 May 2005

Please sign your posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

00:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I note from the mailing list that Enviroknot has now been banned from there. It is remarkably striking that Wikipedia admins are more interested in hiding what they do and preventing users from reporting them than they are in following policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 May 2005

Legal threat?

I worry about whether this sets a good example for other users, as far as avoiding legal threats is concerned: User_talk:Lastanzabianca No doubt it's true 23:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Is User:No doubt it's true impersoanting User:Lastanzabianca. It appears so from the way the signature is set up. Can we please have an explanation, as a user should not be using 2 accounts. Also, what legal threats do you refer to?

SqueakBox

23:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I assume you are nnot Lastanzabianca but have seen the RickK comment on his talk page. It looked ambiguous the way it was written,

SqueakBox

23:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think he just forgot to put a dot after the link to the accused user's talk page. 131.211.210.14 07:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What nonsense. *I* was not the subject of this User's attack page. It would not be *me* bringing suit against them for slander. And this "new" user who's only been here for two days sure knows their way around, don't they? RickK 23:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

An obvious sockpuppet, but sockpuppetry is not a violation of wiki rules. There may be many good reasons for switching accounts frequently or editing under more than one account. Good job, though, deflecting the focus from your behavior to the person making the comment. Pravoka 00:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to make personal attacks on me? RickK 20:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure RickK meant that whoever Lastanzabianca was libeling on WP could sue them, not that RickK would sue them. It was an extreme statement, but not a violation of any policy I know of. Nickptar 00:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It was not an allegation of policy violation, but just a concern that users may get emboldened to make legal threats if they see admins making these types of comments. Slander and libel are irrelevant to bring up anyway; what users get blocked for is violating wiki policy. Moreover, slander and libel are defined differently in different jurisdictions, and who knows what jurisdiction the user is in? Anyway, it probably should've been brought up on RickK's talk page, but too late now. Pravoka 01:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

In that, you are very correct. Nickptar 02:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking you speedily deleted the user page for an attack as I can't see any contribs? I am curious, and am not doubting either your judgement, Rick, or questioning the comment you made. Pravoka certainly shares interests with No doubt it's true. Perhaps they are just friends? And good mates with Lastanzabianca too,

There was no user page. Pravoka 01:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a user page, it was a page with a person's name and presumably home city, and an assertion that the person suffers from psychological disorders. RickK 20:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

User:ScrewedThePooch

• 1st revert: 00:21, 31 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:26, 31 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:35, 31 May 2005
• 4th revert: 00:46, 31 May 2005

Reported by: Talrias (t | e | c) 23:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

I've requested page protection. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Talrias, if you want to report a 3RR violation, you need to supply the diffs showing the reversions i.e. the difference between the versions. It would also help if you could supply the link to the earlier version reverted to. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I checked the history and it was a 3RR violation. I've given him/her a warning and reverted the page to the version it was at before the fourth revert. I'm not sure it warrants protection just yet, but I've put it on my watchlist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, SlimVirgin, I guess I didn't read the text carefully enough. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Advice on username block

I request some advice on an account I blocked for having an inappropriate username. I felt Taxman's child (talk · contribs) to be inappropriate as it seemed to be playing off User:Taxman. The resemblance seemed intentional, as the first edit was to ask the "User:Bank of Wikipedia" for an account, and his second edit was to demand tax money from his "father" (Taxman apparently did not recognize his child). That was on the 28th; on the 30th I asked the user to select a new user name. There were no further edits from the account, and I blocked it yesterday. I did not anticipate this to be controversial, but now he created a new account (Taxman's kid (talk · contribs) and demanded to be unblocked. Was I out of line? Should I unblock the account? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, does this seem vaguely familiar to anyone? — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What is that "Bank of Wikipedia" mumbo-jumbo about anyway? It's certainly harmless, but it doesn't seem extremely productive to me... Phils 19:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the username block,

Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames says they should not be used to insult or mock other users, usernames, and furthermore says Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name. Bottom line: if you think it mocks Taxman, it's inappropriate. (Caveat: If Taxman has no problem with the name, I'd relent.) I don't think usernames designed to cause confusion with other contributors really applies, because it's clearly not Taxman. Noel (talk)

19:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I agree; the Bank of Wikipedia appears harmless to me as well. I'll keep an eye on it. Noel, thank you for your advice. I agree that it clearly cannot be confused with Taxman. On the other hand, it clearly was chosen with Taxman in mind. I suppose this falls into a gray area, but in general I think it's a bad idea to create a username like this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've asked him to prove his identity as he claimed that he did uses this name on other websites. I've google searched both his names and found nothing. I think the user is upto some pranks and should be requested not to do so and select a more appropriate user name. The Bank of Wikipedia is also a prank IMO. Lets watch for some more of his contributions, if they are of any use here before permanently blocking him.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 09:57, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Unless he can prove his claims of using this name regularly before he noticed Wikipedia, I don't think this block is really controversial. Creating Taxman's kid to respond doesn't really show much consideration for the complaint. Mgm|^(talk) 19:34, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your advice. In the absence of responses to our questions (it's been a few days), I blocked User:Taxman's kid. To date, the user has made only three edits: as User:Taxman's child, he opened an account and requested money from his "dad". As User:Taxman's kid, he protested my block. I therefore am comfortable in placing this block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:83.157.170.54

• 1st revert: 01:59, 2005 Jun 1
• 2nd revert: 02:09, 2005 Jun 1
• 3rd revert: 02:19, 2005 Jun 1
• 4th revert: 02:38, 2005 Jun 1
• 5th revert: 03:05, 2005 Jun 1

Reported by: --W(t) 03:17, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has been warned, along with User:Neilc, who he was reverting against. User:Neilc claims to be stopping a POV-pusher (which looks believable on a cursory glance), said didn't realise the 3RR applied to this, and stopped reverting after the warning. The anon just continued after I'd reverted to the non-replaced article. --W(t) 03:17, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

I've blocked 83.157.170.54 for 12 hours. I won't block Neilc because he stopped after your warning, but I'll leave a note for him reinforcing what you said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Sockenpuppe (talk · contribs) is a self-proclaimed sockpuppet and has made a small number of nonsensical [22] or vandalistic [23] edits. Radiant_* 09:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The account's owner is User:SPUI, and it appears to exist for the purpose of pranks. — Dan | Talk 16:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I can remember SPUI was a respectable user. Can you back up that claim? Mgm|^(talk) 19:36, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's SPUI's account then I have no problems with it. Radiant_* 07:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • SPUI is a respectable user with a bizarre sense of humor and an affinity for practical jokes (cf. [24]). "Sockenpuppe" is a name he's used on IRC for a while, so I assume the account is his (and, for the record, I see no harm in it). — Dan | Talk 18:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • SPUI is a member of the GNAA and has made bad-faith edits in the past. RickK 19:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed. SPUI's editing is legitimate as far as I know, but admitted members of trolling organizations are unlikely ever to be respected on an internet site. Isomorphic 04:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      Speak for yourself. I respect him, bad-faith edits and self-admitted GNAA member and all. Not that I think we can't do without trolling, of course... JRM · Talk 12:55, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

RicKKK

Just thought I'd highlight this username – I've got to disappear for a short while and perhaps someone would like to discuss a possible name change. RicKKK (talk · contribs) violet/riga (t) 10:32, 1 Jun 2005

How can we possibly stand to lose this valuable contributor? I am excited to engage in meaningful discussion with him about a name change! ;p El_C 11:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have any real contributions, but not a vandal either, just some VfD participation. I'd say give him a day or so to start an account with a different username. Everyking 11:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith and honesty? Pushing it to the limit, but you never know. violet/riga (t) 11:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RicKKK, we hardly knew yee! El_C 12:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, has nobody noticed the implied reference to Ku Klux Klan? Sjakkalle 12:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh. El_C 12:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe RicKKK didn't notice the reference. Good faith! :) violet/riga (t) 12:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I already said heh, I don't know how to make that any clearer. :) El_C 12:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Last name "Kalderoy" gives me zero hits in the phonebook, even when I'm not narrowing the search to Kansas. Sjakkalle 12:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This raises a question to me: what if someone chose a name similar to this, but had a plausible explanation for it that had nothing to do with making fun of somebody? Would we say that we would have to err on the side of deference to the established contributor, or err on the side of good faith? Of course the established contributor could say it's OK, in which case I suppose it'd be a non-issue. Everyking 12:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if and/or when I see an EveryKKKing, I shall block it on sight, regardless of whether you would like to be its friend or not (which you would'nt anyway, but regardless). El_C 12:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about El_See? That's at least a little more plausible as to being an honest attempt at a user name but could be seen as inappropriate. violet/riga (t) 12:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no K in cake! Oh wait! Sure, in that case a request can be an alternative to an immediate block El_C 12:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the user who's the butt of the joke should get a veto over that. I don't know if it's written down anywhere. There was a user, User:Onlyafewkings, who briefly edited, but I wouldn't want the person blocked. Everyking 13:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Njyoder

User:Njyoder appears to have breached a temporary injunction[25] by making a personal attack on the Third gender talk page[26]. Axon 13:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know if I'd call that a personal attack, but it's borderline, I could see that view. Perhaps we should be a bit more liberal about it if it means this person could be blocked, though. Everyking 13:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, reading the

no personal attacks page - which doesn't seem clear. I would point out that he is overtly hostile and he does call me a liar, he makes threats to take an RfA against me and asks me calls my comments "nonsense". Axon

13:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Everyking that it is borderline. I don't think I would consider it a personal attack if I were in your shoes, but obviously you do. My inclination is to put a strongly-worded warning on his talk page that he is very close to crossing the line with that comment. If after that he made another comment that was similarly borderline, then I would be inclined to block per the injunction. How he reacts to the warning could be helpful, if he responds with an apology or retracts his comment then I'd say we should assume good faith and presume he didn't mean it to be an attack. If, however, he responds with another harshly worded comment to you then I'd be more inlclined to block in future. I haven't left a message yet as I'd like to see what others think as well. Thryduulf 13:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The edit is at the border between personal attacks and exasperation over a content dispute. Rather aggressive edit, but I wouldn't block him quite yet (I can't lose the feeling that blocking for 24hrs is a somewhat disproportionate measure for such an edit—even though I know there's an injunction against him). One more like this and he can take a 24hrs break, though. Phils 15:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder seems to make further personal attacks here[27]. Was the conclusion that Nathan's remarks are not a breach of his injunction? Axon 09:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any personal attacks in that long posting, indeed it appears more civilised than the previous one. Could you higlight what in that you consider a personal attack? Thryduulf 10:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe he calls me a hypocrite. Axon 10:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder is throwing around the word "liar" around again, his favourite lately, despite decidedly scetchy evidence for any lies. [28] I dunno, but methinks its getting a wee bit too much. -- AlexR 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Dmj27

This user has taken to uploading nonsense images and vandalizing articles. He appears to edit both from the above username and sometimes from 131.111.8.102. The IP is registered to Cambridge University, so not all edits from there are his. He vandalized Michael Howard [29] under his username (and was reverted by CryptoDerk) and then again under the IP [30] (which I reverted). He has uploaded images which are of dubious value at best, including Image:Ako2.jpg and Image:Photo-michaelhoward-nov2003-2.jpg. He also vandalized Akbar [31] as the IP. Either he doesn't care that we know he's editing from both places or he doesn't remember to login/logout. I was tempted to block, but thought I best bring this here first. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• History shows a lot of similar images including Palpatine for Pope Benedict XVI vandalism by anon. Yep, I think blocking is a good idea. I've got the IPs in check anyway. Too bad the university network admin never responded to my email.... Mgm|^(talk) 19:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

terms should finish soon or should have finished.Geni 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the last week of exams at several UK universities. Thryduulf 07:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New page move technique!

{{Helicopter-stub}}

Hahaha! I still put your articles on wheels! I, 00:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep... it's Willy On Wheels alright. --Chanting Fox 00:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely, and deleted the template:helicopter-stub which contained disruptive html code.-gadfium 00:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This was resolved before I got here, so would anyone like to explain how Willy could move pages by stub sorting? Mgm|^(talk) 07:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The template he created using absolute positioning of html text to put a large "on wheels" message at the top of the article, partially obscuring the top links. It may have been more successful to disrupt articles viewed using the default monobook skin; I use classic, so it was merely annoying.-gadfium 08:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good may have come of this - see Template talk:Title (and Wikipedia:Village pump (news)#New template for wrong titles for discussion and objections). --SPUI (talk) 18:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:67.121.95.80 / User:67.121.93.63

In Jawaharlal Nehru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

[32] [33] [34] [35]

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Comments: Anonymous user with dynamic IP address in 67.121.* block continues to revert to discredited rambling about Nehru-Stalinism in

There doesn't seem to have been a previous violation, and he wasn't warned, so I've put a warning on his talk page, and I see someone else has protected the page. I'll put it on my watchlist in case it starts up again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

This anonymous user has been at this for a long time, using a small set of IP addresses, logging in from Cisco Systems, San Jose, during working hours:

• 128.107.253.37
• 128.107.253.39
• 128.107.253.40
• 128.107.253.41
• 128.107.253.43

and during other hours from Pac Bell Internet Services, San Ramon, CA (presumably at home):

• 66.127.58.169
• 67.121.92.254
• 67.121.95.80
• 67.121.93.63

This guy knows what he's doing, and has been blocked at least once already (01:51, 6 May 2005 Jiang blocked "User:66.127.58.169" with an expiry time of next Saturday (repeated use of personal attacks, was warned)[36]), so your caution isn't really warranted. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching that page for a while, and I'd reccomend letting them argue it out. It was protected for 10 days for the same revert war and now the discussion has flared up again since I unprotected it ~2 days ago. OTOH, I need to go to bed soon so if you could keep an eye on it that'd be great. -Lommer | ^talk 06:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know some pretty senior people at Cisco - if need be, I can ask them to track down who this person is. Needless to say, edit warring on Wikipedia from work will get them in pretty hot water. Noel (talk) 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No disrespect, but no matter how loathsome his behavior has been so far, tattling to his employers to get him into trouble strikes me as dangerously close to violating the "No legal threats" rule. I mentioned the employer only to show the geographic and time clustering of the IPs he's using (San Jose and San Ramon/working and non-working posting times). Yes, he is (IMHO) a raving frootbat, but Wikipedia has already mechanisms in place to deal with such people when they get peristent.

P.S.: It appears that this guy went by the moniker User:LibertarianAnarchist a couple of years ago, so his act isn't new by any means. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia:No legal threats applied to disputes between editors, not (as in this case) an attempt to enforce community rules. And Wikipedia's mechanisms in place have been shown to be pretty marginal when you're dealing with someone who edits as an anon, and has lots of IP addresses to draw on (see the Zivinbudas case). I also have little sympathy for disruptive editors. Noel (talk) 17:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, speak of the devil. Looks like Cisco's Own Hindu Nationalist, stymied from inserting his wacky "Nehru-Stalinism" bilge, has resorted to a sockpuppet (Legal Notice (talk · contribs)) issuing legal threats. [37].

Maybe calling his bosses would be a good idea, now. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Libertas, User:Ollieplatt, et al.

This user, banned for a year under a long list of accounts, may have popped up again as Dsquared (talk · contribs), editing such articles as Oliver North. He's certainly not the neew editor he claims to be, but who he used to be is less easy to tell; he has stressed that he's editing from California, so can't be any of the people I think he might be, so IP addresses might not tell the full story. Could someone check anyway, please? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My l33t IP checking p0w3rz only go back a short time, so won't show any correspondence with his edits of earlier this year. But if it's Ollieplatt/Libertas it'll become rapidly apparent from their behaviour. If it is already, details would be good - David Gerard 16:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily; the person could become a perfectly good and uncontroversial editor. Everyking 19:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the person were a good and uncontroversial editor, no-one would have suspected that he was Ollieplatt/Libertas... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there's no need to write the future either. The user can either be controversial or uncontroversial in the future, but neither has happened yet. Everyking 21:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So insisting that the Libyan bombings weren't controversial because only left-wing terrorist-sympathisers disagreed with them, and changing one of my comments on the Talk page ([38]) so that he could reply to it facetiously, count as good, uncontroversial editing? He also ran to Smoddy claiming that I'd reverted his edits on the article without explaining on the Talk page, despite my having explained my actions at length. He's certainly not a new User, but whether he's Ollieplatt/Libertas or someone else, I'm not sure. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said it's possible the user could become a good editor and we shouldn't consider it inevitable that the edits will continue to be bad. Everyking 05:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So we should never respond to bad editors because it's always possible that they'll become good editors? An interesting approach; perhaps you could start your own Wiki and see if it works. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. You're taking what I said way out of context. Everyking 12:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

?? The context was here, and I've not moved it. Could you in any case explain how the context made what you said mean something different? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just read above please. David asserted that if it is indeed so and so it will become obvious because it will inevitably continue with bad behavior. I merely stated that we should not regard it as inevitable. Everyking 01:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I obviously need new glasses; no matter how I peer at my monitor, I just can't make out the word "inevitably". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link spamming in the sandboxes

• 213.190.129.19 (talk · contribs)

This fellow was given a bit of a talking to for spamming irrelevant links on articles. Now he's only spamming the sandbox articles. Hmmm, not sure whether this is a big deal. The sandbox articles are intended for tests. Thoughts? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as he sticks to the sandboxes, it's no big deal. It's if he starts creating sandbox articles just for playing in is when we should step in. --

khaosworks

16:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Use of open proxies to avoid a temp block

User:Argyrosargyrou, a Greek Cypriot ultranationalist who's been posting all kinds of wildly POV material recently and has an RFC outstanding on him, has been using numerous open proxies (mostly located in East Asia) to evade a 24 hour ban for breaking the 3RR. See [39] for examples. There may be other examples related to other articles.

This has provided an unexpected benefit - I've been able to identify each open proxy, revert its reversion, block it and thus require Argyrosargyrou to expose another of his open proxies for blocking in turn (and so on). So far Argyrosargyrou has used 10 open proxies, all of which have now been blocked and some of which have been involved in previous incidents of vandalism (presumably from other proxy-abusers).

The same user has also recreated

• 1st revert: 01:59, Jun 2, 2005
• 2nd revert: 02:56, Jun 2, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:20, Jun 2, 2005
• 4th revert: 20:40, Jun 2, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 20:59, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I can't figure out what version he reverted to in his last revert.Geni 11:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:69.115.105.101

• 1st revert: 19:30, 1 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:10, 2 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:50, 2 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 07:01, 2 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 20:07, 2 Jun 2005

Reported by: Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

69.115.105.101 is one of two anonymous users who have been reverting the Stardestroyer.net article repeatedly in the face of attempts by other users to come to some sort of acceptable version. Has also begun resorting to edit summaries such as "Revert. This is how it should be; none of this "npov" BS."; "Reverted to non crappy version"; and "Reverted. Go fuck yourself rev.", where "rev" refers to Revprez, who nominated the article for deletion and apparently has some sort of history with the stardestroyer.net site. The ongoing revert war seems more like a personal vendetta against him than anything else.

And yes, I realize that the above is two sets of overlapping 3RR violations. The anon has been warned (although he blanks the warnings). -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 10:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:-Ril-

I'm not sure what this behaviour counts as. I noticed yesterday, while going through the Speedy deletes list, that

Even if he does, I'm wondering what this behaviour counts as (officially, I mean; I know what it counts as in the vernacular...). I've described it to him as getting close to vandalism, but is that a fair description, or is there some other neat and tidy term for it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Ril was User:Lir. This one probably is, too. RickK 23:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's still adding "speedy" tags to non-speedyable articles. I have to stop editing for a while now, otherwsie I'd try to rein him in myself. It sounds as though a permanent block is in order, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's made several hundred edits in the last couple of days. He's starting to worry me ... Where do we ask for IP checks? RickK 23:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• User:David Gerard and User:Tim Starling may be able to help you there. Radiant_* 13:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Have these been articles that no reasonable person would ever want deleted, or are they more like standard VfD candidates that some people could legitimately think should be deleted? Of course either way excessive tagging like that is unacceptable, but I think the former is outright vandalism while the latter is more like borderline obnoxious behavior. Everyking 14:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're a mixture; they include Collegium Aureum and Dancing on the Ceiling, for example, as well as Capnography. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked David Gerard to check IP addresses, and he has come to the conlusion that this user is not Lir. RickK 04:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Fine — though he's still a menace. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm also not very happy with [[User:-Ril-#List of Editors with no manners or social skills (*)]], nor with his signature. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:OnwardToGolgotha

This user needs some attention for vandalism and extremely offensive stuff. Thanks for your consideration. KHM03 00:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See
  WP:AN/I. Mgm|^(talk)
  10:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:OnwardToGolgotha

This user needs some attention for vandalism and extremely offensive stuff. Thanks for your consideration. KHM03 00:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• His latest edits look fine, but I'd appreciate it if someone kept an eye on him. I don't like it when my VFD votes get altered, like he did earlier. He seems to have gotten the warning now, though. Mgm|^(talk) 00:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, I've seen some more of his early edits and if he ever gets out of line with blatant vandalism like tubgirl linking or vote altering, I think we can block without any more warnings. Mgm|^(talk) 00:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

    I've more or less taken him under my wing for now. Inform me of anything drastic, please. JRM · Talk 01:36, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

    • How about calling other Users Nazi fucks and uploading pornographic images? RickK 04:47, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're getting him to moderate himself? You should probably try to convince him to change that user page a bit. Everyking 05:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I have vandalized his user page as per his own stated invitation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's been permanently blocked by User:BrokenSegue. Permablocking a registered user is beyond our authority, however, so someone might (have) unblock(ed) him. Phils 21:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. If that were the case, we wouldn't be able to permablock Willy on Wheels and his ilk. If an account is created solely for disruption, then a permanent block is certainly warranted. RickK 00:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

But Mgm said before that "his latest edits look fine"...clearly that can't go hand in hand with an account "created solely for disruption". Everyking 01:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His latest latest edits, however, were not so fine: [40] (Warning:

what he's doing. JRM · Talk

12:40, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I don't know...is there a policy that restricts what people can do in the sandbox? I thought it was pretty much open to anything. Everyking 14:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is:

WP:DICK. Wait, that's not official policy... Hmm. In any case, the Sandbox is indeed a free-for-all, in the sense that even if a newbie posts something that would be considered exceptionally bad vandalism on any other page, we just revert it and move on. However, if OnwardToGolgotha is a newbie who used the Sandbox for a harmless test edit, I'm Jimbo Wales in disguise. This has "bad faith" in big blinking neon letters written all over it. And as the Sandbox itself kindly asks: "Please do not place offensive or libelous content in the sandbox(es)." Scaring off potential newcomers with shock images is not acceptable. JRM · Talk

20:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)