Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325

Please also note these differences and the respective article histories [1][2][3]. Charles 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Something odd is going on, he adds soome titles, and removes others. Unusual behavior, and no edit summaries. ThuranX 06:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some minor constructive edits, but to me it seems, for the most part, that it is this continual reverting which is taking centre stage in his/her editing activities. I would like to change the templates back to the form generally used for articles, to bypass redirects and have names in compliance with

WP:NC(NT), especially if someone decides to turn an unlinked name into a link (so that the article is first created at the right title). I do not, however, want to break the 3RR. Would you consider this habitual, nonconstructive editing to be vandalism? Charles

07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The user just now is continuing his or her reverting spree for no apparent reason. Are there, or when will there be, grounds for a block of the users account? The edits cannot be restored without it leading to edit warring, because the user will only return. Charles 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me as well that Cladeal832 *may* be the same user as the IP address because the edits are never at the same time (but close sometimes and always in blocks) as if the user was accidentally logged out and continued editing. The edits performed are the same, infobox edits to locations and flag icons and some non-constructive edits to ancestry templates. I should probably leave this thought out for now and deal with what is known for certain. Charles 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Charles 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Someone's yanking your chain to wind you up. I gave you 48 hours off. If it happens again you can request
  semi-protection of the articles. Guy (Help!
  ) 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I don't know who would do that as it is not a terribly mature thing to do. Anyway, there is such a volume of articles that requesting protection for each of them might not help. Also, I think looking into what I previously thought may help, as I believe the user I struck out above is doing the same thing or might be the same person. Charles 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For instance, take a look here, here, here, here, here and here. Exact same activity which has gone on fairly consistently as well. Charles 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also [10][11]. Charles 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Charles. He follows my edits and changes them and them and then accuses me of doing the same thing. Fine, I don't always write up what been done, but still if you look at these edit history, more often then not, I'm the one who wrote out the ancestry tables in the first place. Charles has already been blocked this week. Again, I don't care about Charles or anything personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have many articles on my watch page and monitor royals on the basis of house lines, etc. I was blocked for a matter related the actual presence of an article here on Wikipedia and an improper close. It was classified as edit warring and I am trying to avoid it by having persistent, disruptive users dealt with by administrators. Know what you are talking about before you bring up a block to try to discredit me. I am not the one using meatpuppets/sockpuppets. Charles 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I helped implement the ancestry templates when they were being added to articles. It is standard to monitor them and link names as they would appear in article titles, to bypass redirects and to have them listed according to a standard such as

WP:NC(NT). Charles

22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Butseriouslyfolks improperly unblocked an aggressive user which was blocked after several warninngs about improper behavior, see User talk:Nergaal under ridiculous justification "as the blocking admin apparently has a relationship with the other party". I was not informed about the unblock. I insist the block reinstated and user:Butseriouslyfolks warned. `'Míkka>t 09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you not initiate a discussion with the unblocking administrator first on User talk:Butseriouslyfolks, rather than 'reporting' them here? Out of general courtesy and common practice, this noticeboard is used in these situations only after discussion has been tried and failed between the involved parties (in this case, yourself and Butseriouslyfolks). Daniel 09:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the last time Mikka reported me here was after he unilaterally restored about 25 pages I had deleted, without any prior discussion or subsequent notice, other than the report here. Then, after his insult laced reports here, he refused to respond to the notes I left on his talk page. This incident is preserved for posterity here. And yes, I admit my deletions there were . . . overzealous. (OK, they were wrong!)

In this particular case, Mikka went after

Nergaal after the latter was embroiled in a content dispute (or perhaps a format dispute) with Fabartus

. After the two had apparently settled their differences, with some positive comments on both sides, Mikka escalated the conflict with warnings left for Nergaal and encouraged Fabartus to go back to doing whatever had upset Nergaal in the first place. Fabartus told Mikka "long time no see", and when Nergaal suggested that Mikka had abused his admin powers by taking the side of an old acquaintance, Mikka blocked Nergaal for "trolling" and deleted Nergaal's comment that pointed out the friendship between Mikka and Fabartus. In my view, Mikka was clearly wrong in two respects -- the block was completely undeserved, and Mikka should have reported it and then stepped aside due to his friendship with Fabartus so someone else could decide whether Nergaal should be blocked. So I unblocked.

Look, I know I'm not ZScout, but neither is Mikka Jimbo. I know a rotten block when I see one, and I also knew Mikka would refuse to discuss the situation, per my past experience and the friendly notice on his user talk page that "Any messages left here will probably not be unanswered [sic]", so I did the bold thing. -- But|seriously|folks  10:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I feel you should at the very least have advised the blocking admin of your intention to unblock and given your reasons, but preferably have initiated a discussion on why you thought the block improper - notwithstanding your belief that such a discussion was unlikely to formulate a consensus. In this particular case, per your comments, I think it even more appropriate to have followed procedure. This may be an example of the end not justifying the means. Them's my tu sense. LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. Mikka has made it well known that s/he's not interested in constructive dialogue per his (or his friend Irpen's) deletion of many legit comments/questions from his userpage, deeming them "trolling", "bullying", and worse. BSF was justified in his/her belief that Mikka would not be responsive to dialogue. K. Scott Bailey 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This admin now viciously attacks me because I violently protested against harassment of me because of my voting

WP:RFA, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 109#Response to recent bullying, which only confirms my opinion about my RFA voting. The logic of this remark is unfit for an admin, to say the least. `'Míkka>t

21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If a comment to a talkpage is removed without response it is still deemed to have been read. It doesn't matter what Mikka's response is, but a complaint of no notification cannot be made and an avenue of dispute closed. I therefore believe Butseriouslyfolks should have notified Mikka of his intentions.LessHeard vanU 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit by banned user:Bonaparte removed) --Irpen 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked six times and "at least". It seems doing mathematics today means "load this thing into a Word processor and have the comp count the number of times "is blocked" is mentioned". Have a good look: he accidentally blocked himself once, one block was obviously incorect and one was a re-block in an wheel war. Leaves three, two of which are more than a year old. --Paul Pieniezny 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the remaining three was another improper block by an admin who was edit warring with me (unblocked), another was erroneour 3RR revert: I and another user were editing in turn some text, in a series of iterations, during which he erroneously duplicated a paragraph, and the trigger happy admin decided I am persistetly deleting a piece of text. The first block was when I was reverting edits form

open proxies by especially nasty troll, banned user:Bonaparte. `'Míkka>t

21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An amazing feat of jumping at conclusions and turning tables by two admins, who are supposed to be careful in judgement. Even now no one bothered to ask me to explain my actions! I am out of this Kangaroo court. `'Míkka>t 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You initiated this section by complaining about the actions of Butseriouslyfolks, which is what is being discussed. Why do we need an explanation of your actions? LessHeard vanU 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because for some mysterious reason this talk turned into an accusation of me! And this is not the first time done by the two accusers. `'Míkka>t 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Desysop of Admin Mikkalai

It's about time now to have this admin desysopped http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mikkalai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.254.193.119 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why This is a Secret ^account 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he's an Admin that use his power against Romanian editors. He hates them, don't you see him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.244.14.11 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this open-proxy anon wouldn't be our old friend Bonnie by any chance, would he? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Surely not. Oh, wait, actually it is. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bonaparte has a long history of posting to this board via open proxies. He even posted lengthy threads with forged signature by many users and experienced users bought this trick and replied to forged posts promoting threads that should not have been there or should have been removed on sight. Anyway, I am removing his posts now. Please do not forget to remove such posts in the future. --Irpen 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Kuntan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any recent attempts to engage the user on the user's talk page. I left a template warning about AfD template removal, but I don't see a need for administrative intervention at this point. -- But|seriously|folks  04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – One step closer to a troll-free wiki, it seems Guy (Help!) 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support a block for harassing other users. Troll-free's attacks are despicable, and reek of sockpuppetry. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Troll-free Wiki for legal threats here. -- But|seriously|folks  05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I missed that contrib. Thanks for taking action. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It starts with this on the paypal talk page [14] He makes claims that those links had been defended on the talk page but I could find no evidence of that. He then adds another link here [15] which seems to have no purpose. it doesn't seem to support anything in the text of the article as the text its citing is about the location of the offices and not what phone numbers to use to get through to various departments. In addition to restoring this link he makes some comments on the talk page [16]. Including You are really pissing me of now, But as I said, pollute away, and How dare you? Are you looking for or do you have gig as a corporate Public Relations shill? . I removed the link from the article stating that I saw no relevance to the text in question and also left him an NPA warning on his talk page. He reverted with [17] unfounded accusation of violation of WP:NPA. Looks like he didn't carefully read what I actually wrote. I wish I could run CheckUser to look for sock puppets Which as vague as he wants to word it is still a direct accusation of sock puppetry since I and cool caesor are the only two involved in this right now with him. He then flat our denies he said these things [18], then removes the discussion claiming "libel". He also reverts the removal of the link again claiming it supports the text, but doesn't clarify this. (I did clarify this! -E) As a challenged source, and given the other abrasive language, 3 reverts or not its clearly edit warring [19].--

My edits to PayPal show I am willing to discuss things, address legitimate criticism, and compromise. I have responded to the various points made and accusations and welcome a response from Crossmr to the responses I have already posted. This escalation seems to be an attempt to avoid responding. How 'bout doing that before dragging others in? There's a lot to read at this point, and I'm not keen to re-answer questions/accusations already asked/made and answered/refuted. For the record, the above has several factual errors, which have already been refuted, as the record shows.--Elvey 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are a matter of public record and those are direct quotes from you. I already gave you a response on the paypal talk page and clarified that whether your directly insult someone or simply asking them if they are <insert negative insult here> makes no difference and is just as uncivil and a personal attack. If you can point out some factual inaccuracy in the diffs I provided above, please do so. Your edits to paypal don't show you're willing to discuss things, they show you're willing to hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with you. I already made an attempt to discuss this with you on your talk page which you reverted with insults and false claims of sockpuppetry and denial. Since you were unwilling to have that discussion I've brought it here for further input since I didn't really feel talking to you was going to generate any forward progress.--

Crossmr

18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't see where you clarified it. You made a claim that once again wasn't supported by the reference. Clarifying something means more than just saying "yes it does". It means taking the reference and pulling out the text from the reference that supports it and saying "I feel this reference supports this because of this text in it and here is the text". You claimed it supported the omaha part, but omaha is only mentioned in the user comments which aren't considered a reliable source. There is no other mention of omaha in the link provided.--

Crossmr

18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only come across Elvey's incivility and assumptions of bad faith at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 11#Universal Savings Bank and Upfront Rewards (closed). S/he is confrontational towards everyone who disagrees with him/her, or doesn't fully agree with him/her. S/he sees only one way, and that's his/her way. That is detrimental to a community project. Arguing your case is one thing, but what Elvey has done is way out of line. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He not only was behaving inappropriately there an administrator closed that discussion based solely on bad behaviour was demonstrating.--

Crossmr

19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is looking at a block if he doesn't get a clue soon. -- John Reaves 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – pointy

-- John Reaves 20:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly makes false claims (e.g. that links had not been defended, that I used a forum post as a reference), unapologetically. See User_talk:Crossmr. See also User_talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive_07#SLOPPY_WORK; it was resolved, but it perhaps that has led to a vendetta.

Then demonstrate where it had been defended? You've provided no actual diffs to demonstrate that I made any personal attacks against you. You claimed that a link was defended on the talk page but I searched both the talk page and archives and found no evidence of it being defended. The only thing providing that link does is show your past incivility and personal attacks you've made to show this is a pattern of behaviour and not something you're interested in changing.--

Crossmr

18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to close this discussion as an attempt to

Donald_Sinclair_(veterinary_surgeon) is being Afd'ed jointly with article Brian Sinclair, under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Sinclair. Is this the right way of going about it ? I don't know much about deletion protocols. I tried to add a crossreference on the Biography project page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting but the script didn't work presumably because of the joint Afd. Before I go and hard code an entry is it possible for someone who knows more about this to review ? I've notified some users already so a redirect rather than deleting the Afd might be better. Thanks -- Daytona2 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to nominate multiple articles when their subjects are so closely related that they can be considered as one unit, as long as notices are placed on all affected articles. If problems arise, the AFD will be split into smaller pieces. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. -- Daytona2 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been a disruptive vandal using anonymous editing to bypass a block. Here is a list of suspected socks:

• 81.130.215.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.133.14.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.136.30.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.139.117.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.154.229.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.159.138.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.153.172.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.71.120.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.146.167.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.147.27.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.147.5.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.16.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.46.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.46.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.94.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.158.244.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.120.125.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.34.36.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Bad as a child (talk · contribs · block log)

• Goodmann (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fighter C. (talk · contribs · block log)
• Andrev c (talk · contribs · block log)
• EAGacey (talk · contribs · block log)

Note, nearly all of the IP addresses go back to England and BT Broadband, and some addresses are for public internet cafes.

The initial 3 month block given to User talk:212.158.244.124 by Maxim a month ago. The main editing pattern has been described by dave souza as "berserk deleting categories". The issue isn't simply vandalism based content blanking, but instead POV based removal of categories (like "Allah" doesn't belong in the category "God" and that Anglicans aren't Christian, and that any openly gay priest is somehow a "queer theologian"). I made an initial report of the user at here. The user has slumped to stalking users (look at the two obvious doppelgänger), and has been offensive and incivil at times, with edit summarizes like: "fuckin gays have sex with a woman OR love your mother", "Bible said to kill gays"[20], "No more bullshit cause gay is a pervert"[21], "Leave a queer alone he is a pervert gay"[22], and "Stop vandalism fuckin gay EALacey".

Because the user is avoiding a 3 month block, and has said these incivil comments, and continues the disruptive editing, I usually block the IP on sight, but I'm uncomfortable blocking a dynamic IP for 3 months (especially if a new one comes back each day). The bad part is that the dynamic addresses are so varied (81.130.x.x to 87.74.x.x with a few in the 21x.x.x.x range) that a rangeblock is not feasible based on the number of affected users. At this point, the 3 month block seems pointless because the user knows how to evade the block, has not shown any interest in communicating, the personal attacks have not stopped, nor the disruptive editing. Just letting you know the background of the situation. If anyone wants to help monitor the situation, please consider watchlisting some of the most frequently visited articles in order to catch the user in the act to prevent further disruption.

Does anybody have any ideas on how to more successfully handle this user (through dialogging, blocking, or even contacting the ISP?) I apologize for the length of this in advance.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this one? Unless I'm mistaken, he has a much longer history... In Lithuanian Wikipedia he worked (in a rather similar way) as

User:Pontiakas, User:Qwarc, User:Windom and respective talk pages). I guess that of all three potential solutions that were mentioned (dialogging, blocking, contacting the ISP), only contacting ISP hasn't been tried yet. You might also wish to consult Renata3, who has dealt with him previously (for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier). --Martynas Patasius

00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely a tough situation. I feel like blocking the IP on sight, with no warning and no block notice, can be effective, but it takes a long time. Does the vandal have specific targets and, if so, do you feel like having many people watchlist these affected articles might be helpful? Do the IP addresses that vandalize also have positive contributions in their history, suggesting that they are used by other, non-vandal, editors, or are the histories solely this particular vandalism? If it's the latter, you may consider a mid-length rangeblock. Natalie 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the person I'm seeing now; much of the same nonsense fits. ZZcon, 217.44.56.101, 203.99.185.151‎, Tvarkytojas. The description here seems exactly the same. Especially User:Tvarkytojas recently made hundreds of changes, within hours; up to three or four changes per minute, all of this recategorization character, such as that oriental orthodox don't count as eastern christians, lots of the Lithuanian stuff, the Episcopal Church is a "former" anglican denomination, etc. Tb (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kultur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above account is a long-standing one, with the first edit in early 2004 - however, over the last few months it seems to have devolved into vandalism only, with joke edits, introduction of misinformation, and POV commentary. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My account has not been compromised. The information you quoted is an actual fact that I will substantiate and correct. Kultur 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

None of my additions to Wikipedia have been harmful in the long term. Mistakes are made but that's the point. Don't Nanny the site into a state of uselessness. I have not made harmful edits. Kultur 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot substantiate something that isn't true. IrishGuy ^talk 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do we have a content dispute or a genuine suspected account compromise? Mercury 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any significant changes in edit patterns over the life of the account. I won't block. Mercury 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering how he just altered his userpage I suspect a compromised account. IrishGuy ^talk 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. It's either compromised or this user has gone bad. -- John Reaves 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I shot an email to the address he posted a while back. If his account has been compromised, hopefully his email hasn't as well! — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be some relationship to the

Resolved

Znznzn (talk · contribs) has just been indef. blocked by User:Accounting4Taste. I deleted the user page on the 6th November as a G10 attack on A4T, where this editor called him a "fat nazi". The user was subsequently blocked for 24 hours by User:TimVickers. Znznzn returned to vandalise my user page [23] (and by putting up a personal picture vandalism is inevitable, I accept). I warned the user [24] that this was not tolerated and subsequently A4T blocked [25]. I have only bought this here as A4T and I have both been at the wrong end of this user and I would like transparency with regards to the block. Pedro :  Chat  19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's cute. Indef block heartily endorsed. east.718 at 20:02, 11/12/2007

Vandalism only account. Keep blocked, though if an uninvolved admin cares enough to put an uninvolved name on the block log, go for it.

GRBerry

20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, single-purpose account. The fewer, the better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. Uninvlolved parties have commented and confirmed actions. Thanks all. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this, and if anything further crops up, I'll ask an uninvolved admin to take a hand. Accounting4Taste 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Wherebot (talk · contribs) is sick again. Could an admin please block it? — Coren ^(talk) 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done it, but how was it malfunctioning? I took your word on it because you're an established bot operator. east.718 at 21:19, 11/12/2007

It's not inserting the potential copyvio links, therefore making it pretty much useless. --

talk

21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That, and it doesn't look like there were copyvios to be found at all. Our best bet it that, once every so often, Wherebot looses the ability to compare (or perhaps to get search results entirely) and start giving "empty" matches over and over. The fact that Where is on hiatus lately complicate matters, but the bot apparently self-resets after a little while and starts working okay again. — Coren ^(talk) 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past when Wherebot is broken, I've contacted Where by e-mail, and he is usually rather quick to respond and address the issue. I'd suggest doing that in the future. --Iamunknown 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Check the revision history on

Blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Persistent disruptive editing at Winston Churchill - see - Special:Contributions/Wormwood66. The user has not responded to request to stop. Jooler 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block for edit warring. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody kindly block

Thanks. Now could somebody please protect his Talk page? Corvus cornix 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Earlier I reported
  Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information, there are two episodes which aired in the U.K. before the U.S. User:Taiketsu has been reverting these dates with the explanation that "we been using american dates from the start". I explained that this is English Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia at first, but he is obstinate and refuses to discuss the issue. I don't think this can be called a content dispute as policy is clear about avoiding systemic bias, plus his behavior indicates he will keep on reverting until he gets his way. Can an admin please help settle the issue? JuJube
  02:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring on a couple of pages. Hopefully he'll calm down and contribute constuctively. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested merging 3RR into EW at

Hello, User:Gchx91 and User:Scsgurl123. They edit each others talk pages and vandalize the same articles, not to mention the accounts were created less than 20 minutes apart. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked both. Likely sockpuppets, but definitely some sort of coordinated vandalism at the least. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

An administrator may wish to do something about this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

and this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Given the lack of any legitimate contributions, and because this appears to have been going on for a while, I've extended the original 48-hour block to an indefinite one. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful links

• Kadiddlehopper (
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Dichotomous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary of events

Recently, Kadiddlehopper earned a week-long block for a personal attack in which he called another editor a 'lieutenant in the SS': [27]. I subsequently protected his talk page for 24 hours when decided that the blocking admin (not me) should also be described by the same name, quoting 'to call a spade a spade': [28], [29], [30].

Coincidentally, I was reading questions on the Reference Desk and I came across this gem from Dichotomous asking, in essence, if black people had trouble keeping clean because dirt (actually 'fleas, roaches, feces, mold and dirt') was more difficult to see on their skin. A couple of editors had made game, good-faith attempts to answer the question sensibly and scientifically, but it was the sort of question to raise eyebrows, so I had a look at his talk page.

At this point, I saw the thread User talk:Dichotomous#Editing from 2 accounts, where another editor asked why Kadiddlehopper was making comments and signing them as Dichotomous (as here, for example). Further investigation showed that both Kadiddlehopper and Dichotomous (and no other editors) also edited Dichotomous' sandbox: User:Dichotomous/sandbox (history). Dichotomous claimed to be '...at a neighbour's workstation.'

Applying WP:DUCK, I concluded that Dichotomous was likely a sock of Kadiddlehopper and blocked that account indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. (Evading a block to troll the Ref Desk meets the definition of 'abuse', methinks.) Dichotomous has responded on his talk page (User talk:Dichotomous#Indefinitely blocked) that they're separate, unique individuals who share the same internet connection and occasionally use each other's computers ([31]); he then offered up the comment 'Perhaps Clem is right that [Wikipedia] is nothing more than a Jewish boy's club.'. He subsequently sent me a rather odd email the repeated his suggestion about our 'ploy to eliminate non-Jewish contributors' and made reference to our 'intolerance' and (oh, delicious irony) 'hypocrisy'.

Topic for discussion:

Should Kadiddlehopper and Dichotomous be banned as abusive sockpuppet(eer)s? Are there any other socks?

They certainly appear to be acting as sock/meatpuppets. (Even if we take Dichotomous' explanation entirely at face value – which I am somewhat disinclined to do – Dichotomous is a meatpuppet for a blocked user and is himself blockable on that basis.) I admit that I will shed no tears over an editor who has only been around for eleven days and who has chosen to embrace various sorts of racism and anti-Semitism.

Kadiddlehopper is slightly more complex case. Looking through his contributions, I find that he is the 'Clem' referred to in Dichotomous' comment: [32]. Aside from the occasional low-key rudeness, his only really overt personal attacks were the ones that earned his block. On the other hand, the Kadiddlehopper account also doesn't seem to do much that contributes to Wikipedia; he seems to be pretty busy trying to start debates (philosophical or economic) on the Ref Desk.

Any comments or thoughts on how best to handle Kadiddlehopper? Any suggestions that the Dichotomous indef block should be reviewed? Anybody know of any other socks?

Your comments and assistance are appreciated. Sorry for the long post. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block for Dichotomous was entirely appropriate. The current block for Kadiddlehopper should, I think, be enough (with a warning that any further crap will see it reimposed indefinitely).

☎

15:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Works for me as well. Any further harassment by Kadiddlehopper, should be followed by an indefblock as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looks good here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• That was me who asked Dichotomous to stop editing from 2 accounts (linked above) after a charming exchange at the Computing Reference desk. He responded by making another comparison to the Nazis. I re-iterated my concerns at his talk page, he referenced the Nazis (again!) and asked me to provide him with all of my personal details, at which point I backed off (although I probably should have reported or something at that point). The two users editing patterns do seem similar, even before Dichotomous arrived on the scene, but I suppose it's impossible to tell who's who. For what it's worth, thanks for blocking Dichotomous - I think it was a good decision. --(Not an admin) Kateshortforbob 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Outcome:

Thanks for you all your input, everyone.

• Dichotomous remains indef-blocked as a fairly obvious sock/meatpuppet.
• Kadiddlehopper's current 1-week block stands.
• I have warned Kadiddlehopper that anything that looks remotely like sock- or meatpuppetry will result in a permanent ban, as will any antisemitic attacks or reference to Nazism to describe another contributor.

If anyone encounters another sock or is on the receiving end of further abuse from Kadiddlehopper, let me know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This little gem of an edit summary (warning, rated "R" for adult language) led to me extending the anon user's block to a week.

I just wanted to get a quick reality check on the lengthening of the block and the original reason for the block. The anon in question was making a number of grossly unproductive and offensive edits to the sandbox. It was an

No concern from me. Of course an ip could be on another address in seconds, but no problem with the block or length. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support 3 months, even if it's an IP. It's a direct allocated IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just me, but you may want to block him longer, that "picture" that he created appears

to be the infamous "Goatse" picture. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Golf clap for the creativity though. I wonder who created that table first...

talk

13:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Not sure what is going on here, but

It's User:Explode24 all over again. See here for his previous appearance. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted them all and issued warnings. -- Merope 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that

Well, the user is not banned. Wknight94 blocked the Bremskraft account indefinitely but left IronAngelAlice open to reuse after 1 week. This IP did not edit during that week, so no block evasion. I will leave a note for the user suggesting that they log in as IronAngelAlice and read our policies carefully. ··coelacan 11:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm raising this here because I nominated many of the images for deletion, so I am asking uninvolved admins to take a look at the situation. The deletion discussions are at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 25, and most of the discussion between Sfacets and me is here. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  08:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been a protagonist in this issue. In my opinion Sfacets has a history of unsupportable claims about images that he's uploaded, and is no longer reliable in that regard. Sfacets feels that questions about his claims are personal attacks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not why I started this thread. I was trying to get other admins' opinions on the PUI process. But I have since realized that this isn't the proper forum for that. I'll copy my question over to WT:PUI. And while I was posting the question here, Sfacets was blocked for 72 by another admin, so any admin issues have been resolved. -- But|seriously|folks  09:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this may need a case at

Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. Qst

17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have referred the matter than but would request this is not immediately removed as I have put a link back to this page on the case. Thank you

Irish Lass

17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been active for about a week. In that time, user has managed only three things: copyright infringement, personal attacks, and vandalism. Zero constructive edits. User contributes nothing of worth, and after myself and East718 reported his uploaded image as possible copyright infringement his only responses have been to repeatedly vandalize the incident page.

Time frame of block left to admin discretion.

"LOL. 2 macho guys in a tag team (Armon and Tewfik). Beaten by a woman (oh dear) with their own fish (red herring)" - I don't know, perhaps this bizarre comment and its "progressive" ideas on gender would actually be humorous to some if it wasn't the latest of literally dozens of extremely incivil and disruptive comments. While I would be glad to submit a list of incivil language directed against myself, perhaps more telling and more "neutral" is this "exchange" with multiple random administrators responding to his recent unblock request as an example of the problem attitude. Does anyone have a suggestion for conveying to this editor the importance of respecting

Now, I'm used to seeing my watchlist spammed by useless juggling of project tags on talk pages but now BetacommandBot has started leaving notes under new headings that the bot has rated the article with the method above. Enough is enough. Talk pages are for talk. Human talk. They shouldn't be full of clutter. I asked Betacommand to stop the bot. Five hours later I followed the link on User:BetacommandBot which is supposed to stop the bot. Nothing happened so I went ahead and blocked it. Haukur 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last edit made by the bot before I first blocked it: [45] Haukur 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject tags have a broad consensus and universal use. Presumably Betacommand has proper approvals for the assessment project, and it's very useful for the projects that care about assessments. What are you asking for? That the bot not leave a note? I don't think the note is terribly obtrusive, and it does highlight a relevant change to the article. What are the pros and cons of omitting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Have you even tried talking with

User:Betacommand? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v}

) 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note and then waited five hours before doing anything. He doesn't seem to have been around for the last ten hours or so. The method he gives for stopping his bot doesn't work, forcing me to manually block him and that's why I brought up the matter here (not that I think blocking bots is a big deal but still). Haukur 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is making useless clutter. Of course we can live with it but there's just no need to. If what the bot's doing is uncontroversial then it doesn't need to leave a note. If it's controversial then it shouldn't be done by a bot. The bot will even happily leave more than one of these notes per page: Talk:Neel E. Kearby. And why, oh why, doesn't the bot handle all the project tags on each talk page in one pass? Haukur 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And you didn't address the thrust of my criticism: Why should the ratings be embedded in the project tags if they're going to be the same for every project? Why not just have a separate little tag for the ratings? Haukur 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not useless, if you don't think a practice is good them discuss, don't block.

1 != 2

23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked a bot, not a person. I did leave a note at the bot talk page, but wouldn't you know it, the bot went right on editing into the night without attempting any discussion with me at all. Rude fellow, you should scold him. Haukur 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for what it was doing and many other bots do this task as well and have done so for a while. This is not the type of thing to block for. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was never approved to add comments to thousands of talk pages. Nor was it really approved for the specific thing it is doing. Nor is it doing what it's supposedly doing very well. Haukur 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Adding wikiproject banners to article talk pages and associated issues." - how was it differing from that scope? Mr.Z-man 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is leaving comments under new headings to explain that it rated an article an "associated issue" to adding wikiproject banners? That's certainly interpreting its mandate very broadly. Haukur 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And I should note that even this approval you cite urges caution, saying: "please be aware that there is mounting dissatisfaction at the number of talk pages with multiple tags" Well, I'm part of this mounting dissatisfaction, I suppose. Haukur 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, your comment about trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before. Part of the problem is that there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating, and, probably more important, it would basically require an entirely different tab to keep track of the banners, which is probably all but completely unworkable, and would certainly be rather expensive and time consuming. If you really want to reduce banner clutter, then probably the best thing to do would be to use either the {{

WikiProjectBannerShell}} to reduce the amount of space they take up. In fact, it's even recommended that one or the other be used if three or more banners are in place. However, in several cases I've seen today, there has been absolutely no discussion ever on a given article, even if it has existed for several years. In those cases, adding the banner and at least letting the associated project know that article exists might be one of the few ways available to get any attention to the article. John Carter

23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating I don't follow, what about the article's talk page? Is a more central forum for discussing the article's worth needed? trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before But isn't that what the bot is doing? Anyway, yes, hiding those silly banners under yet another banner is somewhat helpful - but the edits doing it still throw up dust on my watchlist so I'm a bit apathetic. Haukur 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for adding WikiProject tags to pages in specific categories, not for anything having to do with ratings. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Striking comment per link to another approval page posted by Betacommand. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to sleep, you lot do what you want. If you honestly think edits like this and this are useful then go ahead and unblock the bot. (Not that you need my permission.) I stand by everything I've said, though. Haukur 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well considering your invitation, and the general consensus here that the block was not the best solution I am unblocking Betacommandbot.

1 != 2

00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haukurth on this one -- I just don't see any benefit to adding redundant ratings. It just causes page clutter, watchlist clutter, and possibly confusion. If it's just done so that a human from a Wikiproject never has to touch the article, then the article probably shouldn't have the WikiProject tag in the first place. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you dont like bot edits on your watch list there is a nice little option to hide them, use it. Ive got full approval for what Im going, Ive been doing this for a long time and have had over 10,000 pages fixed prior to today.

β^_command

01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. I don't necessarily want to hide all bot edits - I want to review some of them. It's the useless talk page edits of your particular bot I don't want to see. You say you have "fixed" 10,000 pages, I say you have done marginal damage to 10,000 pages. Besides, your bot is just plain buggy. Why doesn't it stop editing when its talk page is edited like it says it does? Why doesn't it add this redundant rating stuff to all WikiProject tags at the same time? Why does it leave the same message twice for pages it does two passes on? Haukur 09:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When was this approved? Link, please. (And I don't use my watchlist, FYI in case anyone was dying to know.) :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

β^_command

02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no harm, and actually a lot of benefit to adding ratings to existing wikiproject templates. One of my projects,

WP:BAY, has a drive to help identify important articles that can be expanded beyond stub status. I for one often look there to see how I can help. In the past few days it has assessed about a dozen, probably more than any of the project members. In fact I was about to give the bot a barnstar until I realized it had been blocked and brought here, which would make my barnstar a little ironic. There are probably things to improve such as the way it leaves messages and how it decides what to do if the ratings are contradictory. But it's a great start and in my opinion doing a lot more good than bad. Incidentally, I consider it bad form to rate articles I create or significantly expand, and a little pushy to add assessments for projects I have no involvement with, so that's one way tags are left without ratings. Also, if I know the bot will soon conform the ratings it's a lot simpler for me to just add it once than to multiple templates...kind of the way you don't have to add the date to the {{fact}} template because you know the bot will fix it for you. Wikidemo

02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is substantial harm to filling talk pages with redundant bot output. For one thing it makes everything less accessible and friendly to newbies. They go to the talk page of an article they may be interested in and find that it's full of this bureaucratic claptrap. They might think all this non-sense about such and such a group "supporting" the article is actually meaningful and maybe figure that they shouldn't edit the article because they're not a part of the right group or whatever. I'm sure redundant messages from bots "rating" article don't help. Talk pages that should be empty are now full of cryptic template code and redundant bot output. I've never seen any of this lead to actual improvement of articles. Haukur 09:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My god, why are people getting so worked up about this? Calm down, have a cup of tea, a biscuit, and go edit an article. No more bongos 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All out of biscuits. :( — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This practice must stop. Does Betacommand also use "autocontent wizards?" There is no such thing as an "automated assessment." It is a contradiction in terms. If it's automated, then it's not an assessment. If it's an assessment, then it can't be automated. This -bot, from one of the shabbier folks about, insults everyone who has ever performed article assessment. Their work has hereby been reduced to the level of a checksum. Their minds have just been evaluated by Betacommand and concluded to be negligible. It is also an insult to anyone who has ever written an article. Your work at putting together sentences, at being concise, at finding the correct terms, has hereby been called irrelevant by Betacommand. Those arguing "for" not blocking are, essentially, saying that convenience trumps both the editing spirit of the people doing assessment and the people doing writing. If you think that is no big deal, then you probably need to go do some checksums and leave the world of editing articles. Geogre 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do you understand what the bot is doing? the bot does not do any real assessing. what the bot does do is add a already present assessment to another template. you seem to misunderstand what it is doing.

β^_command

13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of having the exact same assessment duplicated across multiple templates? Why are you making thousands of edits to talk pages which add nothing to them which isn't already there? And why do you feel this activity is so important that the bot needs to leave notes about it at every talk page it visits? Haukur 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Its part of the WikiProject system, since you seem to not understand that system and hate it, I will not attempt to explain it. Also I was requested to do this and have had a lot of positive feedback.

β^_command

13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, Betacommand, you "have been requested" not to do this. In fact, you say that you won't communicate with people who don't like the "system" (because they don't understand it, of course!), so I'm not sure that claiming virtues of listening to people really sticks. Try listening to people who don't want the autocontentwizarding. Consider the following: in the absence of consensus, the status quo is the preferred form. Is there consensus for you? Is it just consensus among those you like? Is it only consensus in your mind? Again: you're being asked to stop, so stop. Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's part of the system" - so it doesn't have to make sense? How is your bot leaving comments on thousands of talk pages a part of a system useful to Wikipedia? Why do you feel you don't even have to explain this? You are completely responsible for every edit done by your bot. If you can't (or won't) explain why you think edits like this and this are useful, then you shouldn't be doing them. Haukur 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just assuming here, so I could be completely wrong, but doesn't assessing the articles allows the WikiProject's to decide which articles they can collaborate to improve? If they are unassessed then it means a human being has to do it and it's time-consuming work, more easily completed by a bot. Is it the action you find disagreeable or the note? Seraphim ^Whipp 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, yes, all those stub/start assessments and tags are supposed to lead to actual people actually improving articles. I can't say I have observed this happen, though, and the plan seems rather Dilbertesque to me. Step 1: Tag lots and lots of articles and automatically rate them. Step 2: ????? Step 3: Profit! If anyone has diffs which show some causal relation between a bot editing templates on an article's talk page and that article being subsequently improved then please present them. Haukur 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Haukur, Im choosing not to explain it because you obviously do not like or understand the wikiproject system. What the bot does is share the basic rating of stub or start between wikiprojects that are unassessed but have been rated by someone else.

β^_command

14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the bot does - I don't understand how what the bot does is supposed to be useful. I'm starting to think you don't either because you're not making any sense. How is my not understanding something a reason for not explaining it to me? Haukur 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's useful for the reason I pointed out. I don't know if there is a relationship between the articles being assessed and improvement, but there it is, that it what the bot is for. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

<-- moving back

The bot is useful in that it addresses the thousands of project page that have been tagged but left unassessed, this occurs purely because editors create a stub add the project tags but dont include the rating on each one. As such I see the bots action as useful in addressing that, but maybe it should be expanded to add {{

I'm fairly sure that the maths WikiProject does not want this given

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 24#Tagging math articles (which is admittedly not quite about the same thing but in my opinion it's sufficiently similar). Personally, I don't think this is useful. I'd prefer that the bot stopped doing this, and I think I have a good case to request this at least for maths articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk

) 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has decided to listen to those who agree with what he's doing ("like the project" = "agree with him," and he has said that he doesn't want to talk to (presumably to hear from, as well) those who do not "like the projects") and substitute that for general consent. It isn't. The eventual crisis of "Projects" contradicting site-wide policies remains in the future, but we are merely seeing someone with a -bot executing across all articles without reason and refusing to listen to someone. I'm sure that the Math Project will fail to understand or like Projects, too, by Betacommand's rhetoric.

If the only way to forestall autocontentassessmentwizardbot is to go through and remove all assessment tags from any articles that one believes deserve human consideration, then so be it. I imagine, though, that that would only prompt another -bot that understands Projects to go on another rampage (and count all those edits toward RFA). Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot performs a valuable service

As someone who regularly goes through the

Why can't this be an opt-in service for particular projects? Assuming for the moment that ratings are useful, different projects are surely rating against different things. An article about a scientist can be a decent biography but do a mediocre job explaining the science, an article about a protein can adequately cover its structure but give short shrift to an associated disease, etc. If two projects opt in and both have their tags on the talk page, then the assessments get duplicated; if not, no need. This would at least keep the clutter restricted to articles where projects are active and actually use the ratings. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An opt-in option would be the best way to resolve this. Carcharoth 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is no longer an incident needing admin attention, please go to the bot noticeboard, a project discussion area, or a user talk page. This is page is for incidences that require admin attention. This is an argument that can be settled in a more appropriate venue(perhaps you can talk to the people that participated in its approval discussion).

1 != 2

14:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Terribly shoddy block by the way.

^{Son of the Defender}

21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. It's only a bot. Blocking a bot while we talk about whether we like what it is doing is a great idea. Hesperian 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WikiProjects are largely useless and arbitrary article ratings even more so. ^

This bot is a buggy piece of crap and I'm going to revert any edits it makes to anything I happen to be working on. Jtrainor 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As a member of a few WikiProjects, I routinely check the listing on the project pages for unassessed articles. The "unassessed" tag is generally an indicator of recent additions which may need to be checked for layout, overlap with other articles and so on. Marking them all as "stubs" prevents this useful activity occurring and doesn't seem to add much except to reduce the categories clutter on the talk page. I note that the idea for this task was suggested in relation to two specific WikiProjects but has since been universally applied. It's too late now but surely it would have been better to allow an opt-in process for Wikiprojects that actually wanted all their unassessed articles auto-assessed? Please note that this is not a criticism of the bot owner or the bot, but of the task itself. Euryalus 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the

I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity and uncivil manners and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 17:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add to the list the constant playing around and gaming of the system with respect to 3RR, again visible at Mexican and Cypriot pages. Vizjim 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm being dumb but... I don't see these disruptive edits. Any chance I could have some specific diffs for the violations you mention (i.e., incivility and edit warring)? If you can substantiate these allegations, I will certainly take them seriously, given Corticopia's history of being blocked for these reasons. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He constantly deletes his talkpage to hide his messages but here are some of them:

• Edit War - Geography of Mexico
• Bad Attitude - Cyprus
• 5 reversions in less than 24 hours - Hawaii
• Erased the whole comment and only left the part where the other guy looked bad - Hawaii
• Someone told him that he could archive his talkpage instead of deleting them - He erased it anyways
• He's blocked again for one month for engaging in edit wars
• Again he erased another comment listing all his negative and disruptive attitude
• Once again blocked by 72 hrs by breaking the 3RR rule
• Look at the summary, what's up with "crap will be expunged"?
• 3RR breakage
• Another edit war in Mesoamerica

And those are just a couple of examples, I could easily keep looking for two more hours, but I think it gives you an idea of what this user is like and how he's been behaving all this time. Supaman89 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of add-ons - Rude edit summaries, e.g. [47], and abusive arguments - e.g. [48]. Vizjim 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2681321&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Someone should probably keep an eye on that and revert accordingly. Jtrainor 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That forum thread cannot be viewed by unregistered members. What's the issue? -- Satori Son 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Summer of Vile.--Atlan (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

why haven't we speedied that yet? --

Crossmr

06:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and blocked several of them. It seems

Daniel got him indef. east.718 at 07:43, 11/12/2007

Block of Rubber cat

Rubber cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have blocked this user indefinitely, as my block message says, for inciting and encouraging vandalism and disruption in a deliberate and blatant manner. It was done on an off-Wiki forum, link, and hence this as well as the fact that the account has a fair few edits (900-odd) I bring this here for review.

I have no objection to people criticising Wikipedia off-wiki, and I also recognise that attacking people off-Wiki isn't often blockable. However, in this situation, inciting others to vandalise in such a blatant and deliberate manner is not compatible with also being allowed the ability to edit Wikipedia, both given the blatant attempts to negate what we're doing here (constructing an encyclopedia), and the disruption this user is directly, deliberately and knowingly causing by doing so.

I welcome a review of this block and, if consensus supports it (for whatever reason), an unblocking.

Because the forum is private, many users won't be able to access the information. If any established user so requests the content of the posts, then I will email them via the Wikipedia email interface. Cheers, Daniel 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this from the thread above - unfortunately their forum is private, and pay access is required, but I happened to have an account left over from when I was active there years ago, and I can confirm that on Nov 10, 2007 15:13, while he was serving a 48-hour block for vandalism, he made a thread in their "FYAD" forum inciting "everybody go vandalize at least 3 wikipedia articles right now." I support the block; we have no need for this silliness. --

⟲

07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged this thread into the above one as a subthread. Daniel 07:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: This edit may also be of interest - see Footu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Daniel 08:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done already, all edits by Footu should be automatically reverted, since that was a vandalism only account. Bread climp should also be speedy deleted, since it was created by Foot to vandalize Bread clip. Cumulus Clouds 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. However, there's another problem:

Administrators can see this at Special:Undelete/Bread climp. Block straight away or not? Daniel 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A protected redirect to

☎

11:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has posted an appeal for unblock on talk. It doesn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his own part, specifically not asking others to vandalize. Since asking others to vandalize is vandalism, I'm not going to act on it.

GRBerry

21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:Justaddcorn is another vandalism-only FYAD import, as seen by his edits here, here and here. User has been issued three warnings, but blanked his talk page. Cumulus Clouds 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• User:32000BTUGasGrill is almost certainly a sock of User:Footu, the newest incarnation also being a vandalism-only account revolving solely around the Flipmode squad. Cumulus Clouds 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Both indef blocked, and WikiWilma too after I saw the edits they had started to make.
    ☎
    11:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is still going on, so keep an eye on that thread. Jtrainor 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been threathen with a block from user

• [[User talk:Dethme0w#Warning! Breach of
  EgyptAir
  ]]
• Reliable sources Noticeboard #EgyptAir
• EgyptAir
  Main article
• Talk:EgyptAir#WARNING! Violation of WP:OR

Thank you for your action on this. --CyclePat 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just receive another message on my user talk page which I believe lack good faith. [49] --CyclePat 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This regards my removal of a ((fact)) tag from a piece of information that should not require sourcing. I have (prior to this user's abuse of this noticeboard) already added a reference to that article against my better judgment in order to resolve the issue once and for all, but this user is apparently escalation-bound nevertheless. If we had to defend, on this noticeboard, every template we place on a user talk page when we see content deleted without justification, the vandals would take over Wikipedia in about 10 seconds (and the noticeboard would be a gigabyte long). Dethme0w 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly appears that you're committing a breach of

WP:POINT

here, CyclePat—and that this is far from the first time you've done so. Looking at the timeline:

1. CyclePat adds a {fact} tag to the two-letter IATA code in the
   EgyptAir airline infobox on 9 November: [50]
   .
2. Dethme0w removes the tag on 12 November, with the edit summary rm fact tag from IATA code. If we required every bit of minutiae in articles to be sourced there'd be more references than text! on 11 November.
3. CyclePat then removes the information from the article entirely on 12 November [51].
4. CyclePat puts the information back a short time later, again with a {fact} tag: [52].
5. CyclePat leaves a lecture about OR and WP:V on
   Talk:EgyptAir
   .
6. Dethme0w adds a footnote for IATA code as the only way to get Pat to stop being disruptive: [53].
7. Dethme0w adds {fact} tags to some statements in the article that actually ought to be sourced. Why Pat ignored these I can't say.
8. CyclePat proceeds to file these crossposted complaints (here,
   Talk:EgyptAir
   , the reliable sources noticeboard, at least) to draw attention to his obstinate timewasting.