Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive92

Ambition is (was) back

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

User:64.40.53.196

I have given him a test4. If he continues, you should report this at

WP:AIV which is the location for standard vandalism reports. JoshuaZ 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Clivefan

indefinitely blocked for legal threats

Question

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

Actually, it's a violation of our

Wikipedia:Community_Portal

Range block imposed on 128.239.0.0/16

So

WP:OFFICE. We had enough missunderstandings lately without adding to them.Geni

18:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't aware that

WP:OFFICE does not in any case cover blocks. Further more the general understanding is that office actions will be carried out for legal reasons. With mentions of office but no mentions of legal threats and the vandlaism on en haveing not significantly registered above background you can see why the intial explanation has credibity issues. The get the attention of administrators at M&W explantion makes more sense.Geni

15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

No we've been through that argument. Nothing on

Signpost

). A Wikia wiki is not all that different from a less-spoken-language Wikipedia wiki. I guess the hope is that wikis might be the next big thing à la blogging, but wikis turn out to be very labor-intensive. Without a worldwide "cast of thousands" watching for vandalism 24/7, the Willys of the world will have their way with Wikia wikis. I imagine it may even be a problem for large Wikipedia wikis whose language is spoken mostly in one time zone (eg, German, Japanese, and most others). The English-language Wikipedia is a bit of an exceptional case.

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

Block needed for Vigilant (talk · contribs · logs) for perpetual 3RR and Disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Merkey,

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


Danny Wool
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

On reviewing the contributions and userpage of

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

User Sint Holo has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales as a sockpuppet of the banned user Gadugi. I hope this closes this matter and allows us to move on. Friendly Neighbour

06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Perhaps you can refer this block to

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

Zephram Stark

sockpuppet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

socks involved:

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

and almost certainly others

pages affected include:

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

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

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

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

• Keep it sprotected for now, and block on sight for new socks I guess. I suspect they will lose interest when it becomes more ocmplex and time-consuming than three clicks. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG. Things seem to have calmed down after sprotection, I'd say leave it that way until you think things have blown over somewhat. If it starts up again, you can always sprotect again.
  (talk)
  09:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well that's one way to win an edit war. — Apr. 20, '06 [09:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• I endorse unceremonious blocking of anyone indulging in this GNAA nonsense; this has cost everybody far to much time in the past.
  dab (ᛏ)
  10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since I have blocked a couple of these socks as well and was asked to post my thoughts, I would like to say this sprotect should calm things down. I blocked a couple of socks for 24 hours, not really understanding the magnitude of the problem. These socks should be be blocked indef. Really, there isn't a cure-all solution, let's just plug on...--
  _Fire! 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Abuse of Administrator function

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

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

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

User:Mr. Random

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

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

User:Luka Jačov

Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

talk

| 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake Votes on Afd

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Ekmai

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

WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a personal attack; WCityMike was reverting an improper speedy deletion tag. WCityMike left civil notes on

assuming good faith. Ardenn

01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

List of shock sitesRegular edits

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

Admin powers

• List of shock sites/Temp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• brenneman^{L}
  06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

  And I think that we'd be better of if people who want to insert material like "Once again it has been scientifically proven that this is infact fecal matter traveling from the woman's anal region" would review our policies on verification. We don't compromise on things like citation of sources. -

  brenneman^{L}

  06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

  Not when the material has not, as you state, been "explicitly challenged." That argument is fallacious and invalid. These edits were hard to differentiate from vanadlism. If someone blanks the entire

  Hitler article and I revert it, do I suddenly take responsibility for everything written about Hitler? I certainly hope not, otherwise Wikipedia would be a compendium of blank pages. -Abscissa

  17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

  Please see

  Slashdot trolling. -Abscissa

  19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  If these sites actually cannot be sourced, then

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

  19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

    When he blanked the "List of shock sites" article, he said it was because the list was unsourced. I found that confusing as the fact that they're shock sites and that they exist can be verified by simply visiting them.--

    ^ask?
    08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    The Doc is right (as usual). What part of

    spam event horizon. Just zis Guy you know?

    09:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    That's not what this discussion is about. The AFD underway is about that and it is certain that, for a fifth time, the article will be kept. The thing I find disturbing is using WP:V as an excuse to

    game the system and blank most of the article without debate by Mr. Brenneman. I also find disturbing the deletion of "HAI2U" even after debate ended without consensus and finally his attempt to blank most of "List of sexual slurs" even though almost all the entries had respectable sources.--Primetime

    09:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    My two cents:

    WP:DRV about this; I think this was done out of process. Mangojuice 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

  19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

• Will people please get over this 'you deletionist' nonsense? Hasn't the stylus worn out on that record yet? The article should never have existed. It should never have survived VfD, and if our users didn't skew to an under-20 demographic it probably wouldn't have. The reasons are clearly demonstrated above: it is an inherently POV list. I.e. whether something belongs on it or not is 100% someone's personal point of view. In such a case, even a citation is some one person's point of view, and, since books and magazines are fairly unlikely to waste ink on a list of shock sites, it's fairly unlikely that citations will be to anything more substantial than webpages and blogs and other oracles of crankery. There is no include/exclude to the list except some sniggering kid's "Dude, this is so dissssssgusting!" That's not what encyclopedias do, either electronic or print or written on the waters. If the people editing it can't even make an effort to ensure that everything in it is cited, then they're admitting that the article fails the deletion policy, that it is (and they think should be) inherently POV. That they'd be upset is no reason to bring the matter to AN/I. Geogre

00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• What about the fact that these sites are a significant part of the history of internet trolling? Nobody has yet responded to this point yet. Furthermore, the list is not inherently POV as there are only a few sites which #1 any reasonable person would find flagrantly offensive, and #2 exist for the sole purpose of offending. For example, look at the
  Little Sisters. These are not "POV" tests. Again, the difference between a shock site, and say a gay porn site is that the gay porn site exists for the purpose of doing business on the internet. So even if someone finds its content offensive and obscene, it is not hard to differentiate from any shock site. I am also an old user on Slashdot and fermilliar with goatse trolls; your argument and implication that a bunch of under-20 year olds made the article and are trying to save it is wrong. Look at the reasons given by people who voted to keep it: One administrator wrote "Unfortunately, this stuff is notable", and another person wrote "The phenomenon of shock sites / picture collections has been around even before the internet. It is too important not to be listed here." - Abscissa
  01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

these sites are a significant part of the history of internet trolling -- Prove it.

shock sites? Yes. Can it have a list of them? No, because a list would require proof that each site on it is, in fact, a site that exists only to shock and that it does, in fact, shock, and that it has been used to shock, and that the shock has been successful. So, when you can document all the trolling that referred to each site and document that each site shocked someone, then you can include it on the list and be verifiable. Otherwise, discuss the phenomenon in a discursive article. No one, that I know of, is arguing that the phenomenon doesn't exist or shouldn't be discussed, and confusing this handy-dandy link farm with an article is the only thing I have yet found shocking about the discussion. Geogre

02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Document all the trolling that refers to each site? This is either a joke or totally preposterous. Document that each site shocked someone? They all shocked me at some point, so what sort of documentation do we need?

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

Document that each site shocked someone? They all shocked me at some point, so what sort of documentation do we need? I think you need to familiarize yourself with

WP:NOR. It's real critical that you understand that your reaction to something is totally irrelevant, as are the reactions of your friends and everyone you know. Wikipedia isn't about recording our opinions, our observations, our reactions, our syntheses. (Also, for what it's worth, that you are shocked is your POV.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

03:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:JzGThis admin JzG is consistently abusing his priviliges by claiming to be applying policies that he has not actually read. His most serious offence was to list

37 signals

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

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

personal attacks on editors. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

22:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

See

rouge admin is in tatters - I must go and do some out-of-prcess deletions. Just zis Guy you know?

22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonus points for irony: arguing the toss about

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

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

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

22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

3RR at Libertarianism [58] [59]

[60] [61] and for making personal attacks against me [62] [63] and generally needing a

WP:CIVIL lesson. He has responded to these warnings by repeatedly blanking his talk page over 3 of my reverts and Wr warnings. --rehpotsirhc

15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Are pm_shef and Theonlyedge sockpuppets of one another?

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

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

• Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.70.148.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Westernriddell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poche1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note that Poche (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock of VaughanWatch)
• Skycloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.71.84.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.70.149.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Thatcher131
  18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using Theonlyedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet, found here

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

  I completely agree. So what do we do? I suggest an indef-block for Theonlyedge (

  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just zis Guy you know?

  11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  (from Checkuser)

  Leotardo's comments are endorsed by a couple of admins at

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

  Leotardo

22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've never before seen an editor who felt it necessary to post a {POV} tag on an old issue of

Wikipedia:Signpost, in this case to contest the assertion that a user's edits are positive.[73]. -Will Beback

07:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

E-mail spam

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

Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with

WP:AN/I asking someone else to look into it. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days, and I can't keep on top of the situation. Unfortunately, I don't think that blocking disables the user email feature—and anon IPs can email anyway. If he won't quit, someone might have to contact his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 02:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an issue for the media foundation to me as it could be a way for rogue users to spam other users,

SqueakBox

03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

His ISP is AOL--do they have a spamming policy? It's a disturbing thought (and no doubt we'll be accused of

SqueakBox

04:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh, and I agree that there should be a way to block a user's email function if it is abused for spam.

Chick Bowen

04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Block of Terryeo

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

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

I put an indef block on this ip, since its only contributions were from today and were only in the Rms125a-style of edits.

Kazaa Lite

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

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

You realise that you're violating

T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-04-20)

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

What it was was evidence of sockpuppetry. Those allegations have been re-posted in that category. There is a checkuser request here

, which I'm sure will find that Theonlyedge is the sockpuppet of Pm_shef. But since it appears as if you're not familiar with the evidence, it is posted again at the bottom of this message.

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

Here is the evidence of vandalism and sockpuppet tag removal:

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

Deckiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here

Jaranda (

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here and here

Syrthiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here

Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here

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

Evidence that Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef:

1. After

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

. Coincidence?

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

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

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

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

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

7. Both are obsessed with adding positive POV edits to their favorites

Anthony Reale, Tina Molinari and Josh Cooper

.

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

9. Pm_shef added the deletion notice of this article to

Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board at 22:04, exactly 2 minutes after his sockpuppet created this nomination at 22:02. See edit history

Coincidence?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotardo (talk • contribs)

---

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

I completely agree. So what do we do? I suggest an indef-block for Theonlyedge (

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just zis Guy you know?

11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Thatcher131

12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. My view is that we should delete the lot and come back when the fuss is over. This is an encyclopaedia, our policies are based on externally reported sources which require the perspective of time. Wars like this just prove beyond doubt that the encyclopaedia format is poorly adapted to covering current events. What we need is a sister project to cover current events. We could call it something snappy like "wikinews". Last time I looked inside this can of worms is centred about a bunch of poeple who fail

WP:BIO because they have yet to be elected to any office at all. But that could be my faulty memory. The bad taste left in the mouth by VaughanWatch and Eyeonvaughan is not a faulty memory, though. Just zis Guy you know? 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

13:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Not true. You made this edit here yesterday.

   pm_shef

   15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Leotardo 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

   • I'm not sure how posting pm_shef's contribution table is supposed to convince us of anything related to Theonlyedge.
     Thatcher131
     18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
     • It's supposed to show that he was creating AfDs for "failed election candidates" for 20 minutes, until last but not least, he went after his very first AfD nomination, using a sockpuppet to do his dirty work.
       pm_shef 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Note from Deckiller

CheckUser confirmed Leotardo a Sock

Good; this matter is close to being (if not already) settled. Has it been confirmed that you and theonlyedge are different users? —

pm_shef

05:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Two issues from the Vaughan mess haven't specifically been addressed: has Eyeonvaughan been using anon IPs to avoid his civility block, and pm_shef/Theonlyedge. Neither Kelly or Mackensen mentioned them when they revealed and blocked VaughanWatch's sock farm (about 45 socks now I think). (I assume that Eyeonvaughan is not an obvious sock of Vaughanwatch, or else that would have shown up.) After all their hard work I'm not about to bug Kelly or Mackensen for clarification. Maybe the accusation was blow over now that the principle source is out of business.
  Thatcher131
  06:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser on Theonlyedge and pm_shef was inconclusive per Mackensen. Develop some different interests, guys.
    pm_shef 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Remaining sockpuppets of banned Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ask?

22:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair - sockpuppet allegations are not to be used lightly. If he really is disruptive, let's block him for that, not on an unproven allegation. I'm not unblocking though, waiting for more comments. -- 

^ask? 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Long term disruptive user, current excessive unpleasantness

The user in question is 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd not observed WeniWidiWiki doing anything remarkable. Are you sure about that? I agree, making a

anti-vaccinationists and I think opportunism, Leifern has an interest in a particular additive nowadays essentially removed from immunisations, and states that he is not an anti-vaccinationist, merely a critic of some vaccines and will explain some of his association in his own words at to medical claims community and was cleverly touched off over Thimerosal by 86.10.231.219. Midgley 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have asked on his talk page if he will consider mediation[84] and got another attack[85]. I think it may mean "no", and it contains an assertion that 86 is not in dispute with me. I have considered posting to the WP Requests for mediation page, which I have open but do not adequately understand - it appears to need all parties to sign up to a request. I'm in favour, and if anyone is willing to take an interest and explore mediation I'd be grateful. . I've also relisted that talk page on MfD[86] as it is very clearly a collection of attacks, and I submit not beneficial to WP. I am aware that several people who might otherwise co-sponsor an RFC are inhibited by the expectation of personal unpleasantness being directed their way - I'd say that if the cabal (Tenofalltrades describd them, not admiringly, as a lynch mob) currently adding and linking criticisms of me to their talk pages seriously thought they had a case they should have presented it as an RFC - I may be subjective in thinking that like presenting the appearance but not substance of a username, such alternatives to established WP procedure are aimed at increasing the irritation and turmoil rather than solving a problem, but I'm probably right. Advice on an RFC would be appreciated - I'm involved in one on User:Whaleto which is probably also a factor in this current unpleasantness, given the linkages. Midgley 12:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

20:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

If you care about Wikipedia then please don't troll us. Cheers!

assuming good faith to mean that we don't want to ban the good editors along with the bad here. JDoorjam Talk

15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

♥♥♥♥ 16:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User:VaughanWatch

Curps blocked this sock a few minutes ago.--

pm_shef

01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rapid block needed

blocked for 24 hrs by Sjakkalle.

WP:AN, the blocking admin only blocked for the trolling, and asked whether indef was appropriate.

Please block IP 128.171.138.XXXAfter the James Levine

page was semi-protected to stop this anonymous vandal from adding his libellous molestation allegations, they were posted to

Munich Philharmonic Orchestra and Lorin Maazel. list of edits. The Lorin Maazel page doesn't have any link to or connection with Levine. Short of semi-protecting every page in Wikipedia, I'm not sure what we can do to stop this vandal apart from blocking the IP. Grover cleveland

15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Both IP ranges seem to be from the

University of Hawaii, probably the medical school. Grover cleveland 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bookofsecrets

blocked

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

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

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

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

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

User Mtmtmt has been blocked by a bot (page moves)User:Mtmtmt has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

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

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

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

User_talk:66.192.179.233

This would be much more appropriate at

Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

David McSweeney

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

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

Us good-faith editors and admins don't deserve this harrassment. My post last week proved it. But still it continues. We don't want more people like

^E_@) T

21:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly advise you not to block people who harrass you. Let someone else do it. If the vbandals are using the wikipedia email feature to mail you then just turn it off by removing your email address. If not then set up a filter to delete thier emails before they go to your inbox.

Thatcher131

21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How would someone go about getting the IPs that sent it in gmail (they aren't sent from WP)

Thatcher131

21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore them. They are trolls, and the sum total of their worth to society falls somewhat below that of a festering heap of dogturd on the pavement. Develop a thicker skin.

^ask? 09:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

64.131.231.66 (talk · contribs

)

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

Morton devonshire, the sockfarmer?

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

• I'm not really concerned with what end of the politcal spectrum he's on, I'm more concerned with the sockfarming, pageblaking, etc.. especially the etc--64.12.116.65

03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Legal threat against editor

I have reverted said legal threats and I suggest a block and possible page protection, especially if the person replaces the threats.

Talk

) 03:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I suspect that's a dial-up bank for BellSouth. I have no idea what the collateral damage would be. --

Talk

) 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And he's now switched to

Talk

) 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Semiprotection of the articles in question might be a better solution at this point. -

Loren

03:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Loren

04:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I'll semiprotect the page, but I'll leave it to people farmiliar with the article to engage the anon in dialouge and request unprotection when the time comes. -

Loren

04:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I used to take classes there back in 2000,2001. Completely unsecured computer labs, and an uninterested administration staff. His legal threats appear to be baseless, but if you'd like I can call my friend who's a PBCC student, and ask him for the phone number for PBCC's appropriate staff department.

_Fire!

07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Talk

) 11:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Try contacting BellSouth, perhaps?

T+C) at 11:16 UTC (2006-04-22

)

It's a possibility, as far as the legal threat goes. I need to think how I would approach it. Any contact with BellSouth about the spamming is more problematic, and certainly shouldn't come from me. I'll defer to the judgment of others on that issue. --

_Fire!

11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I used to live off of Lake Worth Road 2 or 3 miles west of the campus. --

Talk

) 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Lou franklin

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

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

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

User:WOW!

Indef block per the username policy seems appropriate. Then again, if you're willing to take the time, I'd say that a better option would be to unblock and see what happens, since he has

(talk)

16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats going to be a very unpleasant entry in the Wiki if its a legit user. Or should I say an exit?

er of War ^(Peace)

16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Sigh. Use some common sense. WOW can mean lots of things. It could be the word wow in capital letters. It could mean world of warcraft. It could mean willy on wheels. Leave it alone until it vandalizes.

♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is currently blocked indefinitely. Someone should at least add one of those "inappropriate username" explanations on the user talk page, if not unblocking. –Tifego^(t)

_{17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}

OK, I've added {{

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

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

) 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

More quixotic legal threats

I've blocked him for one week.

WP:NOR skeem. However they are being used for primary information such as the latitude and longitude. Also the fair use rational can be found on the image:Garneau.PNG

and user Jkelly has not argued any points to the contrary. The rational in short is that this image is orphaned into the main article. (see bellow).

Fair use rational for

École Secondaire Catholique Garneau

This image, GoogleMap of Garneau.JPG, is being linked to the article École Secondaire Catholic Garneau; though the picture is subject to copyright and

WP:Fair use#Counterexamples indicates that it is generally not permissible to have a detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, or in this instance Google Map I (CyclePat

) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

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

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

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

I'm not one of the Wikipedia image experts, but I'd say this is exactly the kind of image we can't claim fair use for, because it probably has a monetary value that our use of it would affect.

talk:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. Thank you again. --CyclePat

20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE... SOMEONE HELP! This is turning into vandalism. He's Jkelly is removing important information. This time it's worse then before. I think he is trying to be

École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. --CyclePat

20:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Ardenn

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

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

User:200.138.194.254

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

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

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

talk:Jesus and talk:Jesus-Mythblocked due to blacklisted spam site

I have converted the external link to plain text. The page can be edited again. (FYI, you could have removed the link yourself; no admin powers are needed for that.)

TalkTCF

23:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

TalkTCF 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll make sure I bring sandwiches and tea! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA

TalkTCF 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rogerman confirmed by email that they were meatpuppets, rather than sockpuppets. Rogerman contacted me in a blind panic, terrified that his IP and other personal information would be revealed, and begging to just be blocked, rather than outed (apparently, he's a student, and was concerned of reprocussions from school administration). After calming him down, and assuring him that we don't release personal information about non-vandals, I was able to work out the entire situation: He had begun editing the articles, and when reverted, recruited his roommates to help him. (Points to him for not simply sockpuppeting; meatpuppeting is bad in practice, but at least brings in other editors.)

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

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

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

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

1) Are we absolutely sure that it was roommates and not him? I only ask because, as far as I'm aware as the person who requested the Checkuser, this was never actually verified. As noted at

WP:RCU

, the signatures were as identical as the articles being edited, and with vastly similar knowledge and agendas, which is what raised the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been trying to put the truth out on a number of pages however

WP:3RR on Talk:Annie Besant. The edits are not vandalism, but are disputed. The proper way to handle this is to civily discuss this on the talk page and come to a consensus.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk

) 01:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Siddhartha21 & Michael Jackson Edit War

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

(talk)

07:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive92&oldid=1145855833"