Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive82

Request Permaban of User:Robertjkoenig's sockpuppets - Update; misuse of Talk Page

User:Robertjkoenig was permabanned for his behavior on the USAA page, turning it into a soapbox for his rantings. Several anonymous and non-anonymous users have continued to revert the page to his heavily POV version of it; just tonight with User:Kwai, User:Outofthenoondaysun, User:Interlocutor 1, not to mention harrasing editors who revert his edits.

He has an amusing (and sad) claim that is a conspiracy theory based on the following convo on my talk page:

File:Conspiracy paragraph.jpg

Image speedied as recommended. It was simply a screenshot of the text of the "popups difference?" section here: [1] -- Curps 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

. Btw, recommend speedily deleting the image but I'm not familiar with the process.

I wonder if permanent protection isn't a better way to stave off his efforts; at least with anon we can block his IP's, but I'm reluctant to block every block of his ISP, as will no doubt happen as he exhausts every avenue available to him. Judging by his claims on my talk page that this is a Civil Rights violation, the man is either trolling or needs help.

I'd requested help on the village pump [[2]].

--Mmx1 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected USAA for the time being. I'll look into the behaviour of the edits. Call back here if the vandalism persists, but I suspect it won't. Stifle 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• It appears to happen every 3-4 weeks, judging by the history; going back to December 2005 when the original user account initiated the torrent. Hopefully he'll lose interest. --Mmx1 21:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Update 15 Wed; He has continued his conversation with another account, User:Philosophenweg. Further, he's stated his intent to continue his ramblings on the talk page in order to use them as a sort of proxy for pitching his views on the main article itself: "But the fact of the matter is that each of the Archive pages as been indexed by Google. That is the way people find things - they stumble across then in the most awkward manner - by Googling. In fact, the 9 archived pages rank higher in Google searches because they elicit more hits then the sanitized main article page. Such is the internet."

Though not in itself a bannable offense, just by the language itself and its ardent defense of the same esoteric claims that RobertjKoenig made, I have reason to believe they are sockpuppets of the permabanned user, and feel the above is reason enough not to let his ramblings slide. --Mmx1 15:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[This is just disruptive]. The user makes no valuable contributions to wikipedia and is harrasing and slandering users. --Mmx1 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

There has been a lot of editing back and forth going in at the Falkland Islands. The discussion is to lame for words, but it evolves around whether the commonly used spanish name "Spanish:Islas Malvinas" should be mentioned behind the name Falkland Islands. The main motivation not just to follow the proposed guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) is political (giving the name would be an endorsement of the Argentinian claims, the islanders are offended by it etc). A staw poll clearly showed support for the names in the first line, now the editing is to minimise things, by adding lines like (sometimes referred to as the Islas Malvinas) while sometimes means many milion hits at google. --KimvdLinde 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment. In the end it is undeniable that a substantial number of people refer to the Falklands as the Islas Malvinas; the reason for this, and the merits of the claim which underlies it, is, from the standpoint of the lead paragraph of an encyclopaedia article, irrelevant. CIA World Factbook has Malvinas in the lead, so should we. And I am British. Just zis Guy you know? 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated POV insertion by User:200.69.24.9

200.69.24.9 (talk · contribs) has been inserting blatent POV claims into the intros of a few articles, such as Freedom fries, Franco-American relations and 112 Gripes about the French. His edits frequently involve dropping large blocks of unformatted text at the top of these articles, which in turn seriously messes up the pages (e.g. [3]). This ordinarilly could be dealt with on talk pages, but the user is ignoring requests to stop or at least acknowledge the concerns, and keeps repeating the behavior over and over. His only explanation has just been to claim it's okay for him to insert POV [4]. I've reverted and warned him, but given my involvement I don't feel comfortable blocking him since this is not simple vandalism, in my opinion. --W.marsh 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The user has seemingly returned after a block by another admin as Another POV (talk · contribs) and has been blocked indef. I think they've crossed the line and are pretty much just vandalizing at this point. --W.marsh 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, every IP used by this vandal/POV-pusher is an open proxy (at least 100% of the ones I have checked); he quite clearly knows what he is doing; it's not just a case of a clueless newbie. Please block them all indefinitely. The silver lining to this one, as usual, is that he's outing lots of proxies for us. Antandrus (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of userpage (déja vu anyone?)

has two edits. One posting his resume on his user page, the other to the Help desk asking how he can make his userpage searchable on Google [5]. I think he's misunderstood what Wikipedia is for. He's been here for a week with no other contributions.

On the one hand this is so trivial I wondered if I should even bother drawing attention to it, on the other hand - compared to the discussion going on above - this seems to be as clear-cut a misuse of a user page as it gets. I considered blanking the user page as it seems unlikely he'll notice, but thought that would be unnecessarily unilateral. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does this need administrator involvement? You haven't even left the user a message yet. If his user page remains inappropriate, you can use WP:MFD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of political campaigning for himself with a link to his political political website...but policy applies here because this editor has two edits and the one above has a thousand? "compared to the discussion going on above - this seems to be as clear-cut a misuse of a user page as it gets"...oh please...spare us the opinions. What, not even a warning to him...but of course, since he/she has only two edits, they don't get a warning, right?--MONGO 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll repeat what I already told him on the Help Desk. If I don't get a response to that either I'll go to MfD - thanks Rspeer for pointing that out, it hadn't occurred to me. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's always going to happen, wiki gets cached by google faster than any website I've ever seen, I've made up 3 or 4 entire people, and even though some will get deleted, the websites that mirror wiki, pick up the content so fast, that you can vrtually destroy google wacks, and simply make things up if you want to, most people realize this eventually--152.163.100.65 22:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Zmmz

I was asked by User:Chick Bowen to keep him updated on the behavior of User:Zmmz, but he's not longer active so I was asked to post this here. Lately he has been vandalizing my talk page and personal user page about issues that have nothing to do with him. See evidence here and here.

He has also been following my contributions and removing all of them indiscriminantly without much explanation. Some examples were recorded here. Most of my edits have been fully discussed in the talk pages and were implemented upon consensus. User:Zmmz has not even been participating in the talks.

Could you tell me what I'm supposed to be doing about all these? This type of behavior has to stop. I left a message on his talk page asking for explanations, but the message was removed without any response. Aucaman^Talk 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would propose the following simple, temporary fix, but I don't know if I have tha authority to come up with such a solution - at very least I would want the support of a couple other admins before I enacted/enforced this: simply that Zmmz cannot edit any pages in Aucaman's user space (except talk), and vice versa; also that neither may revert an edit by the other even once. Violations could lead to blocks. Is this something we can negotiate here (think a settlement to avoid a long legal battle), or would the rest of you be more comfortable waiting on the inevitable arbitration involving these two users and the other edit-warriors around "the Aryan question"? (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this but I'm not sure there's a precedence for imposing sanctions like this via administrative fiat even if there is sufficent support. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In the mean time, the reasonable editors you two are, please open up a dictionary snd look fior the word Aryan, and Indo-European. If and when done, at least you`ll see that user User_talk:Aucaman is an unreasonable editor, since he insists the unconditional ban of any article that mentions that word.Zmmz 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not a problem between me and User_talk:Aucaman; this is a problem betwen and entire community of users; we have brought this problem here over and over but you ignore us, yet as as soon as User_talk:Aucaman makes a complaint, certain admins come to his help. What User_talk:Aucaman has stated are catagorically false and demeaning. Also, the user consistently tries to attack or stop anyone who disagrees with him, and honestly this is not fair that one user should be allowed to insert highly controversial, racially motivated comments into articles, and others would not be able to take it out, so they can preserve the integruity of the article. For example in an article named Iran, recently he tried to [again] equate the country with Nazism; even though, if one looks at the discussion page of that article, will see that not only such edits were irrelevant to the article, but also see most users disagreed with him in the discussion page[6]. I actually thought I was protecting the page from sneaky vandalism. Furthermore, he was never asked by User:Chick Bowen to contact you, rather the admin mentioned simply told User_talk:Aucaman to contact another admin, since User:Chick Bowen will take an indefinite break from Wiki[7]. I am disappointed that User_talk:Aucaman continues to this day to complain, initiate numerous revert wars, and personally attacks many good-intentioned editors in this site. He is very disruptive, and continually goes against the consensus. In fact, User_talk:Aucaman`s behavior has become so disruptive that there now is,

• An Rfc page against him endorsed by 15 other editors[8]

• A second Rfc page set-up against him by user User: Cool Cat[9]

• A complaint made against him here on this very same Noticeboard/Incidents page[10]

• A third complaint against him and two other users were submitted in Noticeboard/Incidentsthe weeks ago here[11]

• A fourth complaint set up against him here[12]

• And, finally an attempt by 10 editors who agreed on the Persian people article to set up a Mediation Cabal, because User_talk:Aucaman continued, and to this day continues to go against over-whelming consensus[13].

Aucaman has a history of attacking others and accusing them of vandalism, you may see the evidence page in the Rfc set up for him. I have never personally attacked him, or anyone else, nor vandalized his talk page. When are the admins going to look into this and help us? Thank youZmmz 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:ESkog, I couldn't help but notice that you have endorsed an extraordinarily lopsided, harsh, accusatory statement against Iranian editors, in favor of User:Aucaman. In light of this, I doubt that you are neutral enough to negotiate or mediate a "settlement" here. It's no surprise that numerous serious complaints against User:Aucaman are overlooked, but as soon as the User:Aucaman makes a frivolous complaint, certain admins are always there to help. --ManiF 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But you don't have the power to make that call. Look here. From what I've skimmed through the RFC, none of the supposed 'personal attacks' made by Aucaman are personal attacks. I'd advise Zmmz to read WP:NPA to get an idea of a personal attack. Secondly, the section ESkog signed noted exactly what I've noted - there is no basis for the dispute. In my judgment, I'd agree with what Eskog has said above, that Aucaman and Zmmz should stay away from each other. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:28 UTC (2006-03-15)

Neither do you. Form what I understand, an arbitration committee should be set up to make such decisions. As for your assertion that "none of the supposed 'personal attacks' made by Aucaman are personal attacks", you just have to look further on this page to find a clear example of ethnically-motivated personal attack by Aucaman [14]. --ManiF 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

His latest attack in another language is pretty vulgar, User:NSLE. How can any reasonable person say user User:Aucaman hasn`t been incivil? You`re kidding right? Hhmm, makes me wonder. Secondly, his other comments calling people, racist, go back to second grade, arrogant, anti-semites etc., are at best incivil, and he has a long history of that sort of bully behaviour. When was the last time I was incivil to any user in this site, or worse, personally attacked users here? If you bother to investigate this, you`ll see today it is me, yesterday and tommorow it`ll be somebody else. I didn`t follow him anywhere, and in fact, I am very active in the articles mentioned. Aucaman has this problem with many, many other users; to the point that user Voice of All gave him a 1rr limit per article [only]. So, what are you going to do, eliminate every single person he disagrees with one-by-one?Zmmz 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivil, perhaps, not personal attacks. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:51 UTC (2006-03-15)

If "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental." [15] is not a personal attack, then what is? --ManiF 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can`t comprehend that calling others racist, go back to second grade, arrogant, anti-semites etc., is not a personal attack? But, certainly you are entitled to your opinion, or maybe I`m missing something here.Zmmz 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, since English isn't likely your first language let me explain to you. He called the content racist and anti-semitic, not the contributors. WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not contributor". He did not make personal attacks. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:12 UTC (2006-03-15)

Do me a favour please, don`t assume things, and I don`t appreciate your patronizing tone. I`m not sure if English is your first language, but you sound intellegent, and if one reads the comments user Aucaman says, Some are trying to insert racist, anti-semetic comments into this article, which at best implies, the editors who are doing so are racist themselves, let`s not kid ourselves here, the guy is unreasonable, and we know what he means. Thank youZmmz 06:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

English is, de jure, my first language. Read it again, he's talking about the comment. You're free to infer what you want from it, but from an official administrative standpoint per WP:NPA it's not personal attacks, in my view. Might I also remind you that I am an administrator, so I'd advise you cut the incivility towards me. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:28 UTC (2006-03-15)

Certainly, Aucaman saying, "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental" #User:Aucaman is a clear attack the last time I checked. Also, I`m not sure exactly how I was uncivil to you, and although you may very well be an admin, yet, that does not mean you or anyone else can abuse your privliges, just be aware of that please. Thank youZmmz 06:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate that that quote is a personal attack. "I don`t appreciate your patronizing tone" can be construed to be incivility, depending on who you ask. And I'm just reminding you that as an admin, I do not wish to see or hear about any incivility, especally against me. All admins are empowered by the community to use their powers when/if need be. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:37 UTC (2006-03-15)

Administrator or not, telling a user "English isn't likely your first language let me explain to you" in a patronizing manner, goes against Wikipedia etiquette. --ManiF 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a patronising manner. I believe that it is fair to assume that Farsi (would Persian be the right term?) is his first language. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:45 UTC (2006-03-15)

From my writing it is clear that I have complete command on the English language. Why would you assume that I speak Persian, or Dutch or anything else--since I have never talked about my nationality? Where does that come from? Thank you Zmmz 06:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should continue the language discussion off the admin noticeboard. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:59 UTC (2006-03-15)

Ah...that`s OK. I think it`s fair too say you assumed too much, but that`s fine.Zmmz 07:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also--that would be about 15 of such incivil behaviour documented so far. When was the last time I was incivil to any user in this site, or worse, personally attacked users here? The answer to that is never. So that should be some sort of indication about the history of I, as compared to user Aucaman. Zmmz 06:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I'm currently requesting a checkuser on the RFC signees. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:53 UTC (2006-03-15)

Your making this a bit one sided huh, aren`t you? What will that prove?Zmmz 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It will prove if any of the signees are sockpuppets. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:12 UTC (2006-03-15)

Hi NSLE. In case you didn't know, this whole conflict started when Aucaman got into a revert war with an anon over a dispute tag. Aucaman mainly disputes the fact that the word "Aryan" is used in the article. Weeks and a large archive of talk page comments later, Aucaman removed the word Aryan [16], something that was done against consensus. I myself tried to meditate the dispute but Aucaman has refused to compromise, and continues to push for the word Aryan to be removed from the article. We have all explained to him that it is not considered racist in Iran and India, but it looks like this dispute may take a lot longer than I thought to resolve. --Khoikhoi 08:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I have never personally attacked anyone here, however, recently on a page that I honestly thought was a nomination page for Aucaman as an admin, I wrote the following so others could be informed that the user may not be qualified as an admin--certainly not now--I wrote, I`m not sure if user User:Aucaman is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported as an abusive editor in Wikipedia[17].Zmmz 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[18]. If this has caused a problem, then in the intrest of civility, I apologize for that.Zmmz 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Freestyle.king (talk · contribs)

This user has returned after vowing to leave Wikipedia, and is again injecting POV and making personal attacks. As I've perhaps had too much interaction with him/her, I would appreciate it if someone else reviews the situation and take appropriate action. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

After the user continued to troll on my talk page and on his own user page (see history of that user page), I blocked him for a week. However, if someone reviewing the situation believes that it's not justified, please unblock. Again, I'd like it for someone else to look into the situation. --Nlu (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that Fk might be (or have a connection with) GrandCru, since both users have focused on China/Taiwan pages and both have made personal attacks against users who revert their edits. (This is my personal opinion; don't use this as a ground for indefinite blocking just yet.) --TML1988 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

Hi there my friends. can you please fix these npov paragraphs on hitler

"Despite this there have been instances of public figures referring to his legacy in neutral or even favourable terms, particularly in South America, the Islamic World and parts of Asia. Future Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.

The "despite this" is adding in a pov making it seem as if you can't have the two together, obviously again the writers opinon. putting the "even favorable" line is 100 percent pov, it implies that it is amazing that someone could like Hitler.

"While some Revisionist historians note Hitler's attempts to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and claim his tactics were in essence no different from those of many other leaders in history, his methods and legacy, as interpreted by most historians, have caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history."

According to who has his legacy caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history, we either need a source or remove it, the writers opinon doesn't count as a source.

Thanks admin people! 203.112.2.212 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This users contribution history should be reviewed. It is enlightening. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

This user seems to be spamming other users' talk pages with very general yet accusatory statements without much evidence to back them up. He posted this on my talk page and this on another user's. I'm also warned him against this kind of behavior before. He needs to be seriously warned, if not dealt with. Aucaman^Talk 20:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Warned per WP:NPA, mostly low level but undoubtedly personalising things. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

-Inanna- (talk · contribs)

I don't know much about any of these users, but the comment left here requires at least an explanation. I also found this on his talk page. Aucaman^Talk 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 48 hours for personal attacks and extreme incivility. Even after being warned on his talk page he has continued his hostility towards other editors as can be seen here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

William Morgan (anti-Mason)

I have a problem on this page. User:Imacomp placed a totallydisputed tag on the article and then fact tagged every line. I asked for an explanation of what he objected to and besides a fair amount of incivilities, the best I can figure out is that he wants every line footnoted. The article was clearly way undersourced besides a few links, but when I tried adding a reference he removed it without explanation and has since removed it three times. Morgan was a cause celebre in the 19th century so there are no shortage of possible references. But how am I supposed to source the article if I can't add references, remove the fact tags, or have any kind of coherent idea of what the real problem is? I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this. -- JJay 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes do take a good look. I'm not here to study either code, or Law. You decide, and inform MSJapan as he may be interested, as another editor. Thanks, and sorry if this is taking up your time. Imacomp 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a common way of operating for Imacomp. His use of the totallydisputed tag (see Anti-Masonry and Catholicism and Freemasonry) seems to be an objection to the subject matter rather than to the article itself. Try and get him to give specific charges. JASpencer 13:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ati3414 (talk · contribs)

User:Ati3414 was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR because he kept trying to add himself to the list of notable Romanian-Americans. I also took the time to remove all his other self-promotion such as spamming external links to his work all over relativity and physics pages. Immediately upon the ban being lifted, he has adding all his self promotion spam links back onto the pages. Despite many warning he seems unable to learn that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, and a ban seems to only have fueled his efforts. Since the ban lift this morning he has already added his self-promotion spam to:

• Atom interferometer
• Ring laser gyroscope
• Interferometry
• Sagnac effect
• Michelson-Morley experiment (he added three of his papers here)
• Electron interferometer
• Ives-Stilwell experiment
• Trouton-Rankine experiment
• Pound-Rebka experiment
• Speed of light (he added two of his papers here)
• Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis
• Faster-than-light
• Richard C. Tolman
• Emission theory (he added two of his papers here)
• Trouton-Noble experiment
• Mössbauer effect
• Herbert Dingle
• Transverse Doppler effect
• Time dilation (he added two of his papers here)
• Twin paradox
• Relativistic Doppler effect
• Mass in special relativity
• Pound-Rebka experiment

I and others have tried numerous time to explain to User:Ati3414 that Wikipedia is not for selfpromotion. Please do whatever you can to help rectify this situation. Gregory9 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of ip 69.124.123.9

69.124.123.9 has vandalized a page (Realism in international relations) 5 times after being warned, and I think this IP deserves a temporary block (Even though I think it is public)

Please bring these to WP:AIV for action. I'll give it a short block for now given the nature of the edits, but in the future please list them at WP:AIV. Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti

Banned user:Jack Sarfatti is back, and getting worked up. I blocked an IP he was using for 24 hours. 69.104.61.108 (talk · contribs). -Will Beback 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rattlerbrat

I blocked this user yesterday for personal attacks and incivility (see WP:AN#Rattlerbrat for background) and she's returned from the block with a fury. See her contribs from today; it's pointless for me to link diffs because every single edit has been troublesome. android79 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

With a fury indeed, I'll give her another 48 to calm down if there are no objections. Rx StrangeLove 05:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black indef blocked. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:57 UTC (2006-03-16)

Indeed I did.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And what a FINE job you did, Sean! I applaud you. FAREWELL, CRUEL INTARWEB!!!! - Jennifer (this comment was actually posted from the IP 81.168.162.201 -- Hbackman 07:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

What's {{Ring of Honor}} ? Is it some sort of a ring ... of honor? El_C 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 81.168.162.201 blocked as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that answers nothing. El_C 07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I solved the mystery! Template:Dallas Cowboys Ring of Honor. El_C 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she orginally named it Template:Ring of Honor but I had to rename it to be more specific, of course. BTW, I did have a feeling she was going to be trouble when she made this priceless comment to me about a week ago before all of these incidents with her: [19] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone

Just thought it should be known that User:Onefortyone has been engaging in disruptive behaviour (edit waring, citing poor sources as fact etc.) in articles: Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia and Elvis and Me; violating his probation in the process.--Choco 06:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Stifle 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The remedy is "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.", and I feel it has been violated in this case so I am banning him from those three articles for a month, renewable by request to me or any admin if the behaviour returns in the meantime. Please post again here if the ban is violated. Stifle 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. I have been banned for one month (!) from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia, and Elvis and Me "for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims." See [20]. I do not think that this was necessary. I have only discussed some newly discovered sources with other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See [21]. As for the other pages, I only reverted repeated edits by Ted Wilkes. Certainly this is part of a long edit war. His contribution to Elvis and Me includes false information. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See [22], [23] and [24]. I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], etc. For direct quotes from the book, see [31]. On the Memphis Mafia page, Wilkes is frequently deleting two external links to sites related to the Memphis Mafia arguing that these websites are "improper" and personal websites. See [32], [33], [34] etc. etc. It seems as if Wilkes does not like the content of these pages. Significantly, the two external links to websites he had inserted are also links to personal websites. Isn't this double standard? See also this comment by administrator Tony Sidaway [35] and Talk:Memphis Mafia. So I don't understand why an administrator has now blocked me for one month from these articles, especially since my opponent in the edit war is also on probation (see [36]) and there is much evidence that he is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack, etc., who was constantly gaming the system in the past. See [37]. Onefortyone 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Inspite of his ban User:Onefortyone is continuing to make edits on the talk page of Elvis Presley: [38], [39] Count Chocula 08:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Boromadloon

My first indefinite block as an admin, so I wanted to toss it up here for validation. This is a self-declared vandal account, with only vandalisms to it's name, including user page vandalism of the main vandal fighter who had been cleaning up after him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse - We also usually block users who put WoW/WiC-sock tags on their own userpages. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholics for a Free Choice and User:Cberlet

Ongoing edit war. Cberlet insists on placing the totallydisputed tag even though he has been shown that his claims that a statement is factually incorrect are without merit. He has been shown the right tag to use but refuses. He is violating WP:FAITH and WP:POINT to insist on his points of view to remove one statement. He claims the entire article is biased yet refuses to do anything except remove the actually correct criticisms. Request page protection and user education. -- Jbamb 15:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No edit war, just a content disagreement, in which Jbamb seems to think he is the teacher slapping the wrist of a slow student. Entire characterisation above is false. I have posted numerous comments and made numerous edits. I am using the proper tag, and posted a request for comments on the proper page.--Cberlet 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)

I just reported this user yesterday for spamming some users' talk pages with baseless accusatory comments. He received two warnings to stop personally attacking other users (here and here). And now today he's made yet another out-of-context, irrelevant accusatory comment in a discussion he's not even participating in. Frankly, I'm tired of putting up with his constant out-of-context accusatory comments (more examples can be found here). Whatever happened to the good-old Wikipedia saying, "Comment on content, not contributor"? The fact that he was just warned about personally attacking other users yesterday (not just once, but twice) and he still makes a personal attack today says that he's not taking the warnings seriously enough. I ask fot at least a short-term block to let him go over some of the things he's been saying before making more accusations.

Right after User:69.196.139.250 has made his comments, User:Zmmz (who was also not participating in the talks) uses the opportunity to make a series of new personal attacks. This results in an unwanted discussion which further disrupts the previous train of thought and discussions. I want User:Zmmz warned against making such personal attacks on article talk pages.

It would also be nice if someone can go in there and remove the personal attacks - so that we can carry on with the relevant discussions. As of right now the talk is simply dead and this is exactly what the attackers wanted.

Update: He has left yet another accusatory comment on my talk page. Aucaman^Talk 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for being blatantly attacking and hostile towards other editors. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman what is wrong now? Why are you dragging my name into this without even letting me know, so I could respond properly? You already reported me here, yet, you were ignored by admins[40]. Why do you have problems with so many people in this site? You keep reporting people frivolously, most of the time for invalid reasons and grudges, and annoy the admins[41]. However, I see here in this case you goaded this user to lose his cool and attack you, which he shouldn`t have done. But, when did [I] ever attack you, and why don`t you provide some diffs if you accuse me of attacking you? You can’t keep doing this all the time, and have the good intentioned admins turn on some editors here. There are at least two Rfcs set-up against you[42][43] , and a pending ArbCom case. Please stop throwing my name around for now.Zmmz 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not having a discussion about this. Leave it up to the admins to decide. I've already explained what you've done wrong. You were not participating in the talks but used the opportunity not to talk about discussions we were having but to personally attack me. If you want diffs, I'm talking about this comment and this comment. Saying that I've beeen "hidding under the protecting umbrella of being a neutral user" and saying I'm "being unreasonable in order to push a POV" are accusatory statements that have no place on Wikipedia talk pages (where article's contents are supposed to be discussed). This user needs to be given a serious warning (on his talk page) and asked to stop posting baseless accusatory comments on article talk pages AND user talk pages (as he constantly spams new user talk pages accusing me of having Zionist reasons for my actions among other things). Aucaman^Talk 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That was highly innapropriate, and I've given Zmmz a strong warning, and pointed him in the direction of Wikipedia:Harassment. This flamewar needs to end and it needs to end soon. For any admins just joining us, a group of opposite minded middle-eastern users have been having it out like this for some time now. It went from content dispute, to personal attacks, and is now a subtle war of harrassment, with both sides trying to get the others blocked (which, unfortunatly, seems to be the way this will end up). --InShaneee 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, those are no personal attacks, as any reasonable admin will attest to that; secondly, those have nothing to do with your recent grievences with user with the IP address 69... . At any rate, my comments were mere observations made after seeing 20 others editors are ready to sign a complaint against you, and after noticing you relentlessly try to equate the country of Persia to Nazism. On the other hand, you have a history of always complaining, trying to game the system, and in a strange way try to bully others. This has no place in an encyclopedia, and a history of your profanity laced personal attack, and incivility can be viewed here[44].Zmmz 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you both need a hug. Chill out, relax, and love a brotha. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Recommend temporary block for User:208.31.155.254 as user(s) have been repeated warned today. - CobaltBlueTony 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

48 hrs. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Rhode Island

At some point, someone embedded a spam link into the flag link. An anon tried to remove the spam link, but left the link in an unusable state. Since I am thoroughly clueless as to image links, can someone fix it? --Nlu (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed. Mark^{your words} 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands continued

Several users Astrotrain (talk · contribs) Gibnews (talk · contribs) TharkunColl (talk · contribs) with strong political motivations keep on insisting to remove the commonly used Spanish name Islas Malvinas from the firt sentence with as argument that the Falklanders are offended by the name. As an alternative, it has to be make explicitly clear in that first sentence that it is not the official name of the islands, or that the name is linked to the occupation by the Argentinians (As if the name is only used in that cointext). Astrotrain (talk · contribs) has now inserted the {{POV}} tag [45] to make his/her point which I think is a violation of WP:POINT. KimvdLinde 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

My user page was just vandalised by 67.165.85.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who checkuser has previously shown is an address used by currently blocked user Young Zaphod, who has done such things on other pages with some of his other socks before. Note that this is someone who I've been in a bit of a content dispute with on NiMUD and Online creation. If someone would look into this and take whatever actions are appropriate, I'd be obliged. Thanks. Ehheh 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker commiting serial offences within 12 hours of being unblocked

I logged all of Deathrock's offences on a page from my user page, so only myself and Admins can edit it. The link is here, [46]. I urge yew to look into this matter immediatly. Ley Shade 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

After only minutes from returning after a lengthy 42 hour ban, User:Leyasu who is currently under a revert parole from Arbcom, limited to 1 content revert per day (see [47]).

Well exceded that and the terms of parole, in content disputes on pages, going against concencus, maybe its time to pull the plug? Can we get an admin to look at this.

Gothic Metal: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

all reverts - Deathrocker 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker misintprets users User:Spearhead, User:WesleyDodds, User:Sceptre, and several anons, and the Wikiproject Metal, as being consensus in his favour. The user has also violated WP:CITE by refusing to supply sources, and then removing information with sources from articles because 'he dislikes Gothic metal'.

All this behabiour, and other violations such as the Vandalisng of admin pages and claims of 3RR not applying to him are documented Here. Ley Shade 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit in favour or out of favour, when I edit articles I try to make them NPOV. Something which you have no interest in doing.

It is however quite touching, although some what pyschopathic, that you have dedicated an entire section of your user page to me. You make up complete lies, claiming quotes that I have never said, the only quote regarding my like or dislike for Gothic Metal is "I actually like some Gothic Metal bands".... you delete reliable sources from pages and claim message board posts as validation for your ludicrus claims.

However, this is about you... and your totally lack of respect for parole, which you violate within minutes of returning. - Deathrocker 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If yew are in favour of NPOV, then why keep making comments that your POV superseeds everyone's, and that sources dont count unless they agree with you?

Sources are sources, per WP:CITE, yew cannot decide a source is reliable simply because the other 8 sources dont agree with you. And its ironic, that within 12 hours of being unblocked by Admin WooWhoKitty, yew reverted other editors on the Moi Dix Mois article over 30 times. Also reverting users on the Selling Out article over 10, and users on the Gothic Metal article 20 times. Thats a bit disrespectfull of WP:3RR.

Its also ironic that yew make claims that the policys dont apply to yew, seemingly thinking that its ok for yew to violate the policys whenever you want. Yes ive violated Parole, i know this, and i will admit to it openly. But alas, youve been warned now by FOUR different admins to discontinue, and have been banned a far greater number of times than me for POV pushing.

Its also funny to note how yew delete every and all messages and warnings from Admins from your Talk Page, in violation of yet another Wikipedia policy. But then again, according to your claims, policys dont apply to you, so i guess its ok. Ley Shade 23:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker has been blocked for 3RR, and Leyasu for Arbcom violation. I've noticed that Deathrocker is calling Leyasu a vandal (even on this page!) recently for any of his/her edits on the subject (3RR is more likely disputing instead of vandalism). Both are blocked until Monday evening, as I've dealt with these before. I'm also putting up a Request for Comment for the two Sceptre ^(Talk) 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

High Traffic Reference to Project Entropia

Our article on Project Entropia has been relatively stable until recently. Then this thresad appeared in the Project Entropia forums. The gist is that someone has a theory that the Project Entropia MMORPG system, which allows conversion between game dollars and real-world dollars, is analagous to a casino, and therefore is illegal due to US laws against on-line or over-phone-line gambling. It's basically a content dispute, but the extra traffic from non-regular Wikipedia contributors is having an impact. One of the editors has a username which is the same as a person involved with Project Entropia. Anyone who has time to help do a little mediation/education with these new users is very welcome. Johntex\^talk 23:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

82.15.17.152 (talk · contribs): Sockpuppets as well as countless other violations

Originally posted unsigned and undated by User:Hamsacharya dan

• TroyVaughn (talk · contribs) -- first edit: 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) -- first edit: 01:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• 82.15.17.152 (talk · contribs) -- first edit: 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed action to be taken based on list of evidence: Perma-Ban flat-out

Current violation list:

CONFIRMED sockpuppeting:

• WP:RCU

ABUSE of sockpuppets (e.g. vote/consensus stacking, disguised 3RR violations)

[53], [54]

• Many of the below diffs can go in this category also, as there were numerous instances of switching usernames within short periods to make edits while avoiding 3RR violations, etc..

HISTORY of personal attacks/MAKING threats

[55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] [65] (see diffs post-line427), [66], [67], [68], [69](see last diff paragraph), [70] [71] - see tag phrase, [72], [73] - see last diff pg, esp. last 2 sentences, [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]

VANDALISM - obvious; also reverted edits agreed upon by Sysop Mediation (More Complex vandalism can be inferred from many diffs in POLLUTING & DELETING/DISTORTING sections below):

[88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103],

DISPLAYING personal/private information about "rival" editors in talk pages:

[104], [105] - see tag phrase, [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111],

CLAIMING another non-sysop user is a sysop:

[112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]

• NOTICE he doesn't tell Priyanath that Adityanath is a sysop, because Priyanath already knows who is who: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Priyanath&diff=prev&oldid=43212370
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoToFrauds&diff=prev&oldid=43236698 - Some Maltese-Falconesque comment reflecting collusion
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoToFrauds&diff=prev&oldid=43210795 - another cryptic message that was hidden later

DELETING user talk page entries/resetting user IDs to hide blocks/warnings/inflammatory] remarks:,

[118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161]

POLLUTING articles with unverifiable claims/original research:

[162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168],

DELETING/DISTORTING legitimate edits that contradict the editors POV/DELETING requests for mediation/action:

[169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194]

OTHER INCIVILITY:

[195]

Old news. Fruds has already been indefinately blocked for a host of issues adn then for evading the last block and, due to the checkuser results, I've doen the same for the socks.Gator (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Syrthiss

WHERE IS YOUR REPLY???

Hello, I have also been blocked. I work here and me and the other secretaries edit the clive bull article and the Iain lee one. This wiki stuff is getting stupid because they don't understand most companies have one email address. Joanne was blocked by this guy on Wednesday and none of us could edit. She put a comment on a discussion page saying she preferred the old version of clive bull and was banned for being a sockpuppet. Is there an offical place to complain, we work for a tv station so that might make them sort this situation out.160.83.32.14 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

this ia an official complaint, please respond to this thread as we have an issue that was not discussed in the link from Syrthiss. We are requesting a remove of the block and a reply to our specific request. it is fair and wiki policy to reply to our comments not just provide a link to tell us we are blocked because he thinks we are one person 84.13.84.22 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)84.13.84.22

3 contributers to Clive Bull and fans of his program work in the same organisation and we like to edit wiki while we are working. Especially Clive Bull as it is close to our hearts. Is that a crime? Two of my work collegues were banned from wiki simply because they said they didn't like the changes at the clive bull site. Apparently because they all inputted their independant comments at the same time they were banned. That is very unfair. So you just block people on a bandwagon??? How do we make an official complaint? Editors should have been more throurough before banning everyone.

We received this reply from Syrthiss " I can say with confidence that if your coworkers registered new accounts and contributed positively to wikipedia (ie don't all edit Clive Bull with a remarkably similar style concurrently) that they would be welcomed." He doesn't listen to Clive Bull's program at all yet bans people. A week ago Clive mentioned that he might be gay on air and had a poll from his listeners. He made the comment as a joke but a lot of listeners took it seriously. We LISTEN to the program everyday and have a right to contribute to wiki. If you actually listened to the program you would understand that out posts were not hoaxed but justified. A similar thing happened with Iain Lee recently too. 160.83.73.14 09:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, where are you from? We have been banned too - this guy is just crazy! He is banning everone that disagrees with him!! Can someone please help out all the fans of clive that are getting banned because they are voicing their opinions!!84.13.84.22 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

... --Syrthiss 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

==we expect a response to our messages, not a link. Debbie was banned for putting something in a discussion page. there is no explanation. ==160.83.32.14

==we expect a response to our messages, not a link. Debbie was banned for putting something in a discussion page. there is no explanation. ==160.83.32.14

Perhaps if you explain your vandalism[196] of the Gibraltar article half an hour ago, whoever blocked 'Debbie' will explain their actiona too? 81.178.78.149 14:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to follow us like a bad smell, 6000 use this ip address so I can't be responsible for all of them. Do you actually have a life? Also this is referring to 4 other ip addresses that were banned because they have people who work for companies and they are all being labled sockpuppets. Are you a sock puppet for Syrthiss?

Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned user DW

To my mind, multiple hardbanned User:NightCrawler alias User:JillandJack alias User:DW is certainly identical with Ted Wilkes. For facts supporting this view, see also [197]. Here is a debunking edit by NightCrawler:

PLEASE NOTE: I, NightCrawler, have never attacked anybody at Wikipedia, the record of contributions will show hard work creating quality non-copyright violated articles to the best of abilities and go about fixing numerous links, inserting full birth/death dates when only a year is listed and then posting that info to the “year” page. Nightcrawler never interferes in others work, ever. However, while NightCrawler never has and never will attack anybody, this User most certainly will respond forcefully to an attack on me through lies, innuendo or other conduct unacceptable to Wikipedia policy. Thank you for showing respect to ALL Wikipedia users.

See [198]. This is remarkably near to expressions frequently used by Ted Wilkes in defense of his own misbehavior:

1. Note that User:Ted Wilkes never inserted statements from less that unimpeachable sources that in fact contradicted these statements by the Crime Magazine personal website etc. Instead, I put them on the Talk page with detailed rebuttal that was ignored by Onefortyone. See [199].
2. I am the one who requested this page be protected. For the record, I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER. Before making such a statement, it is best to check the facts. See [200].
3. NOTE: "to engage in prostitution" is TENTH in Webster's order of definition but again, Guralnick never once used the word in that context – ever. See [201]

Furthermore, both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes contributed to the List of Canadian musicians and to the List of people who died in road accidents. See [202] and [203]. Both JillandJack and Ted Wilkes are interested in the history of motor racing. See [204], [205], [206], [207] and [208], etc.

In the past, DW, NightCrawler and JillandJack also contributed to the Bugatti article. See [209]. In addition, DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack and User:Karl Schalike contributed to the List of Quebecers. See [210]. Finally, both Karl Schalike and JillandJack contributed to the List of racing drivers. See [211].

I think, this is evidence enough that DW, NightCrawler, JillandJack (and probably Karl Schalike) are identical with Ted Wilkes, especially in view of the fact that they are all logging in from Canada.

The case of Karl Schalike is somewhat different and confusing though, as he made edits in support of the view that Adolf Hitler may have been homosexual. Ted Wilkes, on the other hand, is frequently deleting contributions which prove that some celebrity stars may have been gay. However, between 29 March 2005 and 2 February 2006, there were only three Wikipedia contributions by Karl Schalike, two of which were significantly made in defense of Ted Wilkes: [212] and [213]. Furthermore, this edit by Karl Schalike is certainly an allusion to, if not a parody of, my own contribution here. If Karl Schalike is indeed identical with Ted Wilkes, then it is quite obvious that this user endeavours to game the system by poking fun at serious topics.

In my opinion, it is high time to hardban Ted Wilkes alias DW for all of his system-disrupting activities. Onefortyone 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note: It is WAY TOO LATE for Checkuser at this point, since DW and many of the original sockpuppets lasted edited YEARS ago. --TML1988 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Karl Schalike and Danny B. (usurped), two other supposed aliases of Ted Wilkes? It is very interesting that a relatively new user has deleted exactly those passages from the Nick Adams article which support the view that Adams had homosexual leanings and reverted the Elvis and Me article to exactly the version preferred by Ted Wilkes. Could it be that User:Danny B. (usurped) is related to, or identical with, Ted Wilkes? See [214] and [215]. It is certainly no coincidence that both Danny B. (usurped) and Ted Wilkes contributed to the following Wikipedia articles: [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], etc. Their editing interests are very similar, if not identical. Onefortyone 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser may still be practical. Naturally a checkuser on Ted Wilkes will recover his IP. Angelique, Nightcrawler and the other puppets were all identified by manual checks done by developers (essentially ur-checkuser), and I suspect details of that (the names of the specific ISPs involved) will be in the various talk pages regarding each sock (or perhaps user:Tim Starling and user:Angela, who were involved with said checking will remember). Off the top of my head I seem to remember DW being located in the Great Lakes area of Canada (although I could be entirely wrong on that one). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can also remember that DW is located in the Great Lakes area of Canada. I think this information comes from User:Angela who had much experience with DW in the past. Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See [225], [226], [227], [228] and [229]. It should be noted, too, that administrator Jtdirl also thinks that "there is a widespread rumour that Wilkes is our old pal DW. The edits are the same: find one topic and flog it to death by writing every conceivable article about it. Wilkes's big issue is actors. Like DW sports (horse racing) seems a thing with him. If it is clearly established that he is DW he will be banned permanently instantly like all his other sockpuppets and trolls." See [230]. Onefortyone 21:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It could well be that User:Mayumashu is also identical with Ted Wilkes and DW. He removes what he calls "apparent vandalism of cat links", as Ted Wilkes does. Both have a predilection for starting new Wikipedia categories and are interested in sports. Further, Mayumashu is deeply interested in Canadian personalities, for instance, in the "Category:Pre-Confederation Ontario people" or the "Category:Quebecers (city)". Their editing interests are very similar. JillandJack and/or Ted Wilkes and Mayumashu have contributed to the William Lauder (contractor), the John William Dawson, the Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet, the Jack Pickford, the Doug Rogers, the Joseph E. Seagram, the Matt Stairs, the Joseph Howe, the Bobby Orr articles and the List of famous duels, etc. See [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240]. Onefortyone 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have recently been going through the images uploaded by User:JillandJack, and I do notice a number of similarities between them and those uploaded by User:Ted Wilkes. Both have the (bad) habit of not providing sources for images they deem to be in the public domain, e.g. Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:LoisWeber.jpg (Ted Wilkes). Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g. Image:NikideSaintPhalle.jpg (JillandJack) and Image:Noah-beery-jr.jpg. Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source URL: Image:BFbryant.jpg. This was another habit of JillandJack--I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. I find it quite plausible that this is another DW clone. Chick Bowen 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO User:Chick Bowen:

Just for the record. Sometimes even very high-volume, quality contributors forget to post the source for images. Wikipedia:Civility says we politely ask them for it. However, the tone and content of the above remarks by Chick Bowen makes it appear that he is on a mission to denigrate my contributions. I certainly hope not. Some of his comments show a lack of understanding of both the Internet, Wikipedia, and U.S. copyright laws. As an example: Image:WilliamCMacDonald.jpg (JillandJack) – He misled readers on this. The uploader (JillandJack) did not label this image as PD, they labeled it US-PD. A very significant, and I might add, most basic difference. Unless officials pickled the gentleman's body for six years then propped him up for a photo in 1923, then when someone dies prior to 1923, any photo taken of them and published in the U.S. is automatically US-PD. In case Chick Bowen is not aware, the Wiki program automatically links to the article where the image was posted so if one uses their mouse and clicks on it they can see that the 19th century image is of a Canadian/American businessman named MacDonald who departed this earth in 1917. Simply explained, when you are dead prior to 1923, you are dead. Chick Bowen's arbitrary removal of that image demonstrates a lack of knowledge on very basic copyright matters, but worse it shows he takes such action without having studied the issue so as to act based on knowledge, rather than unqualified and unfounded assumptions.

Next, Chick Bowen's stated: "Both often cite image sources without the http: prefix and with a space in the middle of the URL, e.g." I'm not the only thoughtful editor who does this type of valid sourcing. Google deliberately creates this format and copying the Google label avoids excessive linking on Wikipedia pages. Excessive linking has been talked about many times, most recently with respect to dates in biographies etc.

Next, Chick Bowen's quote that "Ted Wilkes also often uploads images with an ellipsis in the middle of the source". This reality applies to thousands of Wikipedia images as at one time the magic ellipsis was automatically generated in place of all blanks by the Wikipedia upload program.

Finally, Chick Bowen stated: "I've deleted all of these that I've come across, since they effectively had no source, but I'd be happy to find an example if requested. " - How does an image effectively have No source? I think we need to follow Wikipedia policy, not create it ad hoc.

A brief look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page shows Chick Bowen has had a lot to say on a lot of things. It is certainly commendable that he also has made sixty (60) new articles in the 8½ months he has been here. Nonetheless, I'm going to suggest that Chick Bowen might wish to refrain from impugning a fellow Wikipedia editor and with no certification in copyright law he should refrain from deleting images based on that demonstrated lack of knowledge. I cannot speak for the Wikipedia uploader (JillandJack) that Chick Bowen refers to, but ALL of my image uploads were made in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. However, if out of my 18,888 quality edits at Wikipedia and my 677 new articles made within the past 12½ months, I occasionally forgot to paste the source, as I said at the start, all one has to do is use Wikipedia:Civility and ask for clarification. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of JillandJack's uploads can be speedily deleted under our policy, since JillandJack is a reincarnation of a hard-banned user--I've kept the ones that had clear sources out of courtesy, but I see no reason to keep ones that don't have clear sources, regardless of the content of the image. As for you--I've stated what I observed and you've stated your response. Ultimately, it's not up to me to determine, which is why, as you've noticed, you're not currently blocked. Chick Bowen 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

DW was apparently from Elliott Lake in Northern Ontario, if that helps. I think we had an understanding with DW that if he came back, stopped uploading copyrighted images, and stopped being a troll (as he was as Angelique and JillandJack), and generally edited in such a way that it was not obviously him, he would be allowed to stay. Whatever the problem is here, it doesn't seem that Ted Wilkes should be banned simply for being DW (if he is). Adam Bishop 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has banned user DW and his many sockpuppets indefinitely. See Wikipedia:List of banned users. When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account, according to Wikipedia policy, can likewise be blocked. See [241]. It should also be taken into account that Wilkes already made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling and was blocked for one week. See [242] and [243]. He has again been temporarily blocked for breaches of WP:Point including posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling, edit warring, accusations of lying against multiple users (including calling one user a "convicted liar" and other misbehaviours). See [244]. This means that he will continue gaming the system if nobody puts a stop to this. Onefortyone 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Ted Wilkes is indeed uploading copyrighted images with incomplete sources, just as DW and JillandJack did. Chick Bowen 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, here is an image that was uploaded by JillandJack.

This one and this one were uploaded by Ted Wilkes. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have extended Ted Wilkes's block for another 48 hours while we work this out. Chick Bowen 03:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some additional information. Ted Wilkes repeatedly called me an "Arbcom-convicted liar". See [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], etc., though he was informed by administrator FCYTravis that "Onefortyone has not been convicted of any crime. An ArbCom ruling is not a finding of fact in a court of law. For someone who has such a fetish for libel laws, you, of all people, should know that. I'd suggest you remove the 'convicted' bit." See [250]. He is still showing a lack of insight and will continue his personal attacks, as he did in the past. It should also be noted that Wilkes repeatedly endeavored to swamp the Wikipedia article on Nick Adams with expressions such as "gossip book" or "discredited gossip writer", "not supported by any evidence", "alleged", "all unsubtantiated claims ... possibly repeated one from another" etc. in order to denigrate sources he doesn't like. See [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257]. It seems as if he wishes to suppress independent sources which are not in line with his personal view. Therefore, he frequently accuses other users of vandalism, of fabricating texts, etc., if their contributions are not in line with his personal opinion. In fact, he himself is fabricating texts. For example, original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See [258], [259] and [260]. I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See [261], [262], [263], [264]. For direct quotes from the book, see [265]. His kind of misbehavior is very similar to that by DW and his aliases. Significantly, Danny B. (usurped), who also reverted the Elvis and Me page to the version Ted Wilkes preferred (see [266]), has now accused me of having vandalized his user page (see below). Is it just mere coincidence that Ted Wilkes is frequently accusing his opponents of being vandals? See, for instance, [267]. See also his Block log. Onefortyone 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take note that User:Onefortyone has vandalized [268] my User page. Danny B. (usurped) 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person. Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A few blocks handed out related to Ian Lee and Clive Bull

I just blocked User:. Westminsterboy as a possible imposter account of User:Westminsterboy. Related to this, I indefblocked ._JamieHughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) primarily because he was moving around User:Arniep's accusations that . Westminsterboy was an imposter on Talk:Ian Lee and because his username was similar to User:JamieHughes...whose talkpage has a warning about vandalism to Margaret Thatcher from me and who was also contributing to the Ian Lee discussions.

If another admin could review some of the contributions of ._JamieHughes and see if my block is reasonable I'd appreciate it. I don't mind any shortening of the block if you feel it is justified. Thanks! --Syrthiss 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These impersonators should be indef-blocked, without question. I just got back from removing the 'actually I think Iain Lee really is gay' comments entirely (which is what the accounts were set up to do), replacing them with '(impersonator comment removed)'. The rest of the impersonators' comments I left up, but annotated with notices to the effect they were impersonators. Further oversight of Talk:Iain Lee and any other LBC-related articles would be appreciated. LBC seems to be a magnet for Wikipedia vandalism, not least because at least one DJ has encouraged listeners to vandalise Wikipedia - a spree of vandalism at Weetabix Minis, which at the time was a stub and not a redirect, was apparently at the behest of DJ James O'Brien. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also find it an odd coincidence that the Zoewhatever user disappeared right after I blocked . Westminsterboy and . JamieHughes. --Syrthiss 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Um? Zoewhatever user? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked ZoeCroydon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not you. Unless you're another impersonator, who cunningly registered years before, made lots of edits and gained adminship just to make the impersonation more plausible. *glares* --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well of course I'm just a vandal, as lots of people tell me on my Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel confident enough to say without reservation that the 'Iain Lee is gay' claim is complete bollocks, and the various IPs and accounts claiming that he is are, if not sockpuppets (or whatever the equivalent of a sockpuppet for an IP is - shadowpuppets?), at the very least meatpuppets. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, imo some kind of puppetry... Lack of understanding of how wikipedia works ("10 users say its so! PUT IT BACK IN YOU HOMOPHOBES!1!!!"), and lack of reliable sources. :) --Syrthiss 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if y'all want to lift the protect and/or make it into an sprotect, I won't object. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that since its in full protection already per you, lets leave it for a couple days and see if the socks have gone home. --Syrthiss 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I stuck {{indefblockeduser}} on User:. JamieHughes and User:. Westminsterboy. Just checking that this was the right thing to do? Syrthiss' block summary of the JamieHughes impersonator said "indef block pending investigation of sockpuppetry and hoaxing", but despite the word 'pending' I can't possibly see how we'd allow this blatant impersonator account to edit Wikipedia again. If any admins are in doubt, here are the diffs: JamieHughes Westminsterboy--Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The pending was in case someone here said "OMGWTFBBQ", but nobody has. I was trying to keep a small amount of good faith that . JamieHughes was just JamieHughes who forgot his login information when I made the block. Since nobody objected, they'll remain indefblocked...tho I thought I had dumped at least a username block template on . Westminsterboy. --Syrthiss 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, socky goodness. Has someone visited WP:RCU? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

CU reports . JamieHughes and the rest are the same editor, and the Iain Lee cutnpaste vandals are the same editor (tho the two may not be connected). --Syrthiss 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

These are about 7 users from different companies. Please unblock 84.13.84.22 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I am torn over this one, but I am wondering if this an appropriate user name or if it too closely related to Fuck. Judging by the vandal like contributons of this editor, I am really wondering if the choice in name is in good faith. Either, way, would an admin give their opinion on this one? Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I know of someone with the last name of Fecke; it's a perfectly reasonable username, IMO. (BTW, which contributions are you talking about? I get an empty list.) android79 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At least one speedied article, I'm guessing from the message on the talk page. --Syrthiss 20:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All of his contributons have been deleted because he/she just kept on creating the same attack page. That was why I began to wonder, but AGF likely applies here. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Feck is used in some countries as a milder version of fuck, but I would also WP:AGF until proven otherwise. Stifle 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially in the BBC's Father Ted. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If we get rid of him, we can be fairly said to be feckless. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Yahoo's people finder, there are at least 186 people in the US with the last name "Feck".[269] That obviously doesn't include other countries, or names for which "Feck" could be a diminutive... I'd let the account stand for now, until there's a clearer reason to block. -Colin Kimbrell 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam blacklist?

[270] Yikes. This person's adding tremendous amounts of adult linkspam. If I knew how to deal with the spam blacklist I'd do it myself. Anybody? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that's one darn bored person. I'm afraid this doesn't answer your question though... —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Only meta admins can place sites on the m:Spam blacklist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

Aha. I'll leave a message for Raul; the guy's blocked for the moment. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we need Wikipedia:Request for Spam Blacklisting, although it would, of course, be abused for minor cases and petty vendettas. (Not that *this* case is such, just that such a page would end up that way.) As it stands, anyone can request addition on the talk page of the blacklist, m:Talk:Spam blacklist and one of us will get to it eventually. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Seanver, User:Blisz, User:George McFinnigan and User:George McFinnigan ie

There seems to be some sort of series of personal attack from the first three users aimed at the last one. I noticed it when closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blisz, although I cannot speak any spanish so I can't get to the bottom of it. However, User:Seanver blanked the mfd in question, [271], and a quick flick through his contributions, the majority of which are to the user space, turns up [272], [273], [274], [275], [276]. I'm figuring a ban, but want to run it by people here, to get a gen on what the Spanish means. Hiding talk 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently, it seems a few users from the Spanish Wikipedia are trying to uncover George McFinnigan's identity as Spanish, instead of Irish, to justify a POV war. It's simple attack page spam, which includes everything from IP edits in ru.wiki to whoises on entire ranges, to "prove" that he is from Spain. Apparently, they don't know about a proxy server, so their "analysis" doesn't prove anything. A ban was certainly warranted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Tracysurf (talk · contribs)

This user put in images with spammy/advocacy edit summaries. As I am not sufficiently familiar with surfing, I am not sure whether the edits/uploads are spam, so I'd appreciate if someone else look into it. (I did warn him/her about replacing Chris Burke (currently a disambiguation page) with questionable nearly-empty biography of surfer.) --Nlu (talk)

User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:SPUI 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 04:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not unblock. He is edit warring, see Med Cabal (link coming) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, SPUI was snagged by the bot on several occasions before this. However, I will not unblock. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already been unblocked - the bot is meant for permablocking page-move vandalizers, and any false positives are worrisome as an assumption of bad faith. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User SPUI is always blocked by a bot (page moves), you call this entertainment? I want him to dance for us, at the very least. El_C 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, while I think that Crups is doing a good thing for the project, but if you have been snagged by the bot a lot, then what I can suggest is to slow the page moving down by just a little notch. Please? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially when his moves are not consensused or w/o controversy.JohnnyBGood 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

About the road stuff? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of 81.178.78.149

One of this friends completly changed the Clive bull article. Honestly the new changes do not flow well compared to the original version. He has broken the 'in good faith rule' by saying that everyone that disagrees with him ( from at least 4 different ip's in 2 different countries) is the same person.It is not fair to stifle debate on an article like this and I am sure the 'good faith' clause covers this. Could you please ban this fellow for a day or two so that newbies can make comments without being called sickpuppets. DebbieatCNBC 09:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

He follows us everywhere where we post on wiki (other than being sad) it is like stalking?? 160.83.73.14 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock of User:Dick Witham

After talking with User:Chadbryant and User:FARVA, I have locked the "suspected sock" tag on User:FARVA's userpage, pending a check-user (which has already been requested by Chadbryant) to check whether farva is a sock of banned user Dick Witham. For more information, see Farva's talk page, Chadbryant's talk page, the link from the suspected sock tag on Farva's user page, and, to a lesser extent, my own talk page, to see the evidence that led me to believe that at least some suspicion of sockery is warranted. JDoorjam Talk 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Users Jonny Quest, Johnny Dumbledore, Johnny 2999

On talk pages User_Talk:Johnny Quest User_Talk:Johnny Dumbledore and User_Talk:Johnny 2999 they are labeling themselves as every sockpuppetteer at once, multible times. I found this through watching a particular sockpuppet.

Evidence:

[277] - Johnny 2999, reverted by Curps

[278] - Johnny Dumbledore, reverted by me.

[279] - Johnny Quest, not yet reverted.

I believe they are all the same person. I don't know who. Thank you. Harvestdancer 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And one more user. User talk:Canderous Ordo

[280]

Thank you. Harvestdancer 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And three more just discovered.

[281]

User talk:82.61.57.135 - edit description indicated that the vandal is Mexican G.

[282]

User talk:68.39.174.238.. - this is NOT and IP address, it is a user name. Notice the two dots after 238.

[283]]

Thank you. Harvestdancer 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of them (2999, Quest, and 68.. (with the extra dot)) blocked indef by me, Ualeualue blocked by Curps. All seem to be Johnny the Vandal. I left Dumbledore unblocked as well as the ip, but I won't scream if someone wanted to block them. I'm also going to update the Johnny the Vandal page on WP:LTV. --Syrthiss 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

Bitola (talk · contribs · block log) who is currently blocked for violating the 3RR, just evaded the block [284]. I don't think the edit he made was trollish or unconstructive and I don't know what's done in such circumstances. --Latinus 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that leaving a note in the talk page and signing it is a block evasion, but I will know that from now. Do what you have to do. Bitola

I don't think any action is required here. Jkelly 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a block evasion. A block still allows a user to edit their user talk page, so as to provide some means of communication. Mo0[talk] 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The edit was to Talk:Bitola not User talk:Bitola. Jkelly 21:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/I

Vandalism Report

You might want to check the user with IP 207.63.188.29` activities here[285][286]; this might be a case that cries-out for an indefinite block. Zmmz 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User JohnnyBGood has been blocked by a human (page moves)

But only for 24 hours... This was in furtherance of a revert war with SPUI over the naming of roadcruft. I also have reason to believe JohnnyBGood is a sockpuppet of another user for the purposes of tag-teaming him. I'm tired of seeing this shit, and it ought to stop. — Mar. 17, '06 [22:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I think you need to post this on Wikipedia:Bots' noticeboard so that they can check with the bot that runs the human. -Splash^talk 22:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking. If SPUI can get unblocked, JohnnyBGood can be unblocked. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI's not a sockpuppet. — Mar. 18, '06 [02:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

JohnnyBGood is not one either. Read the discussion (I think it got archived, but basically where a CheckUser was done and came up blank). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Mademoiselle Sabina

On 16 March 2006 I made some minor copy-edits on Tasha Schwikert, including changing "alternate" to "alternative".

Mademoiselle Sabina (talk • contribs • Sabina page moves • block user • Sabina block log) changed "alternative" to "revert" in this edit, with the edit summary: ("'Alternate' is a noun describing a reserve athlete; 'alternative' is an adjective and is inappropriate here. I've changed it to reserve.")

I responded to the edit and the edit summary by leaving a message on her Talk page: "'Alternative' is both a noun and an adjective; 'reserve' is fine, though."[287]. I thought that was a neutral-to-friendly response, and expected the issue to rest there.

In fact Mademoiselle Sabina responded on my Talk page with the following rather hostile message:

"As a professional writer and a native speaker of English, I am well aware of the fact that "alternative" is a noun and adjective. For what it's worth, "alternate" is a term that is completely appropriate and common in American English as a term for a reserve athlete. It was used correctly and didn't need to be changed in the first place. A quick look through Wikipedia reveals that it is used on many athlete pages in various sports. I'm ending this discussion here, because I really do not wish to continue it."[288]

She has since become increasingly hysterical, launching rather thinly veiled personal attacks against me on her Talk page, leaving accusations all over the place (e.g., Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, calling User talk:Mel Etitis/Mademoiselle Sabina an "attack page" (I created it in order to make clear to another editor what had really happened, as her accusations of personal attacks made it look as though I'd behaved appallingly), and now apparently trying to get it deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mel Etitis/Mademoiselle Sabina (though without letting me know). The case is so clear that I'm in no fear of anyone taking her seriously once they've looked at what happened, but for her own sake it would be good if someone with a good bedside manner could get her to calm down. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Is this user ThoMas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpupprt of Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is blocked because of 3RR? User appears, and starts immediatly posting within context of the Wikipedia:Wikiethics, and appears to know the rukles of wikipedia pretty well. KimvdLinde 04:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

5 of the new users 8 sizeable edits are idential to the blocked user. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef, puppeteer's block extended to 50 hours. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:35 UTC (2006-03-18)

Tawkerbot2

Tawkerbot2 is making reverts in wrong namespaces at the moment (see User talk:Tawkerbot2). You should block the bot as of now until error fixed. _→AzaToth 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The bot made an error (see here) but I don't think it's a namespace problem. It got confused about who had vandalized and where to revert to. Unless this is happening a lot, I think the proper thing to do is notify the bot's owner rather than block it. -- SCZenz 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the problem and am looking at it, I've killed the revert/warn functions for now, but if any mass attacks show up, I'm re-enabling it. Presently it mis blames 1% of the edits or so, I'm still not sure what the cause is but I'm looking at it -- Tawker 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:CrnaGora and User:Ottoman Sultan sockpuppetry to disrupte RfA

As noted on this RfA: [289], Crna Gora and Ottoman Sultan are the same person, using multiple accounts to disrupt the RfA process. Not only are they posting misleading information that there is a hard-coded edit count limit under which you ware not eligible to apply for admin (which is incidentally what tipped me off that they are the same person) but they are also both entering votes. I've warned them both on their user pages, but I feel this is very disruptive and shouldn't be allowed. I asked on #wikipedia and was told that I shold bring it up, so I thought this was the most appropriate place. Note: I first noticed that they were the same person because They both left the same reason for opposing on two different users (regarding the admin edit limit). I noticed that Ottomon Sultan's user talk link wikilinks to CrnaGora's. Their User pages are written in the same style, and I would be highly surprised if a CheckUser turned them out to be two different people. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't comment on the sockpuppet allegations - though it seems very strange to bother using them to vote 'oppose' twice on an RfA that clearly won't succeed, sockpuppetry or no. However, as has already been pointed out, plenty of users look at editcount to judge adminship candidates. I suspect Ottoman's only crime in this respect was to omit the magic words 'in my opinion'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And what if the RfA had beem very close to the 80% consensus mark, or whatever the 'crat involved uses as his guideline? The principle is still the same: It was an attempt to disrupt the system, though admittedly so poorly chosen that it had next to no effect. I'd point out that one or both of the accounts (haven't checked to see if both are) have been advertising a wikilink to some sort of poll for wikipedians to "vote" on the "montenegro independence referendum" or some such. Now, obviously such a vote has no effect on anything, but what if they were using both accounts to disrupt an AfD, or some other sort of vote? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The mess at User: Halliburton_Shill

This article has been a storm of ill-applied Wikipedia procedure for days and something needs to be done. The administrators working at the article have done nothing in the way of concensus, except placing unannounced blocks on those who disagree with them.

The user's page is certainly in error due to misunderstanding of WP procedure, however, the responses by administrators have been immature and ineffective in solving the dispute.

The user's page is being blanked repeatedly due to a very tenuous charge of "googlebombing"—to hell with 3RR.

Even if the user in question is entirely to blame, the whole "dialogue" (mere POV pushing via Administrative functions) is disgusting and I have not seen its like in my two years at Wikipedia.Yeago 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. I'm not sure what you are talking about. There have been 4 posts TOTAL in the last 4 days. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the objectionable content, protecting the page, and asking the user to choose a new name all seem like pretty mature and effective responses to me. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism Sock

See diff. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a block for User:Benjamin Gatti

Per his arbcom case, Ben is on General probation and regular probation for continued disruption. Well, a couple of days ago, Ben was banned from Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for disruption. His response? He put an arbitration request up for nuclear energy. It is completely ridiculous. He's pulled this stunt before. It's Wikilawyering at its finest...and it defines disruption. He was blocked a week under the general probation provisions in February. I am asking for 2 weeks this time. We need 3 uninvolved admins to concur. If the block is performed, it needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS - If people think that a longer block is warranted. I would not object. I just asked for 2 weeks since we need 3 admins on this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkspamming by User:Stang281

User's sole contributions have been to insert links to his webshots albums for various aircraft. Three separate editors removed his links on the basis of questionable worth (duplicates content from other sites) and questionable copyright priviledges (they're never established on the page).

User has fought this on F-22 Raptor page; a further 2 editors have discussed this with him and concur that the link should not be in the article.

Have suggested that the user assist in putting public domain images into Wikipedia commons, but user is adamant that his webshots album is superior.

User has now resorted to slapping a copyright examination on the page [290]. Will admit he has a point about applying the criteria for copyright violations; but it was cut and dried to apply in this case as the content was nothing more than pictures copied from other sources.

User has violated 3RR several times but this is a bit more complex than just 3RR.

--Mmx1 10:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking IP 82.42.237.114

After a good long look at things I'm blocking IP address 82.42.237.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Talk page of the IP claims to be a shared IP and not to block, but the only "legitimate" user of it is claimed "reformed vandal" Sunfazer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bluntly, I don't believe the reform. I don't believe the story about it being a shared IP from public terminals. I think it's all the same user, and the tricks are unchanged. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a shared IP to me either. Shared IPs generally have a schizophrenic and immature pattern of vandalism, mostly test-style edits mingled in with good edits. Basically, it's obvious that different people use it. Whoever uses this IP to vandalise seems to have an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia - enough to add a bogus protection notice [291] and remove notices from vandal accounts' user pages [292]. There is only one actual 'normal' test edit that I see, and it's to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which is an unlikely place for a genuinely new user to stumble upon. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 13:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My technical knowledge on things like shared IPs is so limited that I wouldn't want to intervene, but I have seen Sunfazer being genuinely helpful, when he didn't have to be, and I'm inclined to believe what he says. AnnH ♫ 14:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tom cousineau.jpg

Could someone take a look at this and then have a word with User:Jaranda?12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)

I give up so I got it deleted. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The annon was right, you cannot really use a cover of a magazine and use it as a general photo to use in an article. If you wanted to have the SI cover, you pretty much had to have commentary about the cover and why he was chosen for the cover. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike violated Ted Wilkes's probation

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see [293]), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See [294]. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See [295]. As both Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see [306]) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See [307]. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See [308]. On 28 February 2006, administrator Jtdirl admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See [309]. Onefortyone 16:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Squidward vandal...

Thanks to everyone who helped clean up the mess created by the Squidward vandal earlier this morning. I would have spent more time reverting, but sadly, I was too busy with my homework. However, I am very proud to say that we, as a community working together, have always defeated vandalism no matter how disruptive it may have been. Now we should celebrate by having a huge calamari feast! :P --Ixfd64 19:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Seafood gives me hives. — Mar. 19, '06 [20:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Hives? I thought it gave people crabs! *runs* Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"(drop me a line)" ? I think your contribution here is a net minus. ;-) FreplySpang (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, didn't catch that.  ;-) Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again: nice job everyone: cleaned up, blocked, done. Thank you all. The new tabs (block, block log) on the contribs lists really help; I don't think they were there until a few months ago. Antandrus (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem (I think my bot killed a fair chunk of it), sorry about the mis blame issue with Tawkerbot2, it still reverted correctly but it mis blamed a few people. -- Tawker 23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

• Previous incident reports:
• Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/01#October 2005 -Ich bin ein Berliner
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive46#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.

• Previously identified sock accounts/IPs:

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shran 12.72.78.30 (talk · contribs) 155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs) 201.240.119.26 (talk · contribs) 203.61.246.14 (talk · contribs) 211.30.26.251 (talk · contribs) 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs) 38.114.48.102 (talk · contribs) 38.114.52.98 (talk · contribs) 68.115.183.34 (talk · contribs) 70.252.26.105 (talk · contribs) AnimalFarm1 (talk · contribs) Can'tStandYa (talk · contribs) CaptainJackWill (talk · contribs) DadoCut (talk · contribs) DonnaReed (talk · contribs) EinBerliner (talk · contribs) Katrina&TheWaves (talk · contribs)

KnightsOfMalta (talk · contribs) LesbianLatke (talk · contribs) LittleDeadBuddy (talk · contribs) LordCornwall (talk · contribs) N1Arch1 (talk · contribs) OberstKlink (talk · contribs) ObsoleteMedia (talk · contribs) Prohibit0nions (talk · contribs) (Note: not User:ProhibitOnions, but an impostor) Quadralobal (talk · contribs) Seka'sBreathMints (talk · contribs) Shran (talk · contribs) Smegmann (talk · contribs) Stalingrad (talk · contribs) TonyTheTerrier (talk · contribs) WehrWolf (talk · contribs) YvaBraun (talk · contribs)

• Current suspected sock accounts/IPs:
• 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs)="24"
• 155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs)="155"
• Ashton Coochter (talk · contribs)="AC"
• CantStandYa (talk · contribs)="CSY"
• NoBloodForEarl (talk · contribs)="NBFE"
• Ordrestjean (talk · contribs)="O"
• Peckerwood (talk · contribs)="P"
• WolframSiever (talk · contribs)="WS"
• WhiskyWhiskers (talk · contribs)="WW"
• WOOKIEwantMEDAL (talk · contribs)=""WWM"

• Sample of articles which have been edited by more than one current account. *Conspicuous edit warring.

100 People Who Are Screwing Up America*, 24, 155, CSY, WS, WW, 242, 232, 204, 224 Anti-hero, 24, 155, CSY, P, Appalachia, 24, 155, CSY, Black Watch, 24, 155, CSY, WW Bleeding Kansas WW, WWM Carpetbagger, 24, 155, AC, WS Category:Scottish-Americans, 155, CSY, WS Caucasoid, CSY, P, WS, Centurion (Roman army)*, 24, O Common phrases based on stereotypes, 24, 155, CSY Comintern, AC, O, WWM Cylon (Battlestar Galactica), 24, CSY, WS, Doughnut , 24, 155, P, WW, Festivus, 24, 155, Flags of the Confederate States of America*, 24, 155, CSY Granola*, 24, P, WW Hillbilly, 155, P, WW Jane Fonda*, 155, CSY, O, WW, WWM Kilt*, 24, 155, CSY, WW Knights Hospitaller, 24, 155, O Kwanzaa, 24, AC, 239, 242, 232, 225, 244 List of Eagle Scouts, 24, 155, CSY List of ethnic slurs, 24, 155, CSY List of pejorative political puns, 24, 155, AC, P, WW, List of political epithets*, 24, 155, AC, CSY, P, WW, WS, WWM

List of political epithets*, 24, 155, AC, CSY, P, WW, WS, WWM List of sexual slurs/old, 24, 155, AC, CSY Magical Negro, 24, 155, CSY, Mason-Dixon line, 24, WW Peter Pan syndrome, WS, WWM Post-Adolescent Narcissism WS, WWM Reconstruction, 24, 155, AC, CSY, P, WW, Redneck, 24, 155, AC, P, WW Rus' (people), 24, 155, CSY, NBFE, WW Scottish people, 24, 155, P, WW Scots-Irish American, 24, 155, P, WW, Sherman's March to the Sea, P, NBFE Sodom and Gomorrah, 24, 155, O State terrorism, 155, NBFE Tartan Day, 155, CSY, P Ted Kennedy*, 24, 155, 159 Texas Medal of Valor, 24, 155, CSY, O Useful idiot, 24, 155, AC, WS, WWM Water buffalo incident*, 24, 155 White cracker, 24, 155, WW, P, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs (2nd nomination), AC, WS, WW Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 19, CSY, P, WW Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 21, CSY, WS Wikipedia:Speedy deletions WS [310], WWM [311]

• Some interesting diffs:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rus%27_(people)&diff=39482898&oldid=39476896
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhiskyWhiskers&diff=prev&oldid=42226219
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.0.91.81&diff=prev&oldid=34567551
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikodemos&diff=prev&oldid=33881200
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peckerwood&diff=23715617&oldid=23715564
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husnock&diff=prev&oldid=25834522

• Editors who have posted warnings or complaints to the current accounts: (some Anon Texan mixed in)

• (Anon Texan), who is not Shran (see below)
• 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs): Comcast, Texas
• 66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="204"
• 66.98.131.200 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="200"
• 67.15.76.110 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="110"
• 67.15.76.185 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="185"
• 67.15.76.188 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="188"
• 67.15.76.232 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="232
• 67.15.76.242 (talk · contribs): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="242"
• 70.84.56.185 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "56.185"
• 70.84.56.172 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "172"
• 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "166""
• 70.85.195.239 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas ="239"
• 70.85.195.138 (talk · contribs): The Planet, Dallas = "138"
• And:
• 66.98.130.128 ="128"
• 66.98.130.159 ="159"
• 66.98.130.224 ="224"
• 67.15.76.187 ="187"
• 67.15.76.244 = "244"
• 67.15.77.161 ="161"
• 70.84.56.165 ="165"
• 70.85.195.225 ="225"
• 70.85.195.230 ="230"

• Pat Tillman, 172, 188, 185, 204
• Hillary Rodham Clinton, 138, 242, 232, 56.185, 200, 204, 187, 159, 244
• Jay Rockefeller, 166, 172, 242, 188, 56.185, 204, 224, 244
• John Kerry*, 138, 239, 166, 172, 185, 232, 188, 56.185, 110, 200, 204, 224, 165, 187, 167, 159, 244
• Killian documents, 239, 188, 232
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush*, 138, 172, 232, 188, 185, 204, 165, 159, 244
• Winter Soldier Investigation, 110, 204, 185, 188, 159
• Ron Karenga* 185, 204, 224, 165, 187, 167, 230, 232, 225, 244
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Fred Bauder, 204, 159, 188

• Proposed action:
• "Shran" could be a more valued contributor if he would stop using sock puppets to edit war. He has been asked repeatedly by editors including myself to stick to one account. The user, through various accounts, has protested that the IPs are either open to many users, or are used by a "little brother" or "brother-in-law". Despite these claims the edits are clearly the work of one person. The previous set of sock puppet accounts was blocked by me and others in the fall of 2005, and a new set has been created since then. As with previous socks, these accounts have been used to abuse consensus and even to pile-on votes in CfDs and an AfD. As we did before, I propose that we block all the current sock accounts indefinitely while leaving one account open for editing, User:CantStandYa. I'd appreciate hearing input from members of the community on this user and on my proposed action. Are there any other known accounts for the user? Have there been any other editing problems? Are there any other measures, beyond blocking the obvious socks, that we should pursue? How can we get this prolific editor to follow community norms? -Will Beback 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

See also User:Stbalbach/anontexan. -Will Beback 22:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to Stbalbach's research, it appears that this user has also been using a number of dial-up accounts. Short-term range blocks may also be necessary to manage this sock-puppetry. -Will Beback 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that many of these accounts are sockpuppets (I simply haven't checked them all). I recommend dealing with the issue by blocking all by the main account, and then selectively sprotecting the articles in question, if IP editing or sockpuppeting continues, but I welcome other input. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. Hearing no objections, I will block the registered accounts except User:CantStandYa. I will semiprotect articles on which these IPs are seen to edit in the future. -Will Beback 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Text copied to Wikipedia:Long term abuse for future reference. -Will Beback 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible new sock based on edit pattern and same Texas IP, 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thatcher131 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also 207.44.237.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Thatcher131 14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC) These were also the Texas Anon. Thatcher131 12:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The editor was clearly edit-warring using several IPs on some articles, so I've sprotected: Ron Karenga, Dick Cheney, Jay Rockefeller, Hillary Rodham Clinton, White cracker, Killian documents, and Pat Tillman. -Will Beback 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

After consultations and review, it appears that the "Anon Texan" is a different person from "Shran/CantStandYa". They may have used the same IP ocassionally, and have both edited a couple of obscure articles, but other evidence indicates they are separate users. I think that we have adequately dealt with the Shran issues, or at least as best we can, but the Texas Anon problems are different. Therefore I'll split this out and post the Texas Anon material by itself. -Will Beback 17:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made a new section about Anon Texan, and revised the listing to indicate that they are no longer linked. I apologize to all parties for the error. -Will Beback 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Upper Canada College

I am an administrator who has been trying to mediate a dispute on this article -- see Talk:Upper Canada College. An anonymous editor is not satisfied with my atttempt at mediation. It would be useful to have another administrator take a look at this. If I have overstepped my bounds as an administrator, I would like to know as I am relatively new at this. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• That anon is definatly not helping things, and certainly seems to be alone in his POV about the changes to the page. I strongly encourage other admins to take a look at this before it gets (more) out of hand. --InShaneee 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User 66.208.54.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / 68.50.242.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been warned to desist disruption and trolling by several uninvolved editors, including two admins and an advocate. The actual grievance the user has is that no one has provided sources to say that UCC is all-male, has an elementary school, has a secondary school, or if it is indeed in Toronto, Canada, or on planet earth at all. The article has many references already. See Talk:Upper Canada College. Request intervention by an admin so that other editors can use the talk page constructively. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A newly-registered user, who does not appear to be the anon user has requested the semi-protection be lifted so that the anon editor can be allowed to demonstrate good faith. This has been supported by another newly-registered user, and by a couple of other anon editors. I believe that lifting semi-protection would allow the anon editor to return to his disruptive behaviour, but would respect the decision of another administrator to lift semi-protection if s/he sees fit. See Talk:Upper Canada College#Lifting semi-protection for the discussion. thanks.Ground Zero | t 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time this morning reading the UCC talk page; as well as having tracked the discussion on and off for a few days. I think the semi-protection should not be lifted at this point. The anon user is not, in my opinion, acting in good faith. Requesting that basic, well-known facts be sourced is unreasonable. To do so repeatedly is annoying at best, and may be regarded as trolling by some. If the anon has issues with any specific basic fact stated in the article, then s/he should provide an alternative, which would of course require appropriate citation. The point of Wikipedia:Verifiability is not to source basic facts, but rather to cite facts that may not be accepted by everyone. Mindmatrix 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now lifted semi-protection in the hope that it is no longer necessary. Ground Zero | t 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Gpg dearmor (talk · contribs) seems to be another sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark. He even signed a post as Zephram on this edit. --JW1805 (Talk) 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This has got to be approaching the record for most used header on this page. Any chance he will ever give up and just take his punishment like a man? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Rampant immaturity is one of his most obvious traits.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am bound to say that is great coming from you lot. ElectricRay 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please examine User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations. This page seems to have been created by ElectricRay (talk · contribs) in order to continue to carry on philosophical discussions with Zephram Stark see this edit. I think all the contributors to this page are his sockpuppets::

• Poor Conductor (talk · contribs). Image:Church Conductor.jpg has the same crazy graphic uploaded by a previous sockpuppet.
• Urban Designer (talk · contribs). Image:The Church of Collective Intelligence.gif same graphic, now animated.
• لæmäļ al diη (talk · contribs). See previous sockpuppet Jamal al din (talk · contribs). He's even uploaded the same images again.
• Aficionado (talk · contribs). Editing Unconventional warfare, a page also frequented by Zephram.
• ZathrasOne (talk · contribs). Put the same graphic on his page as a previous sockpuppet Me-Calabi (talk · contribs) [314].
• Frank Lloyd Wrong (talk · contribs) See this edit. Post referencing activities of previous sockpuppets.
• O9.59.14.111 (talk · contribs) Tao Te Ching and Terrorism edits similar to prev sockpuppets.

All of these should be banned. I'll try to rvt his edits. All his images should also be speedy deleted. I don't know what the policy is for deleting a page in the user space, but User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations should go too. --JW1805 (Talk) 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I find myself wondering if ElectricRay is doing something contrary to the best interests of the Wikipedia community by encouraging and colluding with Stark sockpuppets. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then, in my humble submission, you have an overdeveloped sense of what is in the best interests of the Wikipedia community, Monsieur Gordon. Speak for yourself, by all means, but not "the Wikipedia Community", for which you have no mandate to speak, and as to the better interests of which, you have no better insight, than me. I'm just as much a part of the Wikipedia community as you, after all. Monsieur JW, why delete my user page? My contributions to it are perfectly legitimate, aren't they? ElectricRay 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to see where I expressed any mandate at all. I asked a question. I'm unsure about the answer. If I were sure about the answer, I'd already have blocked you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On what basis would you block me, JPG? ElectricRay 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the answer, as I said. You're conspiring with a banned user to assist him in evading his ban. That might be sufficient, under the rubric of "disrupting Wikipedia". Proof of disruption? The time your collusion with Stark has caused us to spend on it here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JPGordon, this is utter nonsense, as you know. I established a subpage in userspace, away from the Encyclopaedia, which virtually no-one could see, and on it conducted a conversation with a person you and your chums don't happen to like, because I had (at the time) no other way of communicating with him whatsoever, and I was interested in the conversation, precisely because I didn't want to disrupt wikipedia. If I could be bothered with the sort of pissy little squabbles you admins seem to revel in, I would challenge Sean's delete on the grounds that it is outside policy, but I really can't be bothered. The establishment of the page and the conversation on it had absolutely no disruptive effect on wikipedia at all, and indeed probably a negative disruptive effect because, for two weeks or so, you didn't even know it was there, and presumably got on with being oifficious to someone else instead, while Zephram and his sockpuppets were spending most of their time talking, inoffensively, to me. Eventually, between you, you hunted the page down - bully for you - but the page was disruptive in no way shape of form. As it happens, I now have an alternative method of communicating with Zephram Stark, so I don't need to establish furtive sub-pages any more.

The page should be deleted. There is no reason we should be hosting a forum for chats with banned users. Jkelly 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all offending images, and removed all text references to any blocked users. I have adopted the full content as my own, under the General Use licence. None of it is, to my mind, objectionable, although I will gladly remove any specific content that you can point to that you consider objectionable (for any reason other than the bare fact that it was originally generated by a banned user). I don't mean to cause the admins trouble. I'm just minding my own business, a course of action I commend heartily to you all. ElectricRay 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted User talk:ElectricRay/Conversations because its mostly designed to host edits by a banned user, the content that is actually relevant to Wikipedia is mostly personal attacks on other users, and because it doesn't contribute to building an encyclopedia in any way.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sean, while of course I think what you say is entirey wrong, you hold the whip hand, and there's nothing I can do to stop you, but could I ask one thing of you: could you please email the text of the deleted page to electric dot ray at btopenworld dot com, simply because while you might not value it, I do. I give you my word I won't re-post it, or any reworking or other manifestation of it, on any Wikimedia site. ElectricRay 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• ElectricRay, you don't seem to understand that Zephram is banned from Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if his edits are objectionable or not. He is not allowed to contribute in any way, shape, or form to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it's a talk page, user page, or article. I certainly consider your attempts to help him evade the ban as disruptive to Wikipedia. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, JW1805, I completely understand that Zephram's been banned. I just couldn't care less. Would you like to block me, for being "disruptive to Wikipedia" as you put it? Will that make you feel better? Good grief. 00:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ER, what you're doing is like allowing Al-Qaeda to operate in the western world, which is utterly unacceptable. If you wish to communicate with banned users, please do so in an off-Wiki setting. --TML1988 03:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has done so yet, I am hereby inventing a new law which might not yet be valid but will be eventually: just take Godwin's Law and replace "Nazis" and "Hitler" with "Al Qaeda" and "Osama bin Laden" respectively. That was pretty over the top even for Zephram puppets and their fan club. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So, applying Gordon's law, that means I win? "There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned al Qaeda has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress". I just knew you'd see it from my point of view eventually. Good show! ElectricRay 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the comparison of Zephram Stark to al-Qaeda was pretty accurate, actually. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stirring up a conversation that may have ended, I'd like to point out that there are a million websites on the Internet, some of which allow anyone to have concersations with anyone else. If you want to have a conversation with a banned user, please take it to one of those. I'm sure no one will mind if you leave a note pointing Zephram there. -- llywrch 04:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can some admin go ahead and ban these accounts? --JW1805 (Talk) 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, some of these are blatent. (i.e. Jamal...) A little help please. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm zapping 'em. Pretty funny, though. I looked at User:ZathrasOne and noticed that he's kinda halfway pretending to be me! Anyway, someone else please put the puppet templates on those pages? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I think I've got them all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you missed Aficionado (talk · contribs). --JW1805 (Talk) 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
          • • Done. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New socks of Shran/CantStandYa anonymous Texan

Based on the IP and the edit patterns I would like to add 207.44.237.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list of IP's used by the anonymous Texan. (see User:Stbalbach/anontexan. suspects. (See Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa) Also used a very misleading edit summary here, as what he was really doing was blanking an entire section. I actually agree with the reason for his blanking of part of the Killian documents article but not the method, and I think it should be revised but not blanked. I have attempted to engage him on one of his talk pages. I'm posting this here to start a record since he seems to be active again and the last message about him just got archived. I don't advocate any specific action yet but I also haven't checked his other contribs for problems. Thatcher131 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Will Beback below and his comments on Talk:Killian documents, this is the anonymous Texan, not Shran. Thatcher131 07:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Human

Human needs at least one neutral admin to step in and ensure accordance with policy. Too many editors are attempting to edit war their way thru a very tricky minefield of POV, and the article is suffering.

I think it is clear from recent edits, and especially edit summaries that FeloniousMonk is not the neutral admin to do that.

I'm not saying people w opinions arn't welcome, but thats not what this situation needs. What we could really use are some cool heads to remind us of policy.

Cheers, Sam Spade 20:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, it's pretty clear that you're trying to interject your specific religious POV into multiple parts of the article, including the lead-in. What this has to do with WP:ANI is lost on me. --Cyde Weys 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Cyde; up to your normal tricks again, I see. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with both. Sam's use of the NPOV tag is specious, and is now past the threshold of vandalism. Additionally, Sam lost any semblence of a preseumption of NPOV he may may ever have had, and any need to apply WP:AGF to his edits or proposals when he commented, "In sum, teach the controversy, rather than telling mankind "your a dirty ape; get used to it."" Jim62sch 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I never have read the page before, and as neutral reader with a biology backgroud, the inclusions of Sam Spade are strong POV, inaccurate, and do not improve the article. KimvdLinde 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I said neutral admin, not anyone with an outstanding gripe against me. Sam Spade 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

KimvdLinde isn't an admin. See [315] Jim62sch 12:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I refuse to believe that any human being could possibly edit war over human, this is one of the stupidest edt wars I've ever seen, cheers--152.163.100.65 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You haven't seen Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, then. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

user:SPUI again

I'd like to ask for someone else to review the User:SPUI situation. For his/her latest personal attacks/vandalism, I've blocked him/her for a week, but I am not sure if the block should have been longer. (I don't think it should have been shorter.) --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads case you find that SPUI has been conducting a massive edit war involving over 200 pages. Considering his probational status this is probably a good minimum. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protection seems pretty needless, no comment on the block though. Protecting the talk page of frequent editors is pretty annoying, so should only be done in cases of genuine vandalism and personal attacks, which this was not. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The implied invitation to a wheel war is, however, vandalistic, I believe. And his responses to Rschen7754 are personal attacks. I am asking for a review of the situation as a request from myself; I am not implying that SPUI is entitled to appellate rights, and I think it would be bad precedent to allow a blocked user to keep putting {{unblock}} back on as many times as he wishes until an admin unblocks him. He got his chance to proffer good reason to be unblocked. He proffered non-reasons and refused to apologize. That's not good enough in my book. --Nlu (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In the three edits since you blocked him there have been no personal attacks that I can see. The addition of {{unblock}} is annoying, I suppose, but the worst that happens is that an administrator takes a look at the situation and feels the block was unfair (again I haven't looked). It's certainly not a problem severe enough to warrant the disruption caused by protecting his talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page unprotected, so he can communicate with admins. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a look at the actual issue, I'd classify Rschen's posts on SPUI's talk as fairly rude as well. SPUI's edits were decidedly not vandalism, and the use of both rollback and template anti-vandal responses were quite needless. No dispute with the length of the block, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point on protecting his talk page being disruptive, though. Disruptive of what? If he's properly blocked (an issue that I asked for review on), he's not going to be editing articles, and there is no real reason for him to be communicating with anyone anyway. --Nlu (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I've unblocked SPUI, perhaps after an incomplete review of the issues and edits involved here. After now having read the above, I'm not certain I would have unblocked him. I am not going to reblock him, but am also not going to again unblock him if he continues to be disruptive. I am hopeful he can edit productively (because if he doesn't, I look like a jackass). JDoorjam Talk 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you've unblocked User:User:SPUI but not User:SPUI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes, that User:User:SPUI is a swell chap, that's what I've been trying to say.... :: ahem :: JDoorjam Talk 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC) (redfaced)

Disruptive of the normal functioning of Wikipedia, obviously... usually when I have a question to ask another editor about an edit he made I post to his talk page. Given that SPUI has 50000+ edits, I imagine that over a weeks time a few people might have questions for him over the course of a week. I don't see what it would help to prevent them from asking. This is aside from the general philosophy that without a good reason to protect, which there certainly was not, protection is an evil. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And you think this is not disruptive? --Nlu (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not especially. Frankly, I think Tawker's being a bit silly about it and is edit warring to no purpose. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How can my actions be classified as rude? Adding "profit" to the WP:CASH page here and here is vandalism, and I responded with the correct templates. (WP:CASH has nothing to do with money). And then when I noted this at the MedCabal page he annotated it with {{fact}} which is for use in the article space and when something is uncertain. Especially considering that I am an admin but did not block SPUI myself, I feel that I took the right actions here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about an obvious joke on a project page. It was clearly not intended to damage the project, which is the basic definition of vandalism. "You are potentially offending people...in the wider readership?" Do you really think a lot of readers are checking out the California Highways Wikiproject? In general, I think you were pretty damn rude, yeah. The fact that you're involved in a dispute with him is all the more reason for you to maintain a cooler head about things. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rschen (particularly since the templates used are standard templates. It should be further noted that since then, SPUI has resorted to sockpuppetry to try to get unblocked. See [316]. Still think that unprotecting the talk page does any good? --Nlu (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think SPUI is an annoying git, too. But what he did in this case is not worth a block, and the use of {{test}} templates to "warn" him was exceedingly inappropriate. There is also nothing wrong with him posting a template asking other admins to review the case. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that you think SPUI is an annoying git. But adding "profit" to WP:CASH is a harmless joke and not blockworthy. Please don't use anti-vandalism templates on the talk pages of good users; in my opinion it is actually more rude than SPUI's retort to it. Rschen7754 was, as he points out, right not to block SPUI himself but I don't feel any block is warranted at all. Haukur 10:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to 'joke' in this manner. Think: if this edit was made by an anon, none of you would have any hesitation in reverting and warning, and I'm not sure what it is that makes this acceptable here. This wasn't just a one-off joke, SPUI made the same edit again once he was reverted. I do not see how this was not disruptive, especially the second time. Raven4x4x 11:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary to use the vandalism templates. They are plainly a shortcut (not the only method) to warn new users. I'm sure an experienced user deserves a fuller explanation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

People of zee world... relax. I see humor on a project page being considered vandalism, and a request that certain accusations be properly sourced are both being considered simple vandalism. I see a your mom joke being considered a personal attack. I see pedantic "test 1-5" templates being issued to one of our top contributors. I see uptight people. Everybody just chill the fuck out, please. — Mar. 19, '06 [17:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• What the freakish one said. I wonder, do the blockers even get the joke? Repeating it was dumb, but a week for a dumb joke? Come on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the alleged joke. It's the attitude after the unacceptable nature of the edit had been pointed out to him/her. Think about it; if it's anyone else, would there be any hesitation to block?

It should be further be noted that freakofnature then unblocked SPUI's sockpuppet User:Sockenpuppe. At the risk of continuing a wheel war that SPUI called for (again, another unacceptable behavior), I reblocked that sockpuppet. Again, anyone else maintaining a sockpuppet and using it like that (and with such an unacceptable user name, no less) would be blocked automatically. Why are we maintaining a double standard for SPUI? --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, that was a very funny joke. So funny I forgot to laugh out loud. Seriously it's not funny, especially in the middle of this edit war that SPUI has initiated by refusing to build a consensus. And I love how Freakofnature unblocked this sock of SPUI to let him come talk with us all, because that's what policy says should happen. I get blocked for 2 days with no contact back from ANYONE and he gets to have a sock come talk. Talk about a double standard. Stop playing favorites. SPUI is vandalizing pages pure and simple now since he refuses to talk about anything.JohnnyBGood 18:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And then SPUI's sock turns me in for "3RR" where I was fixing SPUI's vandalism of the med cabal page. Seriously there's favoritism going on here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You did revert four times... --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

a) it was vandalism, b) why did you use your sock? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think [317] is vandalism, you really shouldn't be an admin... --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By your opinion. Not that of many admins, including myself. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference please. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And you wonder why I reverted that... a) you're editing someone else's comments, which is a big no-no, and b) you can just look up at User:Nlu there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated POV vandalism of Kenneth R. Conklin by User:Redflea aka User:67.49.170.87

I've asked nicely on User talk:Redflea and User talk:67.49.170.87, but they still keep reverting to POV pushing versions attacking Dr. Conklin personally. Please warn, and block both accounts (should be the same person). --JereKrischel 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reported on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --JereKrischel 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet jbamb

Apparently I'm a sockpuppet because someone on campus got into a fight with a sysop. I'm tired of the personal attacks, I'm tired of the abuse of sysop powers. Ban my user account indefinitely immediately. Also, ban the entire IP range of the University, considering that pretty much everyone there is my meat puppet. The IPs are 130.126.X.X and 128.174.X.X. -- Jbamb 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has proposed banning or even blocking you. Sock puppets accounts may be blocked if they are used for edit warring, as appears to have been the case with user:Alpha269. The edit warring was over inclusion of John Bambanek on lists of prominent people, and over the deletion of the biography itself. Your failure to curb the inappropriate promotion of yourself, whether by you or a fan of yours, does not reflect well on you but it is not a bannable offense. -Will Beback 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But block evasion warrants further blocking, and User:Jbamb exhibited the same incivility and disruptive behavior throughout. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Help needed: legal threats / harassment

I'm being harassed, and personal attacks and legal threats have been directed at me. Right now I don't have the patience nor the time to adress this issue so I request assistance. Here is the issue: in the last few months, we've had numerous spammers add two external links to dozens of articles related to Nigeria. These links, inserted under the guise of providing 'good images' have loads of commercial content, and as such have been removed by various editors. See en:Talk:Lagos#How can you_have a Place without Picture for some discussion of the content of the links.

The spammers (some of the accounts/IP's are listed below) have been warned several times by various editors but still kept adding the links. Therefore, I have requested addition to the side-wide spam blacklist. One editor followed me there to mess with the request, adding some personal remarks. Other not so nice things include an earlier conversation with a lot of bad language and the creation of an impostor account, Mark Dingemanse. (talk · contribs) (now blocked indefinitely). The newest chapter is a legal threat; here's the diff (on Meta), with the charming edit summary "going to court".

I'm putting this together now because I feel this might grow into something more nasty if it isn't stopped soon. I think the spamming, the attacks and especially the legal threats might warrant a fairly long block, but on the other hand it just might be possible to resolve the issue using some form of mediation (see summary of the arguments below). If someone of you has the angelic, JackyR-like patience to guide the editors, there is a small chance that something good comes from it. But I simply don't have the time for this anymore, so I'm leaving it to others now. In fact, yesterday I have indicated on Talk:Nigeria and on the talk pages of the spammer(s) that I'm withdrawing myself for a while to avoid putting more oil on the flames; however, the legal threat came today, so it looks like they want to stir up the fire instead.

Some relevant links:

• Nigeriamajor (talk · contribs)
• Peter Henry (talk · contribs)
• 64.56.232.174 (talk · contribs)
• 69.195.84.54 (talk · contribs) (the legal threat on Meta came from this IP)
• {{m:User:Peter2 Henry}}
• Impostor account: Mark Dingemanse. (talk · contribs)
• #Dont not delete my contirbution (first load of personal attacks).
• Talk:Lagos#How can you_have a Place without Picture, discussion which resulted in more personal remarks.
• m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Racism have to stop, legal threats and slander (link to old diff, I have since removed the bullshit to avoid it being picked up by Google).

For those who want to know, the argument of the editors inserting the links boils down to the following: (1) good images on Nigeria-related articles are a Good Thing; (2) the nigeriaplanet.proboard43 site is a good source for images. Other editors of Nigeria-related articles fully agree with the first point, but consider the second point to be in the wrong because the added site, aside from having a few pictures, is full of commercial links. The above editor has been told to upload good pictures to Commons instead of adding commercial links; he has even been offered assistance (by User:JackyR; see User talk:Nigeriamajor), but has not responded to any such friendly offers.

Thanks for helping out. — mark ✎ 20:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

this is a no-brainer, block indefinitely for spamming and legal threats. dab (ᛏ) 21:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action, Dieter. Do you think it would be a good idea to block the anon IP from which the threat came? That's 69.195.84.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), mentioned above. (It's quite clear that all accounts and IP's come from the same narrow range, so I suspect it's just one person).

To others: someone who is admin on Meta might want to block them there, too. — mark ✎ 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked Peter2 Henry on meta as well. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The IPs seem to belong to a cable ISP (rogers.com), so it's probably unwise to permablock them. But unless and until our fellow admins disagree, I suppose you can consider this one community-banned, roll back his edits and slap short blocks on his IPs. dab (ᛏ) 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record I only blocked the anon on meta for one week for this very reason :). 09:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to formally complain on User Acuman and User Diyako

Please mointor their behaviour. Connect the dots. No assumtions. They systematically change all definitions with negative connotations to Iran. Such as statments equated with Kurds disliking Iran, Iran being named Iran due to Nazism, the non-existantce of the Iranian race, changin the traditional definitions of things linked to Iran. User:Diyako knows that the term Farsi is offensive to some but insistes on using it. See his discussion and that of other users. He is instigating problems. I beleive I was also blocked unfairly dueto user:Acumans rhetoric. I merely asked him to keep the peace and reform and I get blocked for personal attacks! 69.196.139.250 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who denys the word farsi is not neutral SEE:

[318] [319],[320], [321],[322], [323], [324],[325], [326], [327], [328]). Diyako Talk + 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Aucaman situation has been dealt with for the time being. Diyako has been warned not to use label editors Farsi (as it could be interprited as an insult). As for the other claims, they seem to simply be content disputes (User:69.196.139.250 has been accusing editors of using 'fake sources'). --InShaneee 02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia.org account?

Anybody know anything about Dannyking@wikipedia.org (talk · contribs)? No vandalizing etc., primarily contribs to Texas media market-related articles. Still, since there's already User:Danny, makes me suspicious. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My response would be to ask him whether he would voluntarily submit to a username change to drop the "wikipedia.org" part from his name. My guess is that he assumed it was part of the username, like johnsmith@yahoo.com, etc. I wouldn't be too worried, though. Ral315 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but suspending assumptions of good faith a second, does that hold up until the point where he harasses some newbie who thinks they're talking to an administrator because of the words "wikipedia.org" in his name? I'm surprised they're not rushing to block that name (while fairly giving him a chance to choose another one, it's likely he just didn't know any better). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's likely he didn't know any better, and unless we have a reason to believe he is abusing the username, there's no reason to rush to a block. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa now, that's not what I meant. What I meant was for someone to get in touch with him, explain whats wrong with his username, then let him pick a new username and let us know when he's ready for the old one to be deleted. Just cause I'm assuming he didn't know any better doesn't mean that I think his username should stay. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is what I tried to say. Accounts cannot be deleted, but they can be renamed. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

For related information, refer to the block log and to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64. — Mar. 21, '06 [05:34] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

User evading a block (block is now over)

Hi I submitted a RFCU on the 17th about user Alpha269 and Jbamb. Alpha was blocked and the n Jbamb came to WP:AN to fight his case. Circumstances on why a checkuser was asked for these two users, and the results o fthe checkuser are available here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#Jbamb_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_Alpha269_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29). The results were 90% likely that they were the same user. I am requesting that an admin look into this as Jbamb/Alpha269 were evading blocks, and the checkuser confirms to a degree that they are the same person. Mike _{(T C)} 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the requisite blocking a little while ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to be a magnet for attacks

I don't know where else to put this, but I seem to be a magnet for a series of attacks on the entry pages and discussion pages Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, National Lawyers Guild, National Student Association, and others. This involves a series of names for editors including user:nobs01 who was banned for a year for personal attacks, and then user:ColonelS, who edited pages attacking me [329], and now User:OC5 who has only edited article attacking me or PRA. [330]. At one point it appeared that Nobs01 briefly returned as user:Antimetro [331]. Some of these users appear to sign in for a week or two and then vanish. I have no idea if this is one editor with multiple sockpuppets, or a series of editors who just want to attack me. One hates to be too suspicious, but this is getting tiresome. This is not about content. Any help or investigation would be gratefully accepted. I very much want to leave a public record of this happening someplace on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Cberlet 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

70.225.171.96 defamatory remarks

Developers and admins, please remove the remarks from this address under Intel Core Architecture;

This is a shared IP and open wireless access point with no WEP or WPA, someone must have left some unsavory remarks under this IP, please remove these.

Thanks

revenge of the Rajputs' sock army

We are getting a ridiculous amount of sockpuppetry at Rajput, evidently orchestrated by banned user(s) Shivraj Singh (talk · contribs) & DPSingh (talk · contribs) (their being almost pathological sock artists was already part of the arbcom finding, so this was all really predictable). Can somebody please permaban

• 10 000 thundering typhoons (talk · contribs)
• RendezvousSingh (talk · contribs)
• Stephanian (talk · contribs)
• William Cutbush (talk · contribs)
• Medicine Man (talk · contribs) (clearly somebody's sock, but I'm unsure whose)

and any other accounts as they join the fray? These are banned users' socks. The only reason I am not banning them myself is that I was involved in the arbcom case. Thank you. dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:10 000 thundering typhoons, User:RendezvousSingh and User:William Cutbush. Dmcdevit already blocked User:Stephanian. --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

I just came across the new user, User:Fukyaself, who's doing nothing but vandalism. As a new admin, I haven't blocked anyone yet for an inappropriate username, but think the policy applies here? What's the procedure for such cases? Do we just put Template:UsernameBlock on their talk page and block them (indefinite)? --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already been blocked. And yes, that's what you do. -Splash^talk 16:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible unauthorized bot

Linkspamremover (talk · contribs) seems to be a bot of some sort; however, I cannot find information about it anywhere (there's nothing on the user and user talk pages, nothing links to the user page, and I find nothing on the lists of bots I've looked at). I'm not blocking because I'm not sure it's a bot; I would like for someone more experienced with bots to take a look and confirm if it's a bot or not. --cesarb 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with bots, but from a quick scan of the contributions, the user (bot?) isn't making rapid edits. Have you tried asking the user/bot? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

CAT:SEMI

I'd like to give everyone who reads this another reminder. We currently have 91 semi'd articles, and many of them have been protected for very much longer than is necessary to get rid of your average vandal. Please remember to reverse protections quickly. I know there are those who would have everything semi-protected permanently, but while we're still a wiki and while WP:SEMI urges it's use in limited circumstances, please remember to do the other end of the janitorial work too. Thanks. -Splash^talk 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That probably misses the majority of forgotten semi-protected pages because those don't even have the {{sprotect}} tag on them. --Cyde Weys 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)