Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

To list a Wikipedia namespace page for deletion after adding {{subst:md1}} at the top, you have to do the following:

I.	Create its MfD subpage. Add this text: {{subst:md2|pg=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction|text=Reason}} ~~~~
II.	Add a line to today's MfD. Add this text: {{subst:md3|pg=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction}}. Include "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction" in the edit summary.

To list a Wikipedia namespace page for deletion after adding {{subst:md1}} at the top, you have to do the following:

I.	Create its MfD subpage. Add this text: {{subst:md2|pg=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction|text=Reason}} ~~~~
II.	Add a line to today's MfD. Add this text: {{subst:md3|pg=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction}}. Include "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction" in the edit summary.

Shocking news, and community ban proposal.

Robdurbar is now banned from Wikipedia, but the thread is still active owing to confusion over his relationship to banned editor Wonderfool

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. Our rogue administrator, Robdurbar, is apparently a sockpuppet of Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, who is known for similar actions (deleting the main page, blocking administrators, and other very disruptive things) in two rampages on Wiktionary. I propose that this person be banned for his disruptive actions. Others have hinted at starting this banning proposal based on the checkuser results, but I thought I would get it going a little early. I also wanna say, this is a bizarre way of trying to create havoc... Making good edits for a long time, becoming an administrator, then coming back and going on a 20-minute rampage. Very strange... Grandmasterka 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there are few other indiscretions, for example blocking Jimbo? Overall, I'm not sure a discussion is required. Addhoc 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robdurbar for the original RFA. --Kim Bruning 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Three opposers: A user who opposed every RfA, a 1FA oppose, and a user who was later banned themselves. Grandmasterka 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is among the most abusive use of sockpuppets I have ever seen, and if this is the same person which went on a vandal spree on Wiktionary, I don't think we can continue to let him edit. The RFA illustrates how the user was able to deceive the community. The damage is simply too great. Support ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt a full community notice is needed. The person has proven that he/she can not be trusted on Wikipedia. Abuse of sockpuppets, a slightly maniacal vandal spree, blocking of respected Wikipedians... Ban supported. --Kzrulzuall 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An other question: He became an admin in last August. What caused him to wait this long and do it now?

My opinion of what happened: He uses a public computer in the same place that Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous is. One day he forgot to log off, and Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous took over the account. Since Robdurbar was leaving, Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous could get away with this without anyone else realizing it. In this case, the situation would be:

1. The user left Wikipedia, and then appeared all of a sudden when Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous thought it was safe for him to do this at the public computer.
2. Since Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous and Robdurbar use the same public computer, the IP address may not reveal anything about such an incident.
3. Even if I'm right, the account should be blocked, since it's been compromised by a dangerous vandal and the user seems to have no intention of returning.

Od Mishehu 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That would explain why Robdurbar waited so log to do this, which is a mystery to me too. Only one problem: Why would Robdurbar be logged in on a public computer a month after his last edit? Grandmasterka 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some things wrong with that theory, Mishehu. How unlikely is it that Robdurbar and Wonderfool were, coincidentally, in the same city, and sharing the same public computer. The odds of a previously desyssoped rogue admin, and him meeting like that is probably one in a billion.... Keep in mind that about 0.00000002% of the global population are Wikipedian admins. --Kzrulzuall 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was logged in for that long. If you find a computer with a user logged in, you can change the e-mail address even without the password, and confirm it probably at the same sitting. Then at any later point you can, on login, press the e-mail a new password. After that, you have the other account for abuse any time you want. If you're on a public computer, you probably do want to wait a while, so that the other user can't trace you anymore.

Although a tiny population of the world is, in fact, Wikipedia admins, it's also true that most of the users with enough access to the web to be Wikipedia or Wictionary admins is not 100%. If Wonderfool lives in the same city as Rodburdar, then a chance meeting in the public library isn't out of the question - and probably a high percentage of Wikipedian admins are from the US, where public libraries with internet access are common. Od Mishehu 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Robdurbar already is effectively community-banned, I can't conceive that anyone would possibly unblock him, especially given this. But I certainly support any such ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He's banned. --Tony Sidaway 08:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, and thank Grandmasterka for bringing this to the attention of the noticeboard. Unanswerable Question: were the good contributions just a sham, or does the guy flip between light and dark? Answerable Question: Were there any warning signs we missed? Ben Aveling 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the MO of the problematic behavior at the time does look the same, the Wictionary admins didn't have a long break before the trouble. This brings back my theory presented above that the account was compromised, so we wouldn't find any warning signs. Od Mishehu 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absent some very convincing evidence, the chance of an account being physically compromised by a different, malicious editor is very low indeed. Slightly more likely is that robdurbar had an obvious password and the account was remotely compromised. In the latter event, it isn't acceptable behavior for an administrator to leave a weak password on his account.

The matter is moot, in any case. Robdurbar was banned before ever this discussion began. The consensus of the community is strongly against unblocks in such cases. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All these users appear to have been pretty uncontroversial prior to adminship, and during adminship, and seem to go out with a bang. It would be quite difficult to identify sockpuppets - "Hey, keep an eye on that guy who keeps his head down and doesn't kick up a fuss, he's just waiting to explode!" Also the crosswiki vandalism is disturbing. Someone should alert the more prominent Wikis about the possibility of this occurring again (although, as I say, it would be hard to pin down who would do this, as there seem to be no warning signs). Oh - and support ban. – Riana _ऋ 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if this thing does happen again, I agree that it is nearly impossible, as stated, to detect a user such as this, before gaining adminship... But the good side is that we will know what to do to counteract it. A bigger problem will be if a steward goes on a rampage.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We could conceivably pay attention to the areas Robdurbar contributed to and look for similarities in new editors. I'm willing to do a little investigation. We still have to assume this was all caused by one person without any account hacking due to the positive checkuser results. (If Od Mishehu's hypothesis was correct, the hacker would live in the same town near the same computer... Pretty long odds.) Is there a mental condition that could produce this odd behavior? Grandmasterka 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing what his intents were, any amateur diagnostics of mental conditions would be pointless. If he'd intended from the beginning to do this, and spent all that time and effort to become an admin just so he could wreak havoc, that would probably indicate perhaps some type of compulsion. On the other hand, if he just snaps under stress, well, some people snap under stress, and there are quite a few possible reasons for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is strong that Robdurbar didn't have his account hijacked. Dmcdevit has just made this edit on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (WT:RFAR) saying:

Note that CheckUser already determined that he did not have his account stolen, as, among other things, he still edits from the same university that he claimed to have been attending in his original user page (now deleted).

--Tony Sidaway 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that make it more likely if you follow the 'theory' outlay at the top of the section? somebody in the college library jumping on after him and changing the email? I admit, long shot, but more likely then 'random cities one day in a cybercafe' -M^ask? 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They share both the university IPs and the home Tiscali ISP ranges. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but that only increases the improbability slightly. People attending the same small-town univ are quite likely to live off-campus in the same student-y area, and therefore have the same local dynamic IP ranges. Hornplease 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I first mentioned a community ban proposal on the CheckUser request is that I needed to know which target to aim at. The threshold for a code G request (does not fit any other reason for using CheckUser) on CheckUser is probably much higher than the threshold for a code F request (we think that the account is a sock of a community banned user). If it is Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, then the community ban's scope will be wider than if we just targeted Robdurbar. I was sleeping when Grandmasterka created this community ban proposal. As for how I feel, I wholeheartedly endorse the ban because Wikipedia will suffer a perfect storm of PR nightmares if a member of a big newspaper, news magazine, or television network noticed what was going on. Jay Leno, David Letterman, and other late night jokesters would be making jokes about how it was becoming hard to tell the administrators from the vandals on Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot to mention that there is no current community ban on Wonderfool (the previous one was rescinded), nor any ArbCom ban on any of the accounts, so we need this discussion for formality's sake and CheckUser's sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Discussion seems unnecessary. He went on a destruction spree as an admin, and checkuser revealed abusive sockpuppetry. Nobody in their right mind would unblock the main account, and new accounts can be blocked as "editing by a banned user". If you feel the need for a community ban, Tony Sidaway just gave the declaration and I'll second it: He's banned. --kingboyk 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When I filed a pro forma arbitration case to confirm Robdurbar's desysopping (a Steward had performed an emergency desysop but involuntary desysopping on En-Wiki can only be officially done by ArbCom), the arbitrators said "fine, desysopping confirmed" but I got some very strange (metaphorical) looks along the lines of "why are you bothering with this silly formality?" I suppose the same attitude would obtain here. If necessary, support ban. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Robdurbar won't be entered onto List of banned users unless this step is taken, right? If that list is to have any value, and since this is a highly bannable case, I don't see why we don't do it. I gather than this is *not yet* a ban request for User:Wonderfool. I trust that one of the proponents has verified that enough data has been collected to justify a permanent ban. If any hesitation is needed, it's because everyone seems to have a different view of what is going on. EdJohnston 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only necessity for a community ban is community support, not useless formalities. When it is blindingly obvious (read: deletes the main page repeatedly and goes on a blocking spree, after doing it on Wiktionary, after doing it on Wiktionary, after being banned by the ArbCom once before for creating nihilartikels) there is no legal proceeding necessary. Please read Tony Sidaway's insightful comment above. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not permanent even if they're on that list. They can appeal. They could come back in a few years time and say "sorry guys, I had problems but I've treated". Whatever. The point is that nobody but nobody can reasonably object to a ban at this point in time, and if it takes adding it to that list for it to be "official" (sigh) consider it done. --kingboyk 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats stopping him from being added without this? Were not a beauracracy, and you are free to ignore and formalities of process. Don't go wonky. He was banned, we dont need any more discussion really. Add him. -M^ask? 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that we know the sockmaster, this is a ban request for Wonderfool. Robdurbar is considered one of his socks. Jesse Viviano 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly silly that we're considering the fact that someone from Wonderfool's same home ISP and same university, with the same interests in pop music and English national football team-related articles, with French also as his secondary language, who complains that his IP was blocked from Wiktionary, and so on, happened to have his account compromised in some way, and it happened to have been taken over by Wonderfool himself. "Why did he wait so long" comments are missing the point that he's done this twice before, and has in each case been a diligent admin for months. I don't see the point in trying to psychoanalyze him. Now, he caused a fewminutes of chaos, but let's move on. No one (who doesn't wan to get immediately checkusered upon suspicion of being another Wonderfool) is going to consider unblocking him. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way you look at it, this looks bad. At best, you've got a guy who's clearly got a serious mental problem. At worst, you've got an admin who had no business being an admin. I also noticed he didn't give any reasons for these mass blocks. In either case, this can't be tolerated. Ban--and if someone hasn't contacted his school, get on the horn. Blueboy96 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that I could say the same about a discussion not being necessary, but I noticed that the CheckUser clerks are extreme sticklers for formality. Some CheckUser requests on User:Bobabobabo got either derailed or seriously hindered because there was no community ban discussion. That is why I wanted to propose the community ban myself. However, Grandmasterka beat me to it while I was asleep. Jesse Viviano 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's silly, and easily fixed: [1]. Now can we cut all this silly procedure? Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred the text "List here with proof beyond all reasonable doubt that this user is banned by the community or by Jimbo Wales." This way, some simple vandalism block will not trigger code F, but Robdurbar's admin log, block log, and his user rights log where he lost his sysop bit would have been admissible for code F. Also, this will allow ban discussions and canonize the use of code F that was used for Jimbo Wales bans like the one on Primetime. Jesse Viviano 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban recorded at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#R. Please feel free to copyedit/fine tune/list the sockpuppets, whatever, not that any of this bureacracy is really necessary of course... --kingboyk 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#W, because we were discussing a ban for Wonderfool, of which Robdurbar is a sock. Jesse Viviano 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To a naive observer, it might seem that this thread has reached a conclusion. Does anyone have more to say? Would there be a consensus that I can apply the templates to 'close' this thread? EdJohnston 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul's previous interaction with Wonderfool

Wonderfool was previously caught creating hoax articles. He bragged about how his university had a single IP shared across the entire campus, so there's no way we would dare block it, and that he planned to continue doing it. Well, long story short, I did block the university, with a message for the university tech people to email me. 12 hours later, I got an email from their sysadmin asking what's going on, I explained the problem to them, and they were *VERY* angry with him. He later apologized, and asked to be unblocked, which (feeling generous) I did.

Given the latest events, I'm tempted to dig up my old contacts with his university and let them know what he's been doing now. Raul654 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I said I would never log on again acting as Robdurbar, but I would like to make it clear that I am not Wonderfool, or related to him in any way. The fact that he went/goes to the same university as myself (as it would appear) is coincidence, but that is all it is. Clearly there is no way that I can prove this, other than to note that I e-mailed dmcdevit yesterday noting this and so he does have my e-mail address; he and Raul (who I presume has the details of Wonderfool) could possibly contact each other and cross check to see that we have different ones; OK that doesn't prove anything, but then two users using ip addys open to ~15 000 people doesn't prove anything either.

  When I e-mailed dc it was more a minor pride thing (I don't want to be noted as a sock of some other guy!) but I really felt I had to speak out now. 129.234.4.76 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, if this is really Robdurbar, while you're here, would you mind explaining exactly what the heck was going through your head that morning? Newyorkbrad 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather not, it seemed much more funny with all the wild rumours going about. Truth be told, I was bored revising and thought 'that'll be a 10 minute laugh'. Nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I'm surprised no one's done it before - after all, it stands to reason that anyone who gets bored enough to edit Wikipedia enough to become an admin must get bored easily. I was intrigued as to how quickly the community would react, what would happen if there was no main page (I was a bit disapointed it just went to the normal 'this page does not exist' thing), etc.

      Actually, the weird thing is that Wonderfool has edited a lot fairly similar articles to me - on football, cycling, places etc. Still, afraid it's that dull - no illnesses, no high-jackers, no 'wikisuicide', no agenda, no disgruntlement and no sockpuppets. --Drinkheavy 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • And oh shit, I've just done that using my new account. Suppose that'll get blocked now. D'oh! Drinkheavy 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

      If you two are separate, we will need an email to the unblock email address from your network administrator's address at postmaster@... vouching for you and showing that he or she saw you logging into the Robdurbar account and Wonderfool logging into his or her Dangherous account (he or she claims to have lost the password to the Thewayforward account). Do not try to forge the email because we can examine the headers to see if you are faking it, and we will send an email to your university's postmaster@... address asking for verification. Otherwise, your actions here and on Wiktionary, your ISPs, and your interests cause us to believe that you are Wonderfool because of the duck test. Jesse Viviano 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that as Raul's noted, the check user case seems to be highly flawed: we wern't even editing from the same universities. So all its established is that we both use Tiscali at home? Not the most convincing of proof. See Thewayforward's contributions: he does the sort of methodological editing which I rarely did, such as the repeated additions of interwiki links. As I've noted, it's not really that important as I'm banned anyway BUT it does bring up a few flaws in the checkuser procedure, if nothign else. --129.234.4.76 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

People move from university to university. I graduated from Mississippi State University with a B. Sc., and am going for my master's degree at North Carolina State University. Wonderfool may have moved from Cardiff University to Durham University. Jesse Viviano 04:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that we really had had two people from that university with almost identical interests go through an adminning and then delete the main page of Wikimedia projects, that would be a good case for treating the university as a kind of madhouse and permanently blocking the IP. However it seems more likely that here we have an exceptionally stupid and sociopathic editor who couldn't tell the truth to save his life. The home ISP data supports the latter conclusion. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can checkuser the above user{Drinkheavy) to see if it is actually Robdurbah? I'm pretty sure that it was just a disruptive troll. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Universities

I think that people might have leapt to conclusions on shaky evidence, here. Dmcdevit states above that Robdurbar used the "same home ISP and same university" as Wonderfool. Having cross-checked the two, I disagree (whilst, I, too, noted the shared languages and interests). There is strong evidence that Wonderfool edited from 131.251.0.7 (talk · contribs), an IP address assigned to Cardiff University. And as any administrator can check (although I'm not going to provide detail), Robdurbar's deleted user page mentions an entirely different university (in a different country, even). Similarly, 129.234.4.76 (talk · contribs), claiming to be Robdurbar above, is an IP address assigned to Durham University. I strongly recommend, Raul654, that you double-check the university before assuming that this is Wonderfool. Uncle G 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm by no means certain, but didn't WF claim he left Cardiff some time last year? I can't find or remember where he said that [probably on wikt, I'd guess, since *I've* seen it], but if anyone else remembers, it may be worth checking it out. \Mike(z) 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-ran Dmcdevit's checkuser, and frankly, I'm having trouble making heads or tails of it. I suppose it's possible they (Robdurbar and Wonderfool) are related, but it's less than clear to me. Raul654 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the reason you are having trouble is that this CheckUser required access to the tool on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Wonderfool's primary target is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Either a steward at Meta or someone who has CheckUser on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia would be needed to make sense of the CheckUser. Dmcdevit has access to CheckUser on both projects, so he is the only non-steward who can run the CheckUser investigation and make sense of it. If you need independent verification, please ask one of the stewards at meta:Stewards to rerun the CheckUser. Jesse Viviano 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone likes, I will attempt to discuss this with the universities - you can email me privately if you wish to discuss this off-wiki. I haven't done this kind of WP:ABUSE report before... --SunStar Net ^talk 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Dmcdevit about this? I'm sure he would be happy to share his reasoning, and any confidential data he may have, with his fellow checkuser Raul654. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the ceiling cat watching dmcvit anyways? :P I really think stewards should be given a more prominent role in interwiki checkuser afairs rather than being banned out of it. -- Cat ^chi? 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for blocking permanently user:Biggy_P on multiple attempts at vandalism and disruption of WP "Audio mastering" page and personal attacks against a living person

User:Biggy P

Confirmed sockpuppeteer (By checkuser, see [2])

Biggy P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sockpuppets

Mike Sorensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ProperManner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mr.Strong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SciFrutto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Meatpuppets (Or, just operating from another location)

Voy7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.214.253.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.214.253.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MagnusSound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Blocked)
JWilman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Blocked)

Report submission by Jrod2 21

46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure

My name is Joe Rodriguez and I am an audio engineer. I own a mastering facility in New York, and I am in charge of its administration as well as its operation. I am also responsible for all statements that were made by the User:Evinatea, which was my first account at Wikipedia. I feel it's important to come out clean about who I am, and explain the frustrating circumstances that I find myself in. Even our clients have taken notice of what's happening at WP, and this is totally unacceptable (See: [3]).

On February 28, 2007, I used my mastering engineer's (Mr. Edward Vinatea) articles on the subject of music mastering, but without his knowledge or consent. I created, one article called "Music Mastering", complete with its reference links, and two Spanish versions. I did this, totally ignorant of the rules and procedures. To accomplish this, I used the User:Evinatea account (See English article: [4]). Some editors were fine with the description I provided for the mastering article, however, any hints at spam and the links were promptly deleted the following day (See: English article: [5]).

As you can see, I posted Mr. Vinatea's name, title and company name. It was an error on my part which I am sorry and deeply regret. However, by March the 2nd, I had learned most WP rules, and even though I tried to correct my mistakes by allowing edit reverts, and asking other editors to help me erase the "Music mastering" page (See: [6]), I had no choice but to create this new account (User:Jrod2), because the other (Evinatea), was completely useless due to Biggy P, Mike Sorensen and all his sock puppets attacks and accusations (See: [7]) and now under "ProperManner" [8]).

It's very apparent to me now, the reasons for his vicious attacks: the diversion of attention from past, present, and probably future spam and vandalizing activities at WP. This user must be stopped and your help is needed a.s.a.p!

Evidence

According to a checkuser on May, 5 2007 by an administrator (See: [9]), Biggy_P matches all the listed suspect sock puppets above, therefore, a CONFIRMED vandal, highly disruptive and a deceptive spammer. He has been using Wikipedia, apparently from 2 detected locations in California, or uses the aid of a cohort, to spam and promote a business website at the Audio mastering page (See: [10] and [11]). He goes as far back as August 2006 with sock puppetry and meat puppet activities with cohort account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts" (See:[12] and [13]}. His previous meat puppet accounts were permanently blocked (See: [14] and [15])

Biggy P's account main purpose is to give support to the reverting a of a deleted article {"Artmastering"), which had raised concerns in the past, of just being a biased promotion of a mastering studio, and particularly, of its engineer (See: [16]) . Because of his conduct, I believe that Biggy P is obsessed about the inclusion of this article, but I wouldn't be surprised, if there are more hidden agendas, and even more sock puppet accounts. At the moment, it looks like his cohort Voy7, is no longer using IP address 66.214.253.51, which confirmed him in the past as a vandal. His last use of WP was seen here in March 22, 2007 to give support to sock puppet Mike Sorensen (See: [17]).

The contribution history on this known IP address 66.214.253.251 (See: [18] and [19]) indicates a relentless need for the deception and manipulation of WikiPedia and the inclusion of the so called article on "Artmastering". Nevertheless, the accounts that are popping up recently, were created to intimidate (See confirmed sock puppet account (ProperManner), give credibility or support (See confirmed sock puppet account SciFrutto) to the inclusion of said article, complete with external link to its business site (See: [20] and reference link). This raises the concern that Biggy P and his cohort are still trying to use Wikipedia for pure financial gain and self promotion. For more information on the spam article a/k/a "Artmastering" see [21]).

Comments

His main tactic: he regards me an outcast who is here to vandalize, and constantly reminds me and everyone, of my article submission errors. He is always calling it "spam" in order to create a disruption and a diversion from topical questions, while antagonizing me with his sock puppets's multiple role playing (See: [22]). In the end no one desires to participate in any discussions for fear of being tagged a sock puppet. That's how he has managed to drive everyone away. He would tag me, and everyone that opposes him, with sock puppetry accusations. At some point, I learned to do the same, but the difference is, I did it in self-defense.

His sock puppet User:Mr.Strong account, summarizes and accentuates Biggy P's frustration to get rid of me and along with my remarks at the audio mastering talk page (See:[23]). I believe the main reason for Biggy P's anger, and his need to get me blocked or vanished from WP, is the deletion of his "Artmastering" reference link, and my opposition to the inclusion of its article section. He has shown that he won't stop harassing me for that, and unless you block his sock puppets, he will never stop his deceptions to antagonize me. Making him pay with the loss of his puppets might make him see that, deceptive tactics and disrupting behavior, doesn't pay, and has no place at Wikipedia.

Conclusions

I therefore request, that Biggy P a/k/a Mike Sorensen, Mr. Strong, ProperManner, Scifrutto and his meat puppet account Voy7 along with the associated IP addresses 66.214.253.251 and 66.214.253.51, be blocked forever and for good. Thanks very much for your attention..Jrod2 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Counterargument

The users cited above have made substantial contributions to wikipedia particularily User:Mike Sorensen and User:ProperManner. None of the accounts cited above have ever vandalize main pages or engaged in policy violations. The sock puppets were mainly used to combat massive vandalisn and spam of User:Jrod2 and sock puppet User:Evinatea.

• User:Jpgordon has verified accounts of User:Jrod2 and User:Evinatea to be sock puppets of the same person [24]

• Evinatea have been engaged in spamming wikipedia from day one [25]in two different languages. His spam was exposed by user Biggy P [26] which resulted in disruptive reprisals by user Evinatea against Biggy P and everybody who agrees with Biggy P on any topic. Some references cited by Biggy P here [27]have since been deleted from Spanish wiki by admins along with entries by user account 162.83.209.26 , so diffs are no longer available but you can verify that with Spanish admins, the deleted spam articles were titled "Masterizacion" and "Masterizar". Compare with the same IP contributing in English 162.83.209.26 (English and Spanish wikipedias are using different database so you have to look in each wiki separately to find contributions made from the same IP address).

• Reprisals and attacks were continued by his proven sock puppets Jrod2 and IP accounts to which he admitted 162.83.209.26, and user 162.83.209.26 contributing in Spanish.

• Evinatea aka Jrod2 was warned [[28]] by Omegatron and his spam was moved to his userpage [29]. after that account Jrod2 was created and continued the same spam and accusations.

• User Jrod2 is a single purpose account with almost zero constructive contributions. Its only purpose is to defend user Evinatea and attack everybody who helped to expose spamming by Evinatea aka Edward Vinatea ("aka" comes from this edit [30] with his own signature here )

• User:Jrod2 diregard to facts is best shown by his own comments, here is his post where states: "All opinions, POVs, anger, frustrations and accusations, should be made known to others. Even if these are not factual ... signed Jrod2" [31]. This pretty much sums up the contributions of Jrod2 and his sock puppets.

• User:Biggy P used the name of Edward Vinatea in some of his comments only after User:Evinatea decided to disclose his own name in this post [32]. And yes, Edward Vinatea aka Evinatea acknowledged his spamming and apologized and immediately created a sock puppet and continued to spam under different names as Jrod2, 162.83.209.26, 162.83.209.26 .

• The most insidious part of complaint by User:Jrod2 aka User:Evinatea is that he used wikipedia to promote his own business and when he was exposed he went into a accusation rampage.

• User:Jrod2 just deleted my entire response to his accusations as posted above [33] . This is blatant vandalism and total disregard for wikipedia policy. Not even mentioning attempt to silence the opposing point of view. --Mike Sorensen 07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So in light of these findings I'm requesting permanent blocking of User:Evinatea and User:Jrod2. --Mike Sorensen 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to the CheckUser, please? SirFozzie 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would support a community ban for a confirmed sockpuppeter and all five accounts blocked. SirFozzie 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

proposal of community article ban

No Action taken, user attempting to win an edit war through a back door discussion. SirFozzie 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose an article ban of the Wikipedian Ned Scott from the Wikipedia community article. At the very least an article ban is warranted. His background behaviour could warrant further restriction in editing on Wikipedia. Please review and make an honest judgement.

background behaviour

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=119159618 Quack... what the **** is wrong with you?
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=117614259 what a ****ing joke

background of the Wikipedia community article

• Article history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&curid=9902773&action=history
• Current article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community
• Old discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_community#Trivia
• Current discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_community#Added_trivia_section

Editor shows no sign of stopping

Edit warring has not stopped.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=121865421
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=123601932
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126220209
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126313643
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126646308
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126917924
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127019374
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127019506
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127177044
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=128753813
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=129053354

Editor was warned that users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&curid=3708061&diff=126741715&oldid=126740144
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&diff=next&oldid=126741715

Ned Scott has continued edit warring and was warned to stop. He is not interested in listening to other Wikipedians. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no prior experience with the article but in reviewing its history, agreed it does look possible that an article ban for User:QuackGuru could be merited. Raymond Arritt 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it up on the RfC on QuackGuru, and yes, this smacks of attempting to win an edit war through the backdoor rather than an actual issue with regards to other editors. I will close this discussion if there are no further objections. SirFozzie 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a brilliant example of why this noticeboard was MfD'd - someone involved in an edit war trying to win the dispute via the back door. – Steel 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And a brilliant example of why it shouldn't be deleted, as the community is not stupid. I see a RfC open on QuackGuru, so let's let DR take its course SirFozzie 22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shocking news, and community ban proposal.

Robdurbar is now banned from Wikipedia, but the thread is still active owing to confusion over his relationship to banned editor Wonderfool

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. Our rogue administrator, Robdurbar, is apparently a sockpuppet of Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, who is known for similar actions (deleting the main page, blocking administrators, and other very disruptive things) in two rampages on Wiktionary. I propose that this person be banned for his disruptive actions. Others have hinted at starting this banning proposal based on the checkuser results, but I thought I would get it going a little early. I also wanna say, this is a bizarre way of trying to create havoc... Making good edits for a long time, becoming an administrator, then coming back and going on a 20-minute rampage. Very strange... Grandmasterka 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there are few other indiscretions, for example blocking Jimbo? Overall, I'm not sure a discussion is required. Addhoc 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robdurbar for the original RFA. --Kim Bruning 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Three opposers: A user who opposed every RfA, a 1FA oppose, and a user who was later banned themselves. Grandmasterka 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is among the most abusive use of sockpuppets I have ever seen, and if this is the same person which went on a vandal spree on Wiktionary, I don't think we can continue to let him edit. The RFA illustrates how the user was able to deceive the community. The damage is simply too great. Support ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt a full community notice is needed. The person has proven that he/she can not be trusted on Wikipedia. Abuse of sockpuppets, a slightly maniacal vandal spree, blocking of respected Wikipedians... Ban supported. --Kzrulzuall 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An other question: He became an admin in last August. What caused him to wait this long and do it now?

My opinion of what happened: He uses a public computer in the same place that Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous is. One day he forgot to log off, and Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous took over the account. Since Robdurbar was leaving, Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous could get away with this without anyone else realizing it. In this case, the situation would be:

1. The user left Wikipedia, and then appeared all of a sudden when Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous thought it was safe for him to do this at the public computer.
2. Since Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous and Robdurbar use the same public computer, the IP address may not reveal anything about such an incident.
3. Even if I'm right, the account should be blocked, since it's been compromised by a dangerous vandal and the user seems to have no intention of returning.

Od Mishehu 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That would explain why Robdurbar waited so log to do this, which is a mystery to me too. Only one problem: Why would Robdurbar be logged in on a public computer a month after his last edit? Grandmasterka 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some things wrong with that theory, Mishehu. How unlikely is it that Robdurbar and Wonderfool were, coincidentally, in the same city, and sharing the same public computer. The odds of a previously desyssoped rogue admin, and him meeting like that is probably one in a billion.... Keep in mind that about 0.00000002% of the global population are Wikipedian admins. --Kzrulzuall 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was logged in for that long. If you find a computer with a user logged in, you can change the e-mail address even without the password, and confirm it probably at the same sitting. Then at any later point you can, on login, press the e-mail a new password. After that, you have the other account for abuse any time you want. If you're on a public computer, you probably do want to wait a while, so that the other user can't trace you anymore.

Although a tiny population of the world is, in fact, Wikipedia admins, it's also true that most of the users with enough access to the web to be Wikipedia or Wictionary admins is not 100%. If Wonderfool lives in the same city as Rodburdar, then a chance meeting in the public library isn't out of the question - and probably a high percentage of Wikipedian admins are from the US, where public libraries with internet access are common. Od Mishehu 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Robdurbar already is effectively community-banned, I can't conceive that anyone would possibly unblock him, especially given this. But I certainly support any such ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He's banned. --Tony Sidaway 08:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, and thank Grandmasterka for bringing this to the attention of the noticeboard. Unanswerable Question: were the good contributions just a sham, or does the guy flip between light and dark? Answerable Question: Were there any warning signs we missed? Ben Aveling 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the MO of the problematic behavior at the time does look the same, the Wictionary admins didn't have a long break before the trouble. This brings back my theory presented above that the account was compromised, so we wouldn't find any warning signs. Od Mishehu 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absent some very convincing evidence, the chance of an account being physically compromised by a different, malicious editor is very low indeed. Slightly more likely is that robdurbar had an obvious password and the account was remotely compromised. In the latter event, it isn't acceptable behavior for an administrator to leave a weak password on his account.

The matter is moot, in any case. Robdurbar was banned before ever this discussion began. The consensus of the community is strongly against unblocks in such cases. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All these users appear to have been pretty uncontroversial prior to adminship, and during adminship, and seem to go out with a bang. It would be quite difficult to identify sockpuppets - "Hey, keep an eye on that guy who keeps his head down and doesn't kick up a fuss, he's just waiting to explode!" Also the crosswiki vandalism is disturbing. Someone should alert the more prominent Wikis about the possibility of this occurring again (although, as I say, it would be hard to pin down who would do this, as there seem to be no warning signs). Oh - and support ban. – Riana _ऋ 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if this thing does happen again, I agree that it is nearly impossible, as stated, to detect a user such as this, before gaining adminship... But the good side is that we will know what to do to counteract it. A bigger problem will be if a steward goes on a rampage.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We could conceivably pay attention to the areas Robdurbar contributed to and look for similarities in new editors. I'm willing to do a little investigation. We still have to assume this was all caused by one person without any account hacking due to the positive checkuser results. (If Od Mishehu's hypothesis was correct, the hacker would live in the same town near the same computer... Pretty long odds.) Is there a mental condition that could produce this odd behavior? Grandmasterka 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Without knowing what his intents were, any amateur diagnostics of mental conditions would be pointless. If he'd intended from the beginning to do this, and spent all that time and effort to become an admin just so he could wreak havoc, that would probably indicate perhaps some type of compulsion. On the other hand, if he just snaps under stress, well, some people snap under stress, and there are quite a few possible reasons for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is strong that Robdurbar didn't have his account hijacked. Dmcdevit has just made this edit on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (WT:RFAR) saying:

Note that CheckUser already determined that he did not have his account stolen, as, among other things, he still edits from the same university that he claimed to have been attending in his original user page (now deleted).

--Tony Sidaway 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't that make it more likely if you follow the 'theory' outlay at the top of the section? somebody in the college library jumping on after him and changing the email? I admit, long shot, but more likely then 'random cities one day in a cybercafe' -M^ask? 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They share both the university IPs and the home Tiscali ISP ranges. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but that only increases the improbability slightly. People attending the same small-town univ are quite likely to live off-campus in the same student-y area, and therefore have the same local dynamic IP ranges. Hornplease 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I first mentioned a community ban proposal on the CheckUser request is that I needed to know which target to aim at. The threshold for a code G request (does not fit any other reason for using CheckUser) on CheckUser is probably much higher than the threshold for a code F request (we think that the account is a sock of a community banned user). If it is Wonderfool/Thewayforward/Dangherous, then the community ban's scope will be wider than if we just targeted Robdurbar. I was sleeping when Grandmasterka created this community ban proposal. As for how I feel, I wholeheartedly endorse the ban because Wikipedia will suffer a perfect storm of PR nightmares if a member of a big newspaper, news magazine, or television network noticed what was going on. Jay Leno, David Letterman, and other late night jokesters would be making jokes about how it was becoming hard to tell the administrators from the vandals on Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot to mention that there is no current community ban on Wonderfool (the previous one was rescinded), nor any ArbCom ban on any of the accounts, so we need this discussion for formality's sake and CheckUser's sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Discussion seems unnecessary. He went on a destruction spree as an admin, and checkuser revealed abusive sockpuppetry. Nobody in their right mind would unblock the main account, and new accounts can be blocked as "editing by a banned user". If you feel the need for a community ban, Tony Sidaway just gave the declaration and I'll second it: He's banned. --kingboyk 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When I filed a pro forma arbitration case to confirm Robdurbar's desysopping (a Steward had performed an emergency desysop but involuntary desysopping on En-Wiki can only be officially done by ArbCom), the arbitrators said "fine, desysopping confirmed" but I got some very strange (metaphorical) looks along the lines of "why are you bothering with this silly formality?" I suppose the same attitude would obtain here. If necessary, support ban. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Robdurbar won't be entered onto List of banned users unless this step is taken, right? If that list is to have any value, and since this is a highly bannable case, I don't see why we don't do it. I gather than this is *not yet* a ban request for User:Wonderfool. I trust that one of the proponents has verified that enough data has been collected to justify a permanent ban. If any hesitation is needed, it's because everyone seems to have a different view of what is going on. EdJohnston 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only necessity for a community ban is community support, not useless formalities. When it is blindingly obvious (read: deletes the main page repeatedly and goes on a blocking spree, after doing it on Wiktionary, after doing it on Wiktionary, after being banned by the ArbCom once before for creating nihilartikels) there is no legal proceeding necessary. Please read Tony Sidaway's insightful comment above. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not permanent even if they're on that list. They can appeal. They could come back in a few years time and say "sorry guys, I had problems but I've treated". Whatever. The point is that nobody but nobody can reasonably object to a ban at this point in time, and if it takes adding it to that list for it to be "official" (sigh) consider it done. --kingboyk 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats stopping him from being added without this? Were not a beauracracy, and you are free to ignore and formalities of process. Don't go wonky. He was banned, we dont need any more discussion really. Add him. -M^ask? 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that we know the sockmaster, this is a ban request for Wonderfool. Robdurbar is considered one of his socks. Jesse Viviano 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly silly that we're considering the fact that someone from Wonderfool's same home ISP and same university, with the same interests in pop music and English national football team-related articles, with French also as his secondary language, who complains that his IP was blocked from Wiktionary, and so on, happened to have his account compromised in some way, and it happened to have been taken over by Wonderfool himself. "Why did he wait so long" comments are missing the point that he's done this twice before, and has in each case been a diligent admin for months. I don't see the point in trying to psychoanalyze him. Now, he caused a fewminutes of chaos, but let's move on. No one (who doesn't wan to get immediately checkusered upon suspicion of being another Wonderfool) is going to consider unblocking him. Dmcdevit·t 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way you look at it, this looks bad. At best, you've got a guy who's clearly got a serious mental problem. At worst, you've got an admin who had no business being an admin. I also noticed he didn't give any reasons for these mass blocks. In either case, this can't be tolerated. Ban--and if someone hasn't contacted his school, get on the horn. Blueboy96 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish that I could say the same about a discussion not being necessary, but I noticed that the CheckUser clerks are extreme sticklers for formality. Some CheckUser requests on User:Bobabobabo got either derailed or seriously hindered because there was no community ban discussion. That is why I wanted to propose the community ban myself. However, Grandmasterka beat me to it while I was asleep. Jesse Viviano 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's silly, and easily fixed: [34]. Now can we cut all this silly procedure? Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred the text "List here with proof beyond all reasonable doubt that this user is banned by the community or by Jimbo Wales." This way, some simple vandalism block will not trigger code F, but Robdurbar's admin log, block log, and his user rights log where he lost his sysop bit would have been admissible for code F. Also, this will allow ban discussions and canonize the use of code F that was used for Jimbo Wales bans like the one on Primetime. Jesse Viviano 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban recorded at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#R. Please feel free to copyedit/fine tune/list the sockpuppets, whatever, not that any of this bureacracy is really necessary of course... --kingboyk 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#W, because we were discussing a ban for Wonderfool, of which Robdurbar is a sock. Jesse Viviano 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To a naive observer, it might seem that this thread has reached a conclusion. Does anyone have more to say? Would there be a consensus that I can apply the templates to 'close' this thread? EdJohnston 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul's previous interaction with Wonderfool

Wonderfool was previously caught creating hoax articles. He bragged about how his university had a single IP shared across the entire campus, so there's no way we would dare block it, and that he planned to continue doing it. Well, long story short, I did block the university, with a message for the university tech people to email me. 12 hours later, I got an email from their sysadmin asking what's going on, I explained the problem to them, and they were *VERY* angry with him. He later apologized, and asked to be unblocked, which (feeling generous) I did.

Given the latest events, I'm tempted to dig up my old contacts with his university and let them know what he's been doing now. Raul654 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I said I would never log on again acting as Robdurbar, but I would like to make it clear that I am not Wonderfool, or related to him in any way. The fact that he went/goes to the same university as myself (as it would appear) is coincidence, but that is all it is. Clearly there is no way that I can prove this, other than to note that I e-mailed dmcdevit yesterday noting this and so he does have my e-mail address; he and Raul (who I presume has the details of Wonderfool) could possibly contact each other and cross check to see that we have different ones; OK that doesn't prove anything, but then two users using ip addys open to ~15 000 people doesn't prove anything either.

  When I e-mailed dc it was more a minor pride thing (I don't want to be noted as a sock of some other guy!) but I really felt I had to speak out now. 129.234.4.76 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, if this is really Robdurbar, while you're here, would you mind explaining exactly what the heck was going through your head that morning? Newyorkbrad 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather not, it seemed much more funny with all the wild rumours going about. Truth be told, I was bored revising and thought 'that'll be a 10 minute laugh'. Nothing more, nothing less. Frankly, I'm surprised no one's done it before - after all, it stands to reason that anyone who gets bored enough to edit Wikipedia enough to become an admin must get bored easily. I was intrigued as to how quickly the community would react, what would happen if there was no main page (I was a bit disapointed it just went to the normal 'this page does not exist' thing), etc.

      Actually, the weird thing is that Wonderfool has edited a lot fairly similar articles to me - on football, cycling, places etc. Still, afraid it's that dull - no illnesses, no high-jackers, no 'wikisuicide', no agenda, no disgruntlement and no sockpuppets. --Drinkheavy 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    • And oh shit, I've just done that using my new account. Suppose that'll get blocked now. D'oh! Drinkheavy 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

      If you two are separate, we will need an email to the unblock email address from your network administrator's address at postmaster@... vouching for you and showing that he or she saw you logging into the Robdurbar account and Wonderfool logging into his or her Dangherous account (he or she claims to have lost the password to the Thewayforward account). Do not try to forge the email because we can examine the headers to see if you are faking it, and we will send an email to your university's postmaster@... address asking for verification. Otherwise, your actions here and on Wiktionary, your ISPs, and your interests cause us to believe that you are Wonderfool because of the duck test. Jesse Viviano 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that as Raul's noted, the check user case seems to be highly flawed: we wern't even editing from the same universities. So all its established is that we both use Tiscali at home? Not the most convincing of proof. See Thewayforward's contributions: he does the sort of methodological editing which I rarely did, such as the repeated additions of interwiki links. As I've noted, it's not really that important as I'm banned anyway BUT it does bring up a few flaws in the checkuser procedure, if nothign else. --129.234.4.76 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

People move from university to university. I graduated from Mississippi State University with a B. Sc., and am going for my master's degree at North Carolina State University. Wonderfool may have moved from Cardiff University to Durham University. Jesse Viviano 04:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that we really had had two people from that university with almost identical interests go through an adminning and then delete the main page of Wikimedia projects, that would be a good case for treating the university as a kind of madhouse and permanently blocking the IP. However it seems more likely that here we have an exceptionally stupid and sociopathic editor who couldn't tell the truth to save his life. The home ISP data supports the latter conclusion. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can checkuser the above user{Drinkheavy) to see if it is actually Robdurbah? I'm pretty sure that it was just a disruptive troll. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Universities

I think that people might have leapt to conclusions on shaky evidence, here. Dmcdevit states above that Robdurbar used the "same home ISP and same university" as Wonderfool. Having cross-checked the two, I disagree (whilst, I, too, noted the shared languages and interests). There is strong evidence that Wonderfool edited from 131.251.0.7 (talk · contribs), an IP address assigned to Cardiff University. And as any administrator can check (although I'm not going to provide detail), Robdurbar's deleted user page mentions an entirely different university (in a different country, even). Similarly, 129.234.4.76 (talk · contribs), claiming to be Robdurbar above, is an IP address assigned to Durham University. I strongly recommend, Raul654, that you double-check the university before assuming that this is Wonderfool. Uncle G 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm by no means certain, but didn't WF claim he left Cardiff some time last year? I can't find or remember where he said that [probably on wikt, I'd guess, since *I've* seen it], but if anyone else remembers, it may be worth checking it out. \Mike(z) 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-ran Dmcdevit's checkuser, and frankly, I'm having trouble making heads or tails of it. I suppose it's possible they (Robdurbar and Wonderfool) are related, but it's less than clear to me. Raul654 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the reason you are having trouble is that this CheckUser required access to the tool on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Wonderfool's primary target is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Either a steward at Meta or someone who has CheckUser on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia would be needed to make sense of the CheckUser. Dmcdevit has access to CheckUser on both projects, so he is the only non-steward who can run the CheckUser investigation and make sense of it. If you need independent verification, please ask one of the stewards at meta:Stewards to rerun the CheckUser. Jesse Viviano 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone likes, I will attempt to discuss this with the universities - you can email me privately if you wish to discuss this off-wiki. I haven't done this kind of WP:ABUSE report before... --SunStar Net ^talk 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Dmcdevit about this? I'm sure he would be happy to share his reasoning, and any confidential data he may have, with his fellow checkuser Raul654. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the ceiling cat watching dmcvit anyways? :P I really think stewards should be given a more prominent role in interwiki checkuser afairs rather than being banned out of it. -- Cat ^chi? 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for blocking permanently user:Biggy_P on multiple attempts at vandalism and disruption of WP "Audio mastering" page and personal attacks against a living person

User:Biggy P

Confirmed sockpuppeteer (By checkuser, see [35])

Biggy P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sockpuppets

Mike Sorensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ProperManner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mr.Strong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SciFrutto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Meatpuppets (Or, just operating from another location)

Voy7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.214.253.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.214.253.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MagnusSound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Blocked)
JWilman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Blocked)

Report submission by Jrod2 21

46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure

My name is Joe Rodriguez and I am an audio engineer. I own a mastering facility in New York, and I am in charge of its administration as well as its operation. I am also responsible for all statements that were made by the User:Evinatea, which was my first account at Wikipedia. I feel it's important to come out clean about who I am, and explain the frustrating circumstances that I find myself in. Even our clients have taken notice of what's happening at WP, and this is totally unacceptable (See: [36]).

On February 28, 2007, I used my mastering engineer's (Mr. Edward Vinatea) articles on the subject of music mastering, but without his knowledge or consent. I created, one article called "Music Mastering", complete with its reference links, and two Spanish versions. I did this, totally ignorant of the rules and procedures. To accomplish this, I used the User:Evinatea account (See English article: [37]). Some editors were fine with the description I provided for the mastering article, however, any hints at spam and the links were promptly deleted the following day (See: English article: [38]).

As you can see, I posted Mr. Vinatea's name, title and company name. It was an error on my part which I am sorry and deeply regret. However, by March the 2nd, I had learned most WP rules, and even though I tried to correct my mistakes by allowing edit reverts, and asking other editors to help me erase the "Music mastering" page (See: [39]), I had no choice but to create this new account (User:Jrod2), because the other (Evinatea), was completely useless due to Biggy P, Mike Sorensen and all his sock puppets attacks and accusations (See: [40]) and now under "ProperManner" [41]).

It's very apparent to me now, the reasons for his vicious attacks: the diversion of attention from past, present, and probably future spam and vandalizing activities at WP. This user must be stopped and your help is needed a.s.a.p!

Evidence

According to a checkuser on May, 5 2007 by an administrator (See: [42]), Biggy_P matches all the listed suspect sock puppets above, therefore, a CONFIRMED vandal, highly disruptive and a deceptive spammer. He has been using Wikipedia, apparently from 2 detected locations in California, or uses the aid of a cohort, to spam and promote a business website at the Audio mastering page (See: [43] and [44]). He goes as far back as August 2006 with sock puppetry and meat puppet activities with cohort account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts" (See:[45] and [46]}. His previous meat puppet accounts were permanently blocked (See: [47] and [48])

Biggy P's account main purpose is to give support to the reverting a of a deleted article {"Artmastering"), which had raised concerns in the past, of just being a biased promotion of a mastering studio, and particularly, of its engineer (See: [49]) . Because of his conduct, I believe that Biggy P is obsessed about the inclusion of this article, but I wouldn't be surprised, if there are more hidden agendas, and even more sock puppet accounts. At the moment, it looks like his cohort Voy7, is no longer using IP address 66.214.253.51, which confirmed him in the past as a vandal. His last use of WP was seen here in March 22, 2007 to give support to sock puppet Mike Sorensen (See: [50]).

The contribution history on this known IP address 66.214.253.251 (See: [51] and [52]) indicates a relentless need for the deception and manipulation of WikiPedia and the inclusion of the so called article on "Artmastering". Nevertheless, the accounts that are popping up recently, were created to intimidate (See confirmed sock puppet account (ProperManner), give credibility or support (See confirmed sock puppet account SciFrutto) to the inclusion of said article, complete with external link to its business site (See: [53] and reference link). This raises the concern that Biggy P and his cohort are still trying to use Wikipedia for pure financial gain and self promotion. For more information on the spam article a/k/a "Artmastering" see [54]).

Comments

His main tactic: he regards me an outcast who is here to vandalize, and constantly reminds me and everyone, of my article submission errors. He is always calling it "spam" in order to create a disruption and a diversion from topical questions, while antagonizing me with his sock puppets's multiple role playing (See: [55]). In the end no one desires to participate in any discussions for fear of being tagged a sock puppet. That's how he has managed to drive everyone away. He would tag me, and everyone that opposes him, with sock puppetry accusations. At some point, I learned to do the same, but the difference is, I did it in self-defense.

His sock puppet User:Mr.Strong account, summarizes and accentuates Biggy P's frustration to get rid of me and along with my remarks at the audio mastering talk page (See:[56]). I believe the main reason for Biggy P's anger, and his need to get me blocked or vanished from WP, is the deletion of his "Artmastering" reference link, and my opposition to the inclusion of its article section. He has shown that he won't stop harassing me for that, and unless you block his sock puppets, he will never stop his deceptions to antagonize me. Making him pay with the loss of his puppets might make him see that, deceptive tactics and disrupting behavior, doesn't pay, and has no place at Wikipedia.

Conclusions

I therefore request, that Biggy P a/k/a Mike Sorensen, Mr. Strong, ProperManner, Scifrutto and his meat puppet account Voy7 along with the associated IP addresses 66.214.253.251 and 66.214.253.51, be blocked forever and for good. Thanks very much for your attention..Jrod2 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Counterargument

The users cited above have made substantial contributions to wikipedia particularily User:Mike Sorensen and User:ProperManner. None of the accounts cited above have ever vandalize main pages or engaged in policy violations. The sock puppets were mainly used to combat massive vandalisn and spam of User:Jrod2 and sock puppet User:Evinatea.

• User:Jpgordon has verified accounts of User:Jrod2 and User:Evinatea to be sock puppets of the same person [57]

• Evinatea have been engaged in spamming wikipedia from day one [58]in two different languages. His spam was exposed by user Biggy P [59] which resulted in disruptive reprisals by user Evinatea against Biggy P and everybody who agrees with Biggy P on any topic. Some references cited by Biggy P here [60]have since been deleted from Spanish wiki by admins along with entries by user account 162.83.209.26 , so diffs are no longer available but you can verify that with Spanish admins, the deleted spam articles were titled "Masterizacion" and "Masterizar". Compare with the same IP contributing in English 162.83.209.26 (English and Spanish wikipedias are using different database so you have to look in each wiki separately to find contributions made from the same IP address).

• Reprisals and attacks were continued by his proven sock puppets Jrod2 and IP accounts to which he admitted 162.83.209.26, and user 162.83.209.26 contributing in Spanish.

• Evinatea aka Jrod2 was warned [[61]] by Omegatron and his spam was moved to his userpage [62]. after that account Jrod2 was created and continued the same spam and accusations.

• User Jrod2 is a single purpose account with almost zero constructive contributions. Its only purpose is to defend user Evinatea and attack everybody who helped to expose spamming by Evinatea aka Edward Vinatea ("aka" comes from this edit [63] with his own signature here )

• User:Jrod2 diregard to facts is best shown by his own comments, here is his post where states: "All opinions, POVs, anger, frustrations and accusations, should be made known to others. Even if these are not factual ... signed Jrod2" [64]. This pretty much sums up the contributions of Jrod2 and his sock puppets.

• User:Biggy P used the name of Edward Vinatea in some of his comments only after User:Evinatea decided to disclose his own name in this post [65]. And yes, Edward Vinatea aka Evinatea acknowledged his spamming and apologized and immediately created a sock puppet and continued to spam under different names as Jrod2, 162.83.209.26, 162.83.209.26 .

• The most insidious part of complaint by User:Jrod2 aka User:Evinatea is that he used wikipedia to promote his own business and when he was exposed he went into a accusation rampage.

• User:Jrod2 just deleted my entire response to his accusations as posted above [66] . This is blatant vandalism and total disregard for wikipedia policy. Not even mentioning attempt to silence the opposing point of view. --Mike Sorensen 07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So in light of these findings I'm requesting permanent blocking of User:Evinatea and User:Jrod2. --Mike Sorensen 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to the CheckUser, please? SirFozzie 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would support a community ban for a confirmed sockpuppeter and all five accounts blocked. SirFozzie 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

proposal of community article ban

No Action taken, user attempting to win an edit war through a back door discussion. SirFozzie 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose an article ban of the Wikipedian Ned Scott from the Wikipedia community article. At the very least an article ban is warranted. His background behaviour could warrant further restriction in editing on Wikipedia. Please review and make an honest judgement.

background behaviour

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=119159618 Quack... what the **** is wrong with you?
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=117614259 what a ****ing joke

background of the Wikipedia community article

• Article history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&curid=9902773&action=history
• Current article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community
• Old discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_community#Trivia
• Current discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia_community#Added_trivia_section

Editor shows no sign of stopping

Edit warring has not stopped.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=121865421
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=123601932
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126220209
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126313643
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126646308
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=126917924
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127019374
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127019506
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=127177044
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=128753813
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=129053354

Editor was warned that users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&curid=3708061&diff=126741715&oldid=126740144
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&diff=next&oldid=126741715

Ned Scott has continued edit warring and was warned to stop. He is not interested in listening to other Wikipedians. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no prior experience with the article but in reviewing its history, agreed it does look possible that an article ban for User:QuackGuru could be merited. Raymond Arritt 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it up on the RfC on QuackGuru, and yes, this smacks of attempting to win an edit war through the backdoor rather than an actual issue with regards to other editors. I will close this discussion if there are no further objections. SirFozzie 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a brilliant example of why this noticeboard was MfD'd - someone involved in an edit war trying to win the dispute via the back door. – Steel 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And a brilliant example of why it shouldn't be deleted, as the community is not stupid. I see a RfC open on QuackGuru, so let's let DR take its course SirFozzie 22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.