Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia

We have had three brand new accounts created in the last two days who have all headed immediately to the VfD pages and began casting votes with no prior Wikipedia edits. You have to wonder if they're doing so to build up their Wikipedia edits in order to qualify for page moves. One of them has already been blocked for finally succumbing to vandalism after their VfD vote spree. They are ShureMicGuy (talk · contribs), ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs) and Jinkleberries (talk · contribs). Jinkleberries is the one who was blocked. RickK 23:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Might want to add Chubby Chicken (talk · contribs) to that list. RickK 23:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• this edit by Jinkleberries makes me a little worried because this user adds xys name to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I would also suggest taking a look at User:Melvis, User:Hohokus, and User:Toasthaven. Although they have (a few) other edits, those accounts appear to have been created primarily to vote on VfDs. Toasthaven headed straight to the VfD pages for his/her first edit, a majority of the others' edits are VfD votes. All have few edits and accounts were created within the last three weeks. Kaibabsquirrel 23:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, both Melvis and Hohokus deleted the welcome messages other Users put on their Talk pages, without a thank you or any other comment. RickK 00:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

So, we finally have it coming. I've seen quite a few even smarter new users, who, when a particular VfD starts, sit and make cosmetic edits, and then proceed to VfD. Still other accounst are dormant, but periodically reactivate during some VfD. Something must be done with the policy. It worked so far, since so far vandals are not consolidated. But I smell massive attacks coming. mikka (t) 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is much of a problem, personally: if someone has made only a small quantity of edits someone will be sure to point that out (because the opposition is always looking for any way to disqualify a vote), and that vote will either not be counted or given reduced weight—particularly if the account's edits are only very minor ones. On the other hand, if someone wants a vote and they are willing to do a reasonable about of wiki-work so that their vote will be counted, that's fine by me; even if I don't like the vote I'd still say we're better off to have someone making good edits, even if they are opportunistic. Everyking 01:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But as I said above, and as I think Mikkalai is trying to say, these users seem to be collecting edits to give them enough valid edits to be eligible to make page moves. RickK 04:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I often wonder if it would be worth having a minimum edit requirement before you can vote on the various -fd pages (even if it's low, say 100 edits). The only groups that head straight there with little prior wiki-ing experience seem to be the creators of the pages, vandals, and sockpuppets. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind if the author of an article on VFD would vote there. So I oppose a minimum edit requirement. When they can provide proof their page is factually correct and belongs to wikipedia in a detailed rationale, I'm all for it. It's the people that vote keep without explanation (or those who stuff votes) when all others vote delete that annoys me. (forgot to sign earlier - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC))
  • Well, there can be an explicit exception that the creator of the article gets to vote unconditionally, but for others they need to have some edits on record to show that they have some substantial interest in editing besides just that one article on VfD. Everyking 08:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we might not even need an exception for the creator, if we were to state that anyone is allowed to discuss on VFD, but only established users can vote. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway. The usage of role or sock accounts for *FD voting has been alleged to in the past, and I can see it becoming a substantial problem (because if not stopped somehow, some people might react by doing the same thing to counter opposing socks). I think the only feasible way of stopping it is sockchecking. Immediate banning of suspected role accounts is too harsh since some of them would be legit, but calling for an IP check would solve that problem. I realize sockchecking is somewhat controversial because of privacy issues, but maybe we should discuss that anyway. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  I cannot see it becoming a substantial problem. We've had the problem (and the discussion) for quite some time now. The worst that can happen (has happened) is that a VfD vote gets stuffed with nonsense votes. But keep in mind it's not really a vote; the administrator who closes the discussion is who decides what happens to the article, based on the legitimate input of the community. A blanket "keep" or "delete" counts for very little (nothing if not from an established account), and "me, too" votes are usually only as strong as the original argument. IP checks are still no match for common sense. I think it would be too much to hope that we can identify a small number of people who consistently ruin votes, and ban them. Of course, if people want to spend time and effort on checking this, good for them; I think no essential solution to the problem exists, however, other than trusting in the good sense of administrators. JRM · Talk 12:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Not entirely. The issue of a single VfD vote being spammed with socks happens occasionally (in particular when an article on a web forum is up for deletion), and isn't really a problem, since it goes away in a week's time. However, what IS a problem is users creating a secondary account for the purpose of double-voting. There has been a recent inrush of new accounts that vote on a lot of different VfD discussions. The first few times they are recognizable by their low contribs record, but after a week or so that becomes difficult. Radiant_>|< 14:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • VfU has a very simple and reasonable suffrage policy, as stated on Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy I can't think of any reason why the same policy couldn't/shouldn't apply to VfD as well. It would sure cut down on the sockpuppets and trolls. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anon user (on Albert Einstein) insists on inserting an infobox without coming to any consensus on the talk page first, as asked directly by a number of editors. Has broken the 3RR in the process (already reported, not yet blocked). Is also "gaming the system" -- adding the infobox in one edit, then making small changes elsewhere, then when the page is reverted back to a pre-infobox state, uses any of the small changes not transferred over as an excuse to protest "removal of content" and rv again. (because of the nature of the infobox changes, it is hard to easily do this by hand. I've done it twice but I'm getting pretty frustrated). Now is insisting that if the article doesn't have an infobox, it shouldn't have a main picture at all. I'm all out of reverts for one day, I can't attend to this, would really appreciate an admin 1. blocking this user for 24 hours at least (for the 3RR if not general accusations of vandalism and gaming the system), and 2. reverting it back to one of the edits in the non-infobox state (there needs to be some discussion over this first, and for the moment the non-infobox state is a lot easier to edit without this "removal of content" problem). If someone could take a look over there I'd really appreciate it, I'm getting pretty frustrated here by this anon user's refusal to discuss difficult-to-carefully-revert changes before making them. --Fastfission 17:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at this? It has been almost two hours now, the User has continued to be highly disruptive, has violated the 3RR almost twice over, and I feel like I'm talking to myself here. --Fastfission 19:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute more than any vandalism. Might want to put this up on requests for page protection. But I agree that Anon IP has violated the 3RR. I'll leave a note warning him and if he does it again, I'll block for 24 hours. --khaosworks 19:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not really an incident, I know, so apologies in advance (I don't know where else to raise it!). Has Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Turkish Holocaust Chronological Index been forgotten about? It's been open since 29 May, but hasn't been closed or acted on. I should note that the user who created the article in question has an RfA open against him which includes evidence of sockpuppetry and the repeated use of open proxies, so caution should be exercised in determining whether the votes of anon IPs and new users should be considered. -- ChrisO 21:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. There is a considerable backlog, and so far, even debates as old as May 25 are not all resolved. --Dmcdevit 21:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Okay, I'll see if I can lend a hand to get the backlog down. -- ChrisO 21:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We're up to May 29 now. Any help from admins with closing VfDs is always welcome. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the mideast pages are sinking into chaos because of sockpuppets, anon IPs, and personal attacks, with several pages protected, and editors blocked for 3RR, who just return with different IP addresses.

Involved on the pro-Islam side: Yuber (talk · contribs), BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs), Farhansher (talk · contribs), and Anonymous editor (talk · contribs), also editing as 64.229.171.149 (talk · contribs).

On the anti-Islam side: Enviroknot (talk · contribs) —presumed to be the same person as KaintheScion (talk · contribs) and ElKabong (talk · contribs) — Guy Montag (talk · contribs), PeterChehabi (talk · contribs), and someone posting from a number of IP addresses — .e.g 212.218.64.68 (talk · contribs), 69.57.130.8 (talk · contribs), and 24.3.149.174 (talk · contribs) — who says she's a Muslim woman from Saudi Arabia and hates Islam, supposedly because of the way she was treated. She's called the Muslim editors "Islamist f**ks* [1], and "lying Islamist f**ks", [2], a phrase ElKabong used, and she writes in ElKabong's characteristically vicious way. I blocked some of her IPs for 3RR, but she just keeps coming back.

To get the flavor of the dispute, see all of Talk:Jihad/Archive4 and User talk:SlimVirgin#Yuber and keep going to the end of the page.

I'm going to e-mail David with some sockpuppet enquiries to see if he can pin down who's who. I'm posting here because any help in controlling the outbreak would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pages currently protected because of them:

• Suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qana Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

69.57.130.8 (talk · contribs) and 24.3.149.174 (talk · contribs) (used by the supposed Muslim woman, probably ElKabong) turned out to be anon proxies, so I've blocked them indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the only reason those pages are chaotic. I don't think it matters who is who. The behaviour is the problem. Deal with that and forget the personal stuff. I really think that's the right way (even if I'm not always able to do the right thing!). I hold my hands up for my part of the blame. I've been no angel at times. It's a very incendiary area, and it doesn't take much for it to catch fire. But I really believe the good-faith editors have to look at themselves, model the good behaviour we want to see and try to show that there's another road. Of course, you're going to get some trolls who just want the chaos, but if they're not fed, they wither and die. Grace Note 12:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Jihad#Call for comments for preliminary mediation. Inter\^Echo 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't very sure who was saying what. The argument on Jihad has gone way beyond anything substantive, it seems. I think your efforts should be applauded though. I think this article is a great case for "source every word". Grace Note 12:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RexJudicata has written Those administrators who believe in Wikipedia should question why behavior that is outlawed by Florida (and many other states and countries) would be condoned by Wikipedia. I suggest that this is the case - that Wikipedia allows cyberstalking, harassment and dog posting -- and that it is time for Wikipedia to change. here and I wonder what admins make of it as a statement ultimately addressed to yourselves. Do people think he is accusing wikipedia of breaking US state laws? SqueakBox 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

he is just angry, and seems to be the type that instead of taking a step back and cooling down, wants the whole world to know just how angry he is. We see that a lot on WP I guess. Of course, if you are harassed or what not on WP, the individual harassing you may be breaking the law, not Wikimedia, anymore than your ISP who is serving the harassment to your home. Don't shoot the messenger. dab (ᛏ) 16:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition, SqueakBox wasn't breaking any laws anyway. As an administrator, it's his duty to keep an eye out on certain individuals that are disruptive or in defiance of Wikipedia canon. I will look into the situation myself and comment on the RFC. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Funny, my roommate is currently studying for the Florida bar and happened to mention the Florida cyberstalking law. The "stalking" must cause "substantial emotional distress" and serve "no legitimate purpose." Good luck proving that. Postdlf 02:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should RexJudicata be blocked for making legal threats? RickK 05:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I warned Rex on his talk page about legal threats. While Squeakbox and a couple users have asked him to stop, it doesn't seem like anyone's read him the Wikipedia:No legal threats riot act yet. I'd be fine with a block if he continues to make threats after being notified that they aren't allowed. Perhaps he simply isn't aware of the policy. Rhobite 07:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I believe someone did show him that already some time ago. Oh, and look at the first paragraph of this change. --cesarb 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs) keeps removing a {{totallydisputed}} tag, I've just inserted on Magnifying Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's hard to tone down the Teslaism articles in Wikipedia, due to their propenents guarding them, but that one definitively needs some work. --Pjacobi 16:27, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

"Teslaism" is your POV. Try to be NPOV in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Teslaism: Inventions and theories by Nikola Tesla (or ascribed to him), only appraised by fans, which didn't find entrance to science or practical usage.

Please do the content discussion at Talk:Tesla and don't simply remove the dispute tags.

Pjacobi 19:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Similar problem on Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Biography of Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he removes the {{merge}} tags. --Pjacobi 17:18, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

The information is needed, so that it isn't lost ... the article was split. See Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Nikola Tesla#Merge and be so kind to answer there. In the mean time it would be approbiate, to not simple remove the tags. --Pjacobi 19:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

This IP is a shared location from "Linda Hall Library"; it's also currently the source of problems with Albert Einstein. Noel (talk) 19:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

204.56.7.1 is a problem in some other places too. Firstly, he never ever signs, which is just gratuitious impoliteness. Secondly, try Dynamic theory of gravity... if you can bear it. He should have been 3RR banned for that [3] but sadly wasn't. William M. Connolley 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Sigh, our bad luck that Tesla was a Serb. Do the resulting Tesla partisans have any idea how inadequate/insecure their ridiculously outlandish claims make them look? Noel (talk) 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head over the bizarreness that's currently taking place over in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul. The vote is being swamped by pathetically obvious sockpuppets, none of which have a hope in hell of influencing the outcome (hopefully). What action should be taken? Does "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently" Wikipedia:Blocking policy cover this sort of situation? And what of the user who is creating them? -- ChrisO 18:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets succeeded in getting the voting on Turkish Invasion of Cyprus hung to a "no consensus" status. RickK 22:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the evidence of sockpuppetry on that vote wasn't anything like as compelling. Many of the "keep" voters in that instance did seem to have a bona fide editing history. By contrast, most of the "keep" votes in the current VfD are such obvious sockpuppets that I really wonder why Argyrosargyrou is bothering to do it. -- ChrisO 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thebolex (talk · contribs) as a user name seems inappropriate, and his only edits are creating the appalling Patrick Artel, an article now in Vfd, 04:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

And has now removed the Vfd here, SqueakBox 04:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I warned them not to do that again, as they had not gotten a prior warning, and they seem to be new. Noel (talk) 07:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• What's inappropriate about the user name? Scratching head in puzzlement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I couldn't see the problem with the name either. The warning was for removing the VfD notice. Noel (talk) 04:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the name breaks into the bolex. (Bolex is a manufacturer of 16mm cameras.) I'm having trouble seeing how the name is offensive or otherwise in violation of policy, unless it parses in some way that I missed...? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Try bollocks. RickK 05:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.

Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.

It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.

Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?

If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.

Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.

The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.

Rex — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexJudicata (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute."

So he made a mistake, if it's verifiably wrong produce a source and change it back.

The same thing goes for complaints about user conduct. That's what RFC is for. Produce the evidence and present it to the wikipedia comminity at large. There's no rule against against editing the same pages as others, I'm sure many people cross paths with people who have similar interests. - 131.211.210.14 11:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Look. Squeakbox hasn't done ANYTHING unethical, illegal, or immoral. You have yet to provide clear, solid answers. Tell you what. Go to WP:RFC and follow the appropriate procedure. Excuse me for being frank, but you need to put up or shut up. It's as simple as that. Plus, Squeakbox isn't a sockpuppet. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Repeatedly spamming people with unwanted messages is against the law too. - 131.211.210.14 11:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This shows Rex has a serious problem. This kind of behaviour should not be tolerated in wikipedia, as it is nothing other than an attempt to force me to stop working here, SqueakBox 15:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore the only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [4], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves, SqueakBox 15:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) This is a legal threat, SqueakBox 16:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This proves that RexJudicata is 66.176.193.185. Here and here 66.176.193.185 falsely impersonates me as this is my email address for wikipeida. I take this false impersonation very seriously. SqueakBox 16:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Admin poll for monthlong block

As an uninvolved party, and in light of the evidence given, I offer to block this user (User:RexJudicata) indefinitely for a month. Please indicate your support/opposition to this decision here.

Alright, I know this is really short notice, but it seems like people are leaning towards a month. I shall block him now. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be better to give him a chance to see this poll, and what the general opinion about him is, and then it might not be necessary to block. Everyking 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
2. Then I support. I really don't think a poll is necessary, kudos for asking for advice though! smoddy 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. How can we do that? Don't we need arbitration? Yes, I'm a supporter of quickpolls, but not for indefinite blocks. Everyking 17:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Block, yes. Permanent, no. We quite clearly are not allowed to. WP:BP gives us a maximum of a month for disruption. That seems sensible to me. smoddy 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support a month.

   OK, well if it's just for a month then I have no opinion. Everyking 18:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Why not just block for a month or something. Give them some time to cool down. Maybe they will come back and do something constructive. I made a suggestion earlier that since they are so knowledgeable about cyberstalking laws, they should try to get the cyberstalking article up to FA status. I've already laid the groundwork; it just needs some expansion. 205.217.105.2 17:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I was planning to block him for a day or two at first, and ramp it up if he continued to make threats and be disruptive. I hate polls. I think admins should use their judgment on this one, we don't usually decide about blocks by voting on them. Rhobite 17:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
3. I'm with Rhobite on this one. Start with a day, and ramp up quickly if the clue-by-four doesn't have an effect. They aren't a vandal, just somewhat obsessed, etc. Noel (talk) 04:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No vote

1. This editor can be blocked without a poll, and we shouldn't take a poll. I would strongly support an indefinite block for this particular editor whose activities were clearly far beyond any legitimate use of Wikipedia resources and who had refused to heed all warnings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I dislike quickpolls This link is Broken 11:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk page Vfd

66.176.193.185 has now put a Vfd on Talk:Parents Without Rights. I don't know if he wants the Vfd to be put on the article (which is protected) or just wants to delete the talk page. He hasn't logged his notice, SqueakBox 17:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV (talk · contribs) is an obvious role account, used for such things as inserting "Evolution is theory, not fact" [5] and give them a false air of legitimacy. Should something be done here? Radiant_>|< 11:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Avoid all the problems this could cause and ask him to change his username to avoid sort of association with the NPOV policy. - 131.211.210.14 11:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Check his contribs log, and you'll see that it's not actually a user. It's a role account. Or possibly a sock. Radiant_>|< 11:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• How can you see it's a role account? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, he has a couple edits in 2003, then nothing for two years, and now he's started again. Also, he has a name that implies Wikipedia legitimacy. And he makes precisely the sort of controversial edits that most people would not want to do with their main account. Naming evolution not factual, and signing it as NPOV, is POV, misleading, and sounding more authoritative than it actually is. Radiant_>|< 12:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I'll do a username block. Snowspinner 15:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I find it amazing that anyone can remember a password that they haven't used in 2 years. func(talk) 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not if you use the same password for everything (as many people do). Guettarda 16:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prime case for a username block to avoid confusion. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I raised this a few weeks ago on WP:RFC#Choice_of_username, and since jguk is no longer around to make the case, I thought I should copy the comment he made there:

Again, I can't see the subpage - but if we allow User:Neutrality, why should we not allow User:NPOV - although I agree we shouldn't allow the redirect to WP:NPOV (he can have a link to that page if he wants, but not a redirect, IMO), jguk 11:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Because neutrality is a general principle/ideal, whereas NPOV is an official Wikipedia policy. Snowspinner 17:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not correct. I can have a neutral point of view outside of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it is also policy. :) Yours, User_WP:POINT 05:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's very interesting that I've encountered two other Users in the past week whose accounts were almost a year old, had only one edit in that time, and then began editing on VfD. RickK 05:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the votes made by User:Hhamadraad, User:Alapretes and User:ArchmageGwidon on WP:TFD regarding Template:Crap. I would argue that the last one here engaged in vandalism by removing my comments. Has sockpuppetry started infesting the TFD page now as well? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And MiddaSantaClaus (talk · contribs)'s contributions in particular. I'd revert them myself, but given that he's already quite stridently labelled me as a vandal, I think it would be more politic to let someone else. --Cryptic (talk) 12:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked ArchmageGwidon, since his only edits were vandalism (removing Sjakalle's vote, specifically). Hhamadraad and Alapretes are obvious sockpuppets. MiddaSantaClaus likely as well, and already has a vandal warning on his talk page. Radiant_>|< 13:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Aklisus (talk · contribs) and Charb (talk · contribs) are two more socks, who apparently exist only to revert my earlier RC patrolling. Sigh. --Cryptic (talk) 13:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked Charb, obvious vandal. Aklisus is toeing the line but I'm not sure about him. Radiant_>|< 13:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but user:Lee_D violated his final warning. Can someone block him and add Template:test5 to his talk page. (see Special:Contributions/Lee_D) Thank you. --michael180 13:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Done. El_C 13:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could also see WP:AIV for this. smoddy 13:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank You --michael180 14:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

VfD is currently under attack from a horde of sockpuppets. Articles listed on VfD attracting the horde are

Mathew Kenneally, Marija Taflaga, Sarah Lynch, Tobias Halligan, Blue Orchid Scandal, Julia Fetherstone, Claudia Newman, James H. Robertson, Peter Rajic, Clam Commune, James Higgins, Tim Caddey. -- Longhair | Talk 14:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked the lot of socks for 24 hours to get them to cool off. Radiant_>|< 14:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently" (WP:BP be applied here? smoddy 14:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It probably can, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. These votes are easy to discount at VfD-close time, and blocking them permanently just clogs up the block list. And they'll create new ones anyway. --W(t) 14:38, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • There's still sockpuppet votes coming in. Their attack concerns only the VfD debates of the above articles. -- Longhair | Talk 14:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As long as vigilant people keep pointing out the sockpuppet votes, things should be fine as they are. --Deathphoenix 15:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should have a short boilerplate at the top of each VfD page which plainly states that votes from new users don't count - that might give some of these people pause. Noel (talk) 16:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Votes from new users are fine as long as they're not blank keep or delete votes, but have some reasoning which shows they know the policy. Ideally, they do have a few edits under their belt, though, yes. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Add User:Hotpants to the list of sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Add User:TagTeam to the list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Add User:Freezer to the list, although this one took a short time-out to vandalize a brand-new article as well [6]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• User:TagTeam is back, continuing to disrupt the VFD process. Requesting immediate block now as an abusive sockpuppet and as an inherent disruptor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stevie thinks it's appropriate to remove all attempts by User:Tverbeek to communicate with him on his talk page. While, of course, it's appropriate to remove personal attacks, which may or may not have occured. He seems to think he can also remove all other message by Tverbeek that followed including a notification he requested mediation. Can someone explain to him the difference between a message and a personal attack is? I don't seem to get through to him. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the view that if someone wants to wipe a message off thier own talk page then that is their business. It's rude though. You cannot force someone to talk. Clearly Stevietheman doesn't want to go through mediation. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This user has made some very questionable edits and page moves that I'm not sure I want to get into fixing myself (or in the case of the page move, can't). Could an admin have a look at this? Moving KKK member pages to having the suffix (racist) on them isn't NPOV or possibly even legal... --Kiand 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Softcafe refused to stop doing this, and when I gave him/her a last warning (I have a feeling it's really the Don Black he/she is writing an article on), they logged out and began making the same edits with an anon, so I have blocked both for 24 hours. RickK 07:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This user, gbambino (talk · contribs), persists in removing factual information which contradicts his monarchist views. He has continued doing this despite my warning that he risks being banned for vandalism. Since I am involved in the dispute I don't want to ban him myself but I think his behaviour constitutes vandalism and a ban, at least a temporary one, is in order. See [7] [8] [9] This user has been banned previously for vandalism and for a 3RR violation so I think a longer ban, at least two weeks, is in order. AndyL 21:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia:Vandalism if they genuinely believe what they are writing - and it sounds like they probably do. It is, however, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption. Noel (talk) 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, operating under an almost continuously changing I.P. address, has been continuously attempting to remove evidence presented by Yuber, under the blanket excuse 'rv islamist vandalism'. Examples of reverting on RFAr: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

I believe this is covered under WP:BP, but because I am personally somewhat involved in the dispute, it may not be appropriate for me to take action. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:53, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Lots of totally different IP addresses - proxies? Noel (talk) 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probable proxies. User:131.175.189.222 User:217.123.137.115 User:136.145.54.123 and maybe more (I didn't check all of them) were flagged by SORBS as "Likely Trojaned Machine, host running." I think SORBS is our official proxy detector site. This link is Broken 12:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

block them, of course, already on grounds of being open proxies, and also because the edits are very obviously vandalism. I would like to believe that this is somebody trying to make KaintheScion look bad, but sometimes people around here exhibit staggering levels of stupidity, so I won't make a judgement on that. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of this recent behavior would be inconsistent with what he has done before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This problem began five days ago, specifically 09:25, 2005 Jun 13, and no one has added any evidence since. Given the totally different IP addresses, blocking may not be successful. I'd hate to protect the page, but doing it for 12-24 hours might be enough to make the vandal go away. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:10, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Last night I was having trouble with Rovoam (talk · contribs) appearing under many proxy IPs and moving articles using cut and paste. When I warned him about it he must have misread my warning because he got very angry and said that I was endorsing an incorrect point of view over his own: when he continued to cut and paste I protected the pages. I was then treated to a barrage of vandalism on my talk page: 23 vandalisms in 10 hours, all apparently by the same user though using different IPs.

Today I now have the other side of the battle lobbying me to change the content of the protected page (Moses Kalankaytuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) to meet his own preferred edit. I have refused because I don't want to get involved in the debate and as the disclaimer says, the edit that is protected is not endorsement of that version of the page. However I readily admit that I know nothing about the subject or the apparent vandal in question. I am also at a point where I am ready to scream and punch something, due to some of the persistent personal problems that caused me to take a wikibreak recently and one or two other users who are just grinding me down a bit. If someone would like to take over at this point I would be very grateful. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Evil Monkey has been blocking a lot of these anons, but only for 24 hours. If they are proxies (I'm assuming they are), I'd have blocked them indefinitely. Noel (talk) 21:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I received an email today from someone who received a message I had left for this user on one of the IPs used to vandalise my talk page. It would appear that it's one of those multiple-IP servers. There are, however, some IPs that appear to be just used by this user. User:Tabib has left messages on them so they shouldn't be too hard to find. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, earlier in the week, I lenghtened the block period for a few of these from 24 hrs to infinite. With Tabib's help, they're easy enough to spot. El_C 21:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greetings!

I'm placing this here because I've just searched a bunch of Wikipedia screens having to do with problems and administrators, and nowhere can I find a button for "Add New Message" or some such. (I'd appreciate being emailed a note as to how one in fact can do this; all I see is "Edit" buttons on existing messages like the one above to which I'm appending this.)

I a week or two ago I was on Wiki and edited an article (on the Baha'i Faith) slightly. Now, I suddenly not a notice that I have mail, and the mail is threatening me with banishment for supposedly doing something or other to an article about "Buuancy." I didn't access or edit any such article, and indeed wasn't even aware such an article existed!

I also got a note to stop harassing somebody or other whom I've never heard of and was not harassing.

PLEASE FORWARD OR REDIRECT THIS COMMENT TO THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATOR(S) since I can't seem to figure out how one is supposed to create a new message to them. Thank you.

And as I said, I'd very much appreciate being advised what's going on, that my account is now clear, and how exactly one does post a new problem message. (BTW, the list of "problems" to be brought to administrators needs to have an item added for administrative miscommunications such as the above as this doesn't seem to fit under any of the current problem categories.)

Thank you.

Bruce D. Limber brucedlimber@aol.com

Replied on User talk:BruceDLimber. --cesarb 21:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Raul suddenly deleted the Everyking mentorship vote off the Requests for Arbitration page almost immediately after he got the 4th vote he was looking for to support his personally-encouraged mentorship program for Everyking without explaining to any admins what the results were. Unless you happened to have been watching the RfAr page, you had no idea this was even being discussed. So, what's the result? Admins aren't supposed to block Everyking when he makes an edit to Ashlee Simpson articles despite his parole? It would be nice if it were explained what we are supposed to or not supposed to do. It would also be nice if the section were kept on the RfAr page for more than a few seconds after it got the 4th vote. RickK 21:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's all there on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2. Please assume good faith. Rhobite 21:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know that? It seems to me, that if there is a change to the arbcomm's parole ruling on a person, that the other admins should be notified of the change and not have it tucked away where nobody can find it. Especailly as I said, mere minutes after the 4th arbcomm vote was obtained, as if it were something shameful. My good faith is lacking considering the last two shameful arbcomm decisions (this one and jguk's). RickK 21:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to do anything. In the event that a conflict develops, it will be handled by the mentors. Otherwise I'm free to edit. That said, I think you have a lot to apologize for. You've been treating me unfairly for months about this. Even when we try to work out a fair deal you argue that I don't deserve a break. I wish you'd just let it go. Everyking 21:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless I happened to know that there was a change to the terms of your parole concerning editing Ashlee Simpson articles, I would have blocked you the first time you did so. Therefore, yes, I, and all other admins, needed to know that your parole had been changed. RickK 22:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

But of course you did know that, because you were arguing on the Arbitration page. Everyking 22:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. This should have been put on AN, like any other arbcom ruling. And I don't think demanding apologies from people is a terribly wise idea. It would be a grave mistake to take the declaration that you can't edit these articles without a team of three people to watch your every move as an endorsement that your behavior has been anything less than unacceptable. That sanctions and the explanations of well over a dozen other Wikipedians did not get through to you does not speak well to you or your behavior. Snowspinner 22:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

A grave mistake? What the? Is that supposed to be a threat? Anyway, Phil, this is just sour grapes. You know all the facts of the matter; I don't need to repeat them. Why don't you direct your passion for harassing other Wikipedians into editing some articles for a change? I'm curious: as an admin, you provoke controversy with nearly everything you do; if you were to engage in some actual editing, would you be equally controversial at that or less so? Everyking 22:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone added a __NOEDITSECTION__ to Template:vfd top. While that was reverted, it took too long and "contaminated" a number of VfD Log pages. Since the ones who close Votes for deletion are mostly administrators, I ask of anyone who closed VfD discussions between 08:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) and 21:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) to go back to the discussions you closed and check if the [edit] link is on them. If it isn't, remove the bogus __NOEDITSECTION__.

I have already "cleaned" all pages from June 19 to June 14; I can't find the broken discussion on June 13 (going to hundreds of discussions via Recentchangeslinked can get tiring quite quickly).

--cesarb 21:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank Cesar for his work on this. RickK 22:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think we got them all... --cesarb 22:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well done! I was wondering what was going on there. Would it be a good suggestion to protect the template? Radiant_>|< 22:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it would be a good idea, since it's subst:'ed in a lot of pages, and vandalizing it means instant vandalism of all closed VfD discussions, which would need to be manually reverted on each one (but wait, first you have to find which of the 100+ per day was vandalized!). However, that wouldn't help much against a well-intentioned but ill-considered modification like that one (he might not be an admin, but he's on WP:RFA with twice the number of supports than the number of opposes... A few more days would have made the difference if the template was protected). That said, let's not be too hard on him... The intention (which I guess is to reduce the number of accidental edits of closed VfD discussions) was good, and even admins make mistakes. --cesarb 22:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly think it was just an honest mistake, I doubt very seriously that this was intended as vandalism. RickK 23:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)