|This person has Assburgers Syndrome, |
so you can't say anything bad! :-(
Be aware of that, you insensitive fuck.
Ralph Squillace, better known as PMDrive1061 and DismayingObservation, is a former admin of TOW from La Quinta, CA who left after it was discovered that he spent the majority of his time soliciting for sex on children's websites. He was known for his temper tantrums on the Administrators' noticeboard, numerous personal attacks (including a few threats of violence), and e-stalking of Wikipedia vandals. To this day, he is remembered for making a complete asshat of himself on a daily basis and receiving constant reminders as to how unhelpful he was.
In case you didn't know it, he changed his username, was resysopped, and returned as Uncle G. And is still editing, although he gave up in December 2013. Just wasn't fun anymore.
For some unknown reason, Ralph has an unnatural obsession with juvenile things such as RC cars and Disney movies. His blog on rcgroups.com would lead any reader to assume it was written by a 12 year old whose only interaction with the outside world is done through the use of a toy drone. Not creepy enough?
While his habit of playing with toys is quite weird, he is also known for maintaining an active account on a children's forum where he posts messages that can only be described as downright creepy.
Ralph soon migrated to Wikipedia, where he spent hours adding useless information to stubs about toy cars and planes. It was not long until he discovered the phenomenon known as "vandalism" and took it upon himself to put an end to it. Unlike most Wikipedos, PMDrive1061 doesn't just revert, block, ignore. Rather, he takes it upon himself to make sure a vandal is stopped in their entirety. This lead him to become a Wikipedia admin, although the others admitted he was always at the bottom of the TOW totem pole.
He has gone as far as to request CheckUser on vandals who are known to edit through open proxies, and listing his own name on the title blacklist. Eventually, this drove him to the point of being so hungry for power, he abandoned all of his previous duties, and responded to questions from users by simply removing them.
PMDrive1061 vs. Bambifan101
One particular vandal he has taken interest in is Bambifan101, whose ISP was contacted in a pathetic attempt to stop him made by PMDrive1061. Surprisingly, PMDrive1061 started Bambifan101's long term abuse entry, and has been the top contributor to it ever since.
—PMDrive101, admitting that TOW had been "damaged" by a 13-year-old boy
His Stance With Other Users
Not only is he disliked by all users who aren't looking to suck up to sysops, he is also strongly disliked by several admins. Most of them see him as a nuisance, and will constantly remind him of how unhelpful he truly is. They also didn't bother to put him on the Huggle white list, meaning he is flagged as a potential vandal.
—An admin calling him out on his typical bullshit.
I seem to be having a bit of an issue with this gentleman regarding his use of edit summaries. I do a lot of NPP and I do a lot of deletion tagging and redirecting whenever possible. His interests included heavy metal music; a redirected substub at Years in Waste was reverted by him several hours later with a rather nasty note in the edit summary. The user had created a number of similar substubs and I followed procedure on that individual's talk page advising him about creating too-short articles, notice removals, etc. I left polite word on his talk page asking him not to use the edit summaries as such and he fired back with another nasty response. Another polite response on my part led to yet an even nastier, more sarcastic response on his. I don't mind if someone disagrees with an edit I make and I don't mind being corrected for mistakes, but this is just wrong. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Your description of the situation is completely misleading. A reader unfamiliar with the situation might think based on your words that I'm the user who has been creating a number of similar substubs when it is another contributor that you're referring to. I did not create that article. I had not even heard of the band or the album before I came across the article. The fact that my interest includes heavy metal is completely irrelevant. Here is a more accurate and detailed explanation of the situation for anyone interested: An article was created by a newbie, someone who is clearly and evidently not familiar with the process of creating an article. Another editor comes along and hastily added a CSD on this article within a single minute of the article's creation. This editor has since apologised for adding the CSD. The newbie contributor continues to work on the article and in the process removed the CSD tag, presumably because he or she did not know the proper process of dealing with the issue. For the next hour, the newbie contributor worked on the article and improved it to some extent. Then PMDrive1061 came along and abruptly decided to redirect the article to the talk page. This was done just one hour after the article was created. I came across the article while I was going through the contributions of the first editor who had made similar hasty CSD and AFDs all over the place (and again has since humbly apologised for that). I instantly recognised that the article was a legitimate topic for a wikipedia article. So I reversed the redirect and in my edit summary, I wrote: "ridiculously hasty CSD and redirect; can you give the editor more than ONE MINUTE before you add a CSD? added more appropriate tags." I do not believe I was being nasty in my comment. I believe then and I still believe now that I was describing what it really was: ridiculous. The CSD was blatantly ridiculous coming at just one minute of the article's creation. I left a message on the talk page of the editor who issued that CSD. That editor has apologised. I did not bother to leave a message though at the talk page of PMDrive1061 who made the redirect. Instead I spent the next few minutes improving the article, adding the appropriate tag, stub and category, even providing a link to a review of the album. All for a subject that I genuinely had no interest in whatsoever. As I've said, I had not even heard of the band or the album before I came across the article. The next day, I find PMDrive1061 issuing a complain on my talk page about me leaving disparaging remarks and trying to justify the redirect by suggesting that the "user had more than adequate chance to expand the contribution." I responded that I did not think one hour is adequate chance to expand the contribution and I mentioned that "its very easy and convenient to just redirect a poorly written article but all you needed to do was spent a few minutes as I did to correct the formatting, add the proper tags (stub and expand) and improve it otherwise. That user is clearly a newbie who had little idea what he or she was doing. The behavior of the CSD tagger and yourself have probably scared off that user from ever contributing again to wikipedia. Go take a look at WP:Bite." PMDrive1061 responded defensively to my remarks and among other things said: "In all the years I have contributed to this site under two usernames, never once have I added empty content. Every new article of mine has been a real, live article or stub right out of the chute. I made my fair share of mistakes starting out and was called on it. I learned from the mistakes. There has been a lot of talk here regarding quality over quantity. I believe in quality and my edit history backs that up. I have also mentored new users and problem users; I am well aware of the "not biting newbies" clause." I responded with among other things: "You say that you are well aware of WP:Bite but your actions indicate otherwise. I suggest that you get off your high horse and take a moment to reflect on how your abrupt and impolite behavior can come across to someone who is completely new to wikipedia. If you do not like to receive what you perceive as nasty remarks, then I suggest you think twice before committing any further ridiculous actions. I was able to do in just a few minutes what you should have done and that was to help the newbie improve the perfectly legitimate article with the proper formatting and tags instead of scaring away the newbie with redirects and warnings." Now PMDrive1061 has brought this matter here and in doing so has tried to tarnish me by noting that "A quick look at his edit history and his communication with other editors show that I'm not the first to incur this user's wrath." As far as I can recall I have only had one other argument with a fellow editor and that was settled after we both issued apologies. That other editor and I now have a cordial relationship and we have since continued to work together peacefully. It should not be of any relevance to this discussion. I do not believe I have done anything wrong here. Apparently, PMDrive1061 is upset that I have used the word ridiculous to describe the redirect made. I am fully aware of WP:Civil but I do not think that being civil means being censored from using the word ridiculous. If I feel an editor has done something wrong, then I will say so. If I feel that thing that was done wrong is ridiculous, then I will say so. It's not as if I'm calling anyone a fucking arsehole or some other insult. I'm using a perfectly legitimate english word to describe an action that I feel merits that description. I also think it is ridiculous that PMDrive1061 is trying to make this an issue about my choice of words when the problem in my view is his very own behavior. It was certainly not my intention to pick a fight with anyone or get involved in an argument. I do not think I have been "nasty" but rather that PMDrive1061 has been overtly sensitive to my choice of words. Instead of reflecting on his own behavior and how his actions falls under WP:Bite, instead of taking the humble route like the other biting editor has done, PMDrive1061 has instead chosen to drag this issue out. --Bardin (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC) After browsing through this wikiquette alerts, I came across Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. Seems quite relevant here: Certain editors will take a statement, detached in tone, that negatively evaluates their work as a personal insult, no matter what. ... Problematic editors often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, as a means to prevail in content disputes by shifting attention from the article topic to behavior, rather than as a means to prevent personal attacks. The best course is to reduce the opportunity for any accusations against you. I reckon that this is a perfect example of what the essay is describing. That is some good advice there so I'll try to refrain myself from calling a spade a spade in the future if only to reduce the opportunity for any further accusations against me from editors like PMDrive1061. This is not by any means an apology or admission that I was in the wrong. --Bardin (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Responded on your talk page. Good grief, let's just drop this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I was neither the one who brought this up in the first place nor was I the one who dragged it out. I'm perfectly willing to drop it. --Bardin (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) Wendy Starland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I have serious concerns over an administrator's, PMDrive1061, handling over the Wendy Starland article. There appears to be misuse of admin tools and conflict-of-interest issues. PMDrive created the article (using a former username) in 2006 with the edit summary "Incredible talent, incredibly nice young woman. Initial entry; more to follow." (His userpage says "I've been very blessed to get to know and to work with some rather notable people and I've been privileged to create their articles", listing the Wendy Starland article as one of them.) The article PMDrive created was unsourced and promotional. Over the years it was edited by an editor called Wendystarland (Wendystarland (talk · contribs)) whose edits made the article even more promotional. An IP, 126.96.36.199 (188.8.131.52 (talk · contribs)), made similar edits, and deleted several comments and templates on the talk page. In December 2009, PMDrive made a comment on the article talk page, saying "I didn't know she'd created an account; if that account is hers, it would be a real asset to the article since she is certainly noteworthy enough for one. I hope to see her at the end of the month and if so, I'll arrange to work with her on bringing the article up to date. She is a genuinely nice person and it will be a pleasure to collaborate with her on this." PMDrive semi-protected the article for a month in March 2010, citing excessive vandalism. The latest edits at the time were made by IP 76, and these were not reverted. 76 continued to edit the article after protection had expired. PMDrive full-protected (see logs) the article on 6 September 2010 for three months (changed a few minutes later to six months), citing "Excessive vandalism: Protection requested per the subject". PMDrive used the semi-protected template, not the full one. There were only four recent edits to the page. On 2 September, an IP deleted a paragraph which began "Wendy Starland is solely responsible for discovering Lady Gaga", and which contained material sourced to court documents and unsourced material. This appears to be a legitimate edit. On 6 September, another IP, 184.108.40.206 (220.127.116.11 (talk · contribs)), made three edits, which had the overall effect of restoring the paragraph and reverting the previous IP's edit. 26 minutes after 68's last edit, PMDrive reverted 68's edits, then restored an earlier version (then added the full protection), and finally removed a paragraph, so that, bizarrely, the article was left in the exact state that 68 left it in. Whatever those edits were, it's not excessive vandalism, and neither is "Protection requested per the subject" a reason to full protect an article for six months. A comment by PMDrive on the talk page explains his reasoning further: "I was asked by Wendy to please lock down the article for awhile." In November 2010, I made a request to PMDrive unprotect the article, expressing some of my concerns over the protection; PMDrive then unprotected the article, saying that pending changes "ought to keep things in line". I then added tags to indicate problems the article had, and, when no action was taken, nominated it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Starland), because of a lack of reliable sources. The article was kept (PMDrive said speedy keep), and PMDrive added a construction tag, saying he'll clean up the article. The tag was removed as stale when no edits were made. Wendystarland and 76 then edit-warred over the tags I had added. On 13 December, PMDrive full-protected the article indefinitely (after initially semi-protecting it), citing excessive vandalism. Again PMDrive used the semi template. As before, full protection was not appropriate here. PMDrive then reverted to an earlier version, removing all the tags I had added. On the talk page, PMDrive says, "There has been some ongoing and really heinous vandalism as of late. I have therefore locked down the article indefinitely until this blows over. Please contact me directly if there are any concerns." This is disingenuous, given that: the edits only removed tags and couldn't be called "heinous"; the edits were made by Wendystarland and 76; semi-protection and pending changes would have dealt with things equally well. PMDrive also removed some talk page comments, against the guidelines. In January 2011, Courcelles (Courcelles (talk · contribs)) removed the full protection, but kept the semi and added reviewer-required pending changes. PMDrive had retired by this time. In March, I decided to edit the article myself, and wrote what I thought was a policy-compliant (albeit short) version. On 6 April, PMDrive came out of retirement and rolledback my edit. He then indefinitely full protected the article once again, saying, "Page has been bombarded with vandalism; protecting per the subject herself". A comment was left on my talk page, in which PMDrive said, "I just came out of retirement after I got a phone call from Wendy Starland herself regarding her article. It went from a well-sourced and fleshed-out article to a nanostub." Another comment on the talk page appears to label my edit as vandalism: "Once again, I have locked down the page because of vandalism." Yet another comment, on a user talk page, says that the article had been "trashed". There were only two edits between those by Courcelles and the rollback. PMDrive then made a number of edits which (minorly) helped clean up the article. In one of PMDrive's edit summaries, however, PMDrive appears to describe a self-published book by Beckham House listing "The Greatest Female Jazz Singers of All Time" (in which Wendy Starland is included) as "legit" (see the book). Shortly after, an exchange took place between Courcelles and PMDrive (see respective user talk pages), in which Courcelles expressed concern over PMDrive's actions. PMDrive agreed, and removed the full protection. It's sort of resolved, but the behaviour is serious enough to bring to wider attention. I find it remarkable that an admin can so blatantly violate COI, the admin policy, and not understand our content policies of NOR, V, and NPOV. It seems to me that PMDrive is misusing their admin tools to lock down the version of the article preferred by Wendystarland and 76, on instruction by the article subject, and to keep out the edits that make the article policy compliant, merely claiming "vandalism" as an excuse to "lock down" the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC) How dare you. I mean, how freaking dare you. I explained my position, corrected the problem and you now pull this? You're the one who tried to run this article though AfD for no apparent reason and now you've seen fit to drag me through this kangaroo court. I made a mistake based on a a request by the subject herself, overstepped my bounds, fixed the problem and you saw fit to go back through the entire edit history and smear me over this. It's self-important people with no apparent life who, along with the drooling adolescent vandals, take all the fun out of contributing for fear of either getting trashed by the vandals or raked over the coals by the likes of you. You want a comment? Brother, I have one for you but I'm not going to sink that low. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict): OK, I have to ask, if it is "sort of resolved", then why are we here? Admins sometimes know when vandalism is incoming, how I am not sure. So, to protect a page as "vandalism" as been done by many admin who can see the incoming vandalism. Plus, it seems you are in the corner of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and actually asked to have the page unprotected to only nom it for deletion. That seems to show you really want this page gone. But again, if it is resolved between PMDrive and Courcelles, then I really see no point in beating the dead horse any longer. Let's move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) As you say, it's pretty well resolved at this point. It's hardly necessary to drag up the entire history of the article again at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) You know, in all the time I've been an administrator, I have never, ever done this sort of thing to a fellow admin. I did not mean to overstep my authority. I "unretired" at the request of the subject who is fearful about vandalism to the article being used against her during her current legal battle. Everything I have done has been above board. No sockpuppetry, no arguing, no edit warring, but yes, there was inadvertent wheel warring and unintentional misuse of my privileges. When I was alerted to the fact that I'd blown it, I pulled back without an argument. I hope this settles the matter; I am so angry I can hardly type. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)While I have not looked into the content part much, I do see PMDrive's behaviour a bit unadmin-like. I do not understand why parts of the talk page were deleted or why such a borderline uncivil reply was left just above. Though I also don't see much recent talk between the two editors over their problems before coming to ANI which is not encouraging. If PMDrive showed a history of such borderline behaviour on articles he is highly involved with, then there would be a reason for an ANI, but not yet. Passionless -Talk 05:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) After what PMDrive has been through with various editors and now this, I think the above comments were understandable for someone who apparently has put alot of work into an article. If someone did the same to something I worked on, I would be just as pissed and I think you would too. I have, though, asked PMDrive to read his comments before submitting so he doesn't get in trouble. But, the above, understandable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) PMDrive, I can understand your anger, but...do you really consider it appropriate to refer to other editors as "self-important people with no apparent life"? Under any circumstances? Chzz ► 05:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Seconds after this was written, this thread was 'hatted'. However, PMDrive responded on my own talk  - which seems a reasonable admission that things got a bit silly here. I'm happy with that response. Chzz ► 06:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I've reverted the close, which I consider to be premature given the issues raised and a lack of resolution. The hat comment "nothing to see here" is clearly unhelpful, and didn't explain why this thread was no longer needed. I'd like a greater consensus from uninvolved editors that this thread is no longer necessary, and assurances that PMDrive will adhere to the policies. (I won't revert again if I'm reverted). Christopher Connor (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The only time admins will act against an admin is if they do something horrendously and blatantly wrong, which PMDrive didn't do. So I'm afraid you will not get any results from this ANI other than your beliefs in justice and ideals crushed. Passionless -Talk 06:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I do NOT believe this. I made an innocent mistake, owned up to it, set it straight and referred the subject to the proper channels in the Foundation, all the while treating you with respect. If you're lashing out because I lashed out at you, I'm sorry already. OK? Can we move along now? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course, his numerous personal attacks have not helped him either.
—User:PMDrive1061, Did I mention I requested desysopping?
On June 14, 2011, PMDrive1061 committed Wikicide. Although he had been semi-inactive before, the cause of his leaving was discovering his DOX on a Daniel Brandt style anti-TOW blog run by our very own Meepsheep. Photos of his home were published, along with information on his wife Lillian and contact details for the radio station he is employed at. In a moment of panic, he contacted WordPress and had the blog removed on an alleged TOS violation. He then went on to report the owner of the blog to the cyber police, hoping they would arrest someone who simply compiled information that he himself had already made public. He has not been missed.
- Administrators' noticeboard
- MascotGuy - Another vandal he was unsuccessful in stopping
- MONGO - Ralph's redneck counterpart
|Ralph Squillace is part of a series on Aspies.||[Sperg out]|
Ralph Squillace is part of a series on
Ralph Squillace is part of a series on
Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.