Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Canvassing for bot approval

Section moved to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot#ANI

User:1B6

User:1B6 has posted on my talk page ([1]) (3 days ago, but since the last time I checked Wikipedia) asking to be blocked. That user then vandalised their own userpage ([2]) and talkpage ([3]), and reverted the vandalism on their own userpage with a note implying that the account has been compromised ([4]). I'm reporting the issue here now, but as the user has not edited for almost 2 days this probably isn't urgent. --ais523 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

antivandalbot error report

Richard Branson's page was edited for the 2nd time today, text is full of attention-seeking vandalism. Should consider closing this page's editing.

User:Raspor

For several weeks now a highly aggressive and partisan new contributor, Raspor, has been causing serious disruption at Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Discovery Institute as well as various user talk pages. This prompted me to file a user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor, where there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate against his behavior. He has dismissed the community's input and is now attempting to expand his disruption with petty trolling: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] He's exhausted the community's patience, as recent comments on my talk page and the RFC talk page indicate.

Considering the disruption he's caused over the last 72 hours and his unwillingness to moderate his behavior despite many past warnings and kindlier efforts, something needs to be done to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I support either a community ban in general (given his increasing incivility) or a topic ban on articles related to creationism and evolution in the broad sense. A week or so ago I favoured the latter, but he has now moved to trolling user talk pages. I am now in favour of a community ban. Guettarda 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This guy has done very little but troll in the time he's been here. I recommend a lengthy block - maybe 72 hours, or even a week - and for it to be made absolutely clear to him that what he is doing is just not on. Mind you, if anyone wants to block indef, I won't be calling for your desysopping. I can just about envisage this fellow turning into a decent editor, but it's a stretch. Block now and the next time he trolls kick him out for good. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a block. However, given that the user has only one previous block- a standard 3RR block, an indefinite block at this point seems uncalled for. I would recommend some block time between 24 to 96 hours. JoshuaZ 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Four days seems more than a bit light for the amount of disruption he's caused and the fact he simply shugged off his last block. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user goes back to the same things after the block we can always immediately respond with another block. However, if someone blocks for a week I'm not going to object. JoshuaZ 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to do this incrementally, then I would propose a couple weeks of a topic ban - tell him to stay away from articles related to evo-creo (and stop trolling user talk pages). Guettarda 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the matter here is exhausting community patience, which isn't something that builds from shorter to longer blocks, is it? There is, of course, a separate issue of his personal attacks and incivility, which probably needs a lot more attention than it has been given. Guettarda 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week to start, but if someone wants to block permanently I wouldn't object. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wouldn't object to an indefblock. My favorite: "no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that." No? Oh okay, that's better then. —bbatsell ¿? 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a community ban. He seems to be here only to disrupt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send in the Balrog! Apart from that, I would support a community ban per a large amount of disruption and incivilty. Yuser31415 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that the situation got so out of control that FeloniousMonk set up a whole separate page on Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor's and another editor's various rants and rapid-fire diatribes. I support FM's way of dealing with the situation, which had gotten well beyond reason. That page alone (Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections) is already at 137kB of content (a couple kB of which is due to my own attempts at response/explanation/conciliation, along with similar conciliatory attempts by several other users). Raspor has settled down just a bit of late on Talk:Intelligent design, and [s]he's mostly respected the request to post comments on the page that was set up to accommodate the various shotgun-style objections and accusations (though I see he's moved his activities to some other pages in the meantime). I'm in favor of a temporary block, perhaps a week, if only to give it a rest for awhile, take a forced wiki-break, and hopefully have Raspor come back (if [s]he wishes) with more of an orientation towards interactive discussion and contribution rather than just ranting. ... Kenosis 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I now see Jayjig appears to already have blocked Raspor for a week. Seems to me if [s]he's to be allowed to return after whatever the decision is among the admins, it should be with the caveat that a repetition of the pattern will result in a permanent block--just my opinion. ... Kenosis 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this course of action - if this editor returns and makes one more personal attack, I support indef. The "fellatio" remark alone is beyond the pale, and one look at the talk page of his Rfc shows mutiple personal attacks and a total lack of interest in being even remotely civil. His goal seems disruption and trolling, with one or two productive edits buried amongst thousands of counter-productive hostile rants. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After a quick skim of contributions - I've got to wonder why we spent so many manhours on such hopeless cases - editing wikipedia is an entitlement, it's not a right, yet I've seen less handwringing about sending people to prison (mind you that might say more about the UK Justice system..) --Charlesknight 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that some of the comments in this section are incorrect and/or misleading. I question the claim that "there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate"; it seems that most if not all of the people objecting to him are on one side of the debate (and not his side, of course!). I'm not sure what the claim that "he simply shugged (sic) off his last block" means; he was new, didn't know about the three-reverts rule, but now does and hasn't reoffended on that. And although I agree he has been aggressive and abusive, it was largely in response to others insulting him or being abusive to him. Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

25 to 3 against, and you're questioning the claim that there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate? And you're simply mistaken that most of the people objecting to him are not on his side of the topic, off the top of my head AvB and Filll are. Also, by your own reasoning here we should note that you happen to share his view on the topic as well, so I'm not sure where you think that line of argument will get you. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm a Christian and believe that the God of the Bible has created the universe, I'm not an ID proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Or any other type of creationist in the extreme US sense for that matter. I fully accept scientific findings supported by a robust body of evidence, which includes evolution. At any rate, the RfC has been sufficiently advertised so the virtually unanimous agreement with FM's assessment is highly significant. AvB ÷ talk 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that raspor seems to have had so much difficulty in reading and following policy, specifically WP:3RR which he was warned of twice (in the first instance not in the recommended format) and allowed to get to 8 reversions before being blocked, then treated it as an unfair personal attack that he'd not been allowed to argue against. As this comment shows he's still having difficulty in understanding what behaviour is expected of him: you've had some success in discussing some things with him, Philip, and it would be good if you could persuade him that he should fully comply with the rules so that an ending of the block is not immediately followed by a repetition of disruptive behaviour. ... dave souza, talk 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am in full support of this ban. Based on how he has responded poorly to even the numerous calm and friendly attempts to guide him I suspect he'll be back to his disruptive ways as soon as the ban is lifted. With that in mind I think he has no business editing any ID or ID related articles until he demonstrates an ability to respect other editors, Wiki policies. He could do that by limiting his edits to non-controversial subjects. Mr Christopher 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Raspor's edits to his talk since he's been blocked, I see he's not only continued the personal attacks/name calling, but escalated [12][13] and has made his talk page a locus of disruption drawing responses from a number of editors. Considering that even while in the pokey he's continued the very sort of disruption that landed him there in the first place, misusing the one priveledge he retained while blocked to turn his talk page into a source of friction, I think Raspor is a hopeless case and therefore a permanent block is the only thing that will put an end to the disruption. And sooner rather than later to spare the community any additional time and goodwill being wasted. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another editor is encouraging him to initiate a freep fest (ala Free Republic) as a means of retribution for his "treatment" here [14]. How very odd. Mr Christopher 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just cautioned both against that at Raspor's talk page. Amazingly bad advice from User:Geo.plrd. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the first time Geo. has given improper advice - [15]. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The advice is even more worrying given the fact that Geo.plrd is active in advocacy, making him an important source of advice for confused or misconstrued editors. --HassourZain 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried about that as well. If there's any oversight going on at WP:AMA, this certainly the sort of behavior they need to be looking into. It should be brought up there I suppose. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uggggh. I spent far too much time reading up on this case. I've given Raspor a final warning about disruption, and after one more infraction I'll protect the page until the block expires. There's not much point to a block if the person continues the very behavior he or she was blocked for in the first place. -- Merope 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the records on Raspor's talk page the observer may note that I've done my best to try to get him to understand the purpose of Wikipedia fruitlessly. I cannot help but think that either he simply cannot understand it or refuses to bother with it, and as I said some time earlier, it's like trying to bail water from a boat using a dixie cup. If I weren't so incorrigibly hardheaded, I think I would have given up trying to help him a while ago. --HassourZain 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain, you have demonstrated an amazing patience with raspor and your good faith efforts to be helpful have been noted by me. Mr Christopher 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain's efforts are 1st class through and through. It's people like him that make up for the shenanigans of the others and keeps contributing here worthwhile. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, guys. :) --HassourZain 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks too for your admirable and patient words. One problem that came up earlyish was that when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it. The WP:TROLL article definition is dependant on motive, which of course is impossible to judge, and so is useless for defining behaviour which is what's important. The WP:DE article focusses on article edits rather than talk page disruption. Should these guidelines be changed or clarified? .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"...when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it." That's typical 'victim bully' behavior. Dean Dad, in writing about The College Administrator's Survival Guide, by C.K. Gunsalus (Harvard U Press, 2006), notes that Gunsalus distinguishes between traditional, assertive bullies, who throw their weight around with bluster and force, and 'victim bullies,' who use claims of having been wronged to gain leverage over others. He goes on to write "that unlike simple passive-aggression, victim bullies use accusations as weapons, and ramp up the accusations over time. Unlike a normal person, who would slink away in shame as the initial accusations are discredited, a victim bully lacks either guilt or shame, honestly believing that s/he has been so egregiously wronged in some cosmic way that anything s/he does or says is justified in the larger scheme of things. So when the initial accusations are dismissed, the victim bully’s first move is a sort of double-or-nothing, raising the absurdity and the stakes even more. Victim bullies thrive in the no-man's-land created by the deadly combination of slow and cumbersome processes, and failure of administerial nerve. I've had some experience with these, and I can say without reservation that they are, by far, my least favorite editors to wrangle. It's not just that they're unpleasant and batshit crazy; they're self-righteously unpleasant and batshit crazy. They're implausibly persistent. Gunsalus makes the correct point that the key to defeating victim bullies is the classic administrative pincer movement of process-and-time. Easier said than done, but still right." FeloniousMonk 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, FM. On his talk page Raspor coninues to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of fundamental Wikipedia editing policies as well as being unfamiliar with intelligent design in general (as evidenced here). This is something he has shown since day one. I suspect he has either not yet studied any of our policies or has decided they are of no use to him. This makes working with him impossible. If he'd spend some time actually learning our policies his disruptions would go down by 99% or so. With this is mind, what happens after his block is lifted? I mean from an administrative standpoint, I pretty much know what to expect from him but I'm curious if/when he starts acting out again, will a new Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report need to be submitted or will we utilize this existing one? And will there be an administrator assigned to monitor his behaviour? Mr Christopher 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, judging by his comments on his talk page [[16] my attempt to answer his question(s) seems to have sent him into a mental tail-spin. He seems to be looking for the word "theory" now in every article and inisting we change the other articles to read like the ID one. How can we work with such a person when he begins posting on the article talk page again and not just on his own personal talk page? Mr Christopher 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer the "what next" question - it all depends on how Raspor acts after the block runs out. If he decides to act within accepted norms, then he will probably be given a second chance. If he continues to act as he has been, then I'm sure someone will re-block him. Guettarda 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit only spot checking his contribs, but this seems like a case where someone, a subject expert, feels his areas of expertise are being poorly represented by the articles and subject novices who are "equal" with him in the WP system. The user is thus getting frustrated and some apparent mob rule against him by other editors is been making matters worse. CyberAnth 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who's who in your analogy. However, raspor has shown no expertise, rather an uncanny ability to play on people's desire to explain things, then pick on points with a remarkable resemblance to standard creationist arguments and interpret or ignore the answers to emerge triumphantly having proved his point. He did it with Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence, and even confined to his user page, here he goes again. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the original post more clear. CyberAnth 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read through Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence to the end of the talk page, you'll see that raspor keeps any expertise well concealed. .. dave souza, talk 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, sorry, I may be dense because I am still not following you. Who is the subject expert you mentioned and what subject is their expertise? Thanks. Mr Christopher 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From the link you gave and the link he gave therein referencing his talk page on the matter, the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID (or whatever naming variants it goes by). He seems to feel his expertise area is being very poorly represented in articles. He appears to have gotten very frustrated and, from it, done some communication games; but I think this is more a reaction to what really does appear to me as some "mob rule" against him and his views. Keep in mind that my analysis here is coming from someone who is looking in from the outside. You might want to give him an olive branch and really listen to his concerns and see how they can be incorporated into the article some more. In short, appease him by addressing his concerns some more. No one will get their fill plate. That means everyone. CyberAnth 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I am perplexed as I have been studying intelligent design for several years now, I routinely read both sides of the debate even today. I have also read a tremendous amout of posts and responses from raspor since he stumbled upon the intelligent design article and I have yet to read a single item written by him that suggests he has even a conversational understanding of intelligent design. and certainly not a subject expert on intelligent design. But based on what you have expressed I am obviously overlooking very important information and evidence that should be weighed in this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. Would you mind helping out by showing a few diffs/examples where raspor has demonstrated a subject expertise in intelligent design? Thank will help me and I think others here quite a bit. Thanks again. <insert> also, some examples where he simply came accross as "obviously knowledgable" would help too. Mr Christopher 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Intriguing. I appreciate that CyberAnth has only been able to spot check raspor's contributions before commenting, and the sympathy is entirely understandable. However the impression that raspor was immediately set upon by a mob is not supported by looking at his start on the ID article. His first contribution there on 22 December was unfortunate, as he deleted the previous post and was reverted.[17] [18] with the comment (please do not remove or edit others' posts), then he did the same again on the talk page[19] and on the page of the editor who'd reverted the first comment.[20] This could of course be a newbie's error, but oddly enough it's a mistake raspor did not make almost a month earlier when first editing a talk page.[21] Anyway, that mistake was sorted out and discussion resumed at Permission. If you read down you'll find editors responding to raspor's opinions by asking him to "please read" archives at links they provided, "If you have some new points which have not been hashed out already, please feel free to bring them up" and to "Please provide a reliable source" for his assertions. He did not do the latter, despite having learnt the hard way about the need to cite sources on his first article by the 28th of November.[22] His responses lack such niceties of politeness, and introduce allegations of bias and inaccuracy without any supporting citations. If that's being set upon by a mob, it was a remarkably polite and patient mob. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth: you said the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID. Really? I have not seen any evidence that Raspor knows much about ID at all. On the contrary, s/he seems to be sadly unaware of much of the issues surrounding ID. In fact, Raspor recently said that s/he was starting to read the Wedge document, which is one of the fundamental documents related to ID. While Raspor is very aggressive in his/her assertions, s/he has not displayed much knowledge of either ID or science. Guettarda 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth is mistaken, Raspor is hardly a subject matter expert. As seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor he is regarded as not knowledgable on the topic of ID by every credible long time contributor to that article. The fact is the greatest cause of Raspor's problems here, other than his refusal to comprehend and follow our policies, is his incomplete knowledge of the subject matter. He is apparently either aware of only one side's opinion, or he is intentionally promoting only that side's view, neither of which makes for good editing. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just provided an evidenced summary that suggests raspor is as wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter as he is of fundamental Wiki editing policies here that I think is worth considering. Mr Christopher 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor's understanding of the subject matter has been made irrelevant by his attitude and actions. Throw him out. But let him return when he is ready to abide by Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:AGF. AvB ÷ talk 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor's agenda

Raspor's edit here makes it crystal clear that his agenda in editing Wikipedia is not to help preserve NPOV when editing the Intelligent Design article, but to show the embittered and hateful atheists that intelligent design simply is. I issued a warning that characterizing the other side of the debate as atheists (and bitter ones at that) violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and possibly even WP:NPA. I have zero experience with RFCs, but if someone wants to tell me where to put this diff (or to copy it over for me), he or she is free to do so. -- Merope 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've username blocked WikiWarrior1

• WikiWarrior1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user had e-mailed me asking for some help regarding their username block, but I'm about to go offline. I've probably compounded the sting of having his first edit reverted as "retarded nonsense" so if someone can please hold this person's hand a little bit, and feel free to slap me around if I've handled it poorly. - brenneman 06:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to know the reason for his block and will hopefully re-register. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the username? Warrior is hardly that bad; it's not like it says WikiJihad or WikiKillPeople. No worse than User:Opiner. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a borderline case. It was probably just intended as "I'm a tough guy" but it sounds a bit like "I engage in edit wars". —Dgies^t c 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dgies and Aaron Brenneman on this one. User names shouldn't sound like any kind of Wikipedia trouble-maker. Since edit wars occur here all the time, I think WikiWarrior is a problematic name. Eli Falk 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Patstuart. This is not a bad username and he shouldn't be forced to change it. "Warrior" isn't always a bad thing; not even most of the time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's a borderline case. I'd gently encourage the user to change the name as a show of good faith. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? With respect, if an admin came to you and asked you to change your username because it's an anagram for 'Venal Being', how would you feel? If there's nothing wrong with the username, they shouldn't be asked to change it. Cases like this is why I've opened a line of discussion on the subject of overenthusiastic username blocking on Village Pump (policy). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume that such an admin had lost their mind. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we are agreed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we are. There are usernames that are clearly acceptable, usernames that are clearly unacceptable, and usernames that are borderline. I find WikiWarrior1 borderline. Not to the point that I would initiate action against the name, but to the point that I feel a voluntary change of username would be helpful. If WikiWarrior1 isn't prepared to change his name, and the evidence given by Steve above suggests that he does understand the problem the name poses, then I belive we should accept that decision. But it would reduce my faith in the user's good judgement. PS. Is everyone aware that there is already a User:WikiWarrior? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think we should unblock him now. We're allowing names with characters from all languages; why not allow this username (Warrior is a good thing in many cultures and times, BTW). Patstuart^talk|edits 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked WikiWarrior1 (talk · contribs), per above. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, it's exactly like "WikiKillPeople" and much worse than "WikiJihad." Unless you're some kind of very odd pillow-swinging warrior you are certainly at least trying to kill people. Jihad can include spending time studying, for godness' sake. Can we leave the cultural bias/crypto-racism/whatever at the door please? - brenneman 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - Half-Life 2 (featured article on the main page) is NOT PROTECTED and should be.

The article Half-Life 2, which is the featured article on the main page but is not protected has had 180 edits in the past nine hours. See here (most of them are vandalism) for the 180-edit diff, the history, and my watchlist for the compacted list of editors (most are IP and new made-for-vandalism accounts). I reccomend an immediate full protection, changing to semi-protection after a cleanup, and a massive block party, IPs and users alike. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous attitude you have there. (rolleyes) Generally, the FA is never protected unless really necessary. Nothing major, every FA gets it share of vandalism. I'm against protection, 180 edits in 9 hours seems perfectly okay for TFA, we've been hit worse before. – Chacor 15:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't protect the main page FA, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Kusma (討論) 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to direct the requestor to PPOL, when I checked it to find that in this edit, made without discussion that I could see, the important note about high profile articles was removed. What? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad. -- Steel 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Wait, no. I removed it because it was more relevant to semi-protection, and is mentioned on that policy's page. -- Steel 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I misreading consensus that the FA of the day should rarely, if ever, be fully protected? I don't see this mentioned anywhere. I note an ongoing debate about semi-protection, but we're all in agreement about full, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well at least sprotect the damn thing: of 180 edits, at least 2/3 are vandalism, and the rest are mostly reverts fixing it. Nothing constructive. Not to mention that sprotect would exclude the IP and very new users, who are doing the vandalism... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the load it's putting on the servers, and how it's filling them up: IP replaces page with 'PEEEEENIS LOL!!11', user reverts, IP blanks page, user reverts - that's already two new copies of the article saved, and a big article too. This diff is just from while we've been talking. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Server load and disk space are not problems. Kusma (討論) 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Three edits a minute is nothing for the servers. Any bot will do twice that, and we've got probably a hundred of them roaming around Wikipedia. --Carnildo 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not protect or sprotect the featured article for any length of time other than to clean up vandalism. Period. That is the consensus, that's always been the consensus. Featured articles attract a lot of vandals and testers, for obvious reasons. It is also the first article that people new to Wikipedia go to. So if they've read all about how Wikipedia works, how you can edit it, then they go to find where to edit and find out they're not allowed, then they get a wrong first impression. In addition, a lot of featured articles come out improved after being featured on the main page, and a lot of that is from anonymous editors. They're not all vandals; hell, some of them are just testing! So we watch the page more closely, warn and block obvious vandals, greet and inform testers (don't bite), and we keep it as clean as we can. —bbatsell ¿? 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should not be protecting the today's featured article, except in the event that a serious, non-vandalistic edit war breaks out among established users. Which, really, would be grounds for the article being de-featured (they're supposed to be stable), and I can't actually imagine it happening, all of a sudden, on the day the FA reaches the main page. Mangojuice^talk 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To give some idea of such improvements on recent featured articles: The Adventures of Tintin (261 edits[23]), Operation Auca (120 edits[24], vandalism in last one corrected in next edit), Invasion (203 edits[25]), and Fauna of Puerto Rico (187 edits[26]). This shows that most changes are cosmetical (wikilinks, some spelling) but overall an improvement to the article. This also shows that general and/or popular themes get more edits than more specialized ones. Fram 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NB for newcomers: This is only "consensus" in the odd, if well-established, Wikipedia sense of the word (which you'll encounter in AfDs and the like). A possibly small percentage of editors who've been here for some time, such as myself, think that not sprotecting featured articles is a damn silly idea and a massive waste of time; and that the kind of would-be editor ***ERIC IS A FAG*** who will give up and go away if he doesn't get instant satisfaction the very first time is an editor that WP can very well do without. The changes to the Tintin article could have come later, been suggested on its talk page, etc. But hey, this desperate openness to people with limited attention-spans is a matter of faith in WP; who am I to argue? -- Hoary 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, believe that "consensus" isn't exactly established in this issue. See for example, Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection/re-write, Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection, and Wikipedia_talk:Don't_protect_Main_Page_featured_articles/December_Main_Page_FA_analysis. In my opinion, not sprotecting the FA of the day is quixotic at best. Leaving the article unprotected does much more harm than good. Gzkn 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral on that question, but the two opinions above raise a concern in me: it seems to imply that the more an article gets attention, the more protected it should be. This would mean to me that the whole "openness" thing is wrong, and that basically, on the average annon and newcomer participation is a bad thing. I'm very uneasy with that, as it's the basis of the whole building.--SidiLemine 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it refutes the entire anon = good argument. It just reflects the reality of the Internet these days; large, open-ended sites are high profile targets (many of the comments on popular Youtube videos, for example, make me weep for the future of humanity). If openness is our only goal, then we shouldn't be fully protecting the main page. Presumably, well-intentioned IPs would be able to correct many of the little errors on the main page that slip through occasionally. But our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and we must be practical. Allowing anyone to edit the main page would cause much more harm than good. There was a time a few years ago when that was probably not the case. But that time has long passed; and unfortunately, as the evidence shows, leaving the FA open during its day on the main page is also no longer beneficial. Gzkn 13:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dudes should have pointed him to WP:PERF. *smug* — Nearly Headless Nick 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series incidents

A user and his respective sock puppets, Butterrum in particular, have been making edits that are disproven, due to discussions in the talk page and its archives, but said user and his sock puppeteer continue to post the erroneous edits. I would very much appreciate an administrator to look into this issue, even if I will be reprimanded, to any degree, in the process; I merely wish the issue to be resolved. BishopTutu 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the serious issue here is not the content dispute, but rather the possible sockpuppetry. --Wildnox(talk) 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very true. BishopTutu 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this is going unaddressed? Have I gone through the proper channels? Klptyzm 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this ever going to get addressed? Klptyzm 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To support my claim of sockpuppetry, consider this: if the user's were 2 different people, why would they use the exact same type of incorrect grammar (check this and this diff to understand); one particular grammatical error is the misspelling of "bealve" (believe) that is misspelled the exact same way as the other user. Klptyzm 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I going to get help with this, or should I just stop trying? Klptyzm 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm actually quite surprised nobody has said anything about this report at all. --Wildnox(talk) 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You and me, both, man. Klptyzm 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in handling sock puppet cases, but here goes. If the alleged sockpuppets appear to be in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Forbidden uses of sock puppets, the proper place to report them is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I will comment that if it appears that a single editor is posting from more than one IP address, the first assumption should be that the editor is using a dialup or other connection with dynamic IP addresses. One editor posting from multiple IP addresses is not a concern unless the editor is doing so to avoid 3RR, affect consensus in a discussion, or one of the other 'forbidden uses of sock puppets'. So, unless you can convince an admin that the alleged sockpuppetry rises to that level, this is a content dispute and needs to be handled as such. -- Donald Albury 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is more of a "consensus in discussion" sort of thing; the puppeteer is using a username to make it appear as if someone agrees with his point of view. A month ago, I requested the above article to be locked down so the warred-over issues could be resolved; they were, for the most part, but one user disagreed with one change, but never truly had any evidence to support his claims. Around that time, he made a small attempt to create a consensus by creating a username and make it appear as if he, the puppeteer, was being agreed with. When I exposed him of this, I presume he stopped, in fear of being blocked, or some reason, but, when the page was reduced to semi protection, he brought out the user puppet again and, this time, made it appear as a girl, so to not arise suspicion. I know it's a sockpuppet: the puppet made edits in the POV of the puppeteer, and commits the exact same grammatical errors, like spelling "believe" like "bealve." I just want someone to look into this. Klptyzm 17:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, now. Issue has been resolved. Klptyzm 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a request...

When I placed a "helpme" on my talk page, I was told I should ask this here. I am currently in the process of starting a Wiki about internet memes, and I need 2 copies of pages that are deleted and protected (If that is aloud), being that they are popular memes that Wikipedia has deemed non-notable (Not disagreeing with the policy, but I need copies of these for my Wiki). I need:

• A Copy of the Brian Peppers article (Not Nonsense)
• A Copy of the NEDM article (Not Nonsense)

If it would be easier, you can send me multiple versions of the articles, and I can figure out which ones are good versions. You can also email them to me at Jedikyle007@aol.com. Thanks! Please leave your response on my talk page. --MasterA113 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I, for one, refuse to fulfil that request. Although there are properly sourced versions of the Brian Peppers article in the deleted history, they don't contain much that one couldn't write starting from scratch with sources. As for NEDM: None of the deleted revisions are useful. They are all clearly original research, contradicting one another on almost all of the details. About the only thing that they have in common is the phrase that "NEDM" expands to, which you don't need copies of deleted articles in order to record. If you want to document an Internet meme properly, the way to do it is to do your own leg-work, researching the meme and checking the facts extensively yourself, and then to publish your findings in some respectable medium. Copies of badly written, unsourced, deleted Wikipedia articles that are chock full of original research are not the way to start. Properly researched, peer reviewed, and fact checked articles studying Internet memes would enrich human knowledge. I encourage you to create some. Uncle G 12:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unk, this person isn't even willing to watch this page for the answer: "Please leave your response on my talk page" is certainly audacious, but unlikely to get the anticipated response. - brenneman 12:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind if he's doing this on his own website, none of our policies (RS/CS/NPOV/ETC) necessarily apply. Anyway, to the original requester, see {{user recovery}}. A word of warning, however, the first articel had alot of problems, including possible libel, so watch yourself. 68.39.174.238 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Prolonged anonymous edits to pages about Hazel Blears, a UK politician

No sure how to solve this problem. A number of IPs have been posting the same unsourced block of comment about Hazel Blears to her article, Hazel Blears, and that of her constituency, Salford (UK Parliament constituency). The addition is in clear violation of WP:LIVING and WP:POINT. Firien and I have been reverting these edits since the end of last month at a rate of one every day or two. Here are the relevant difs:

• 195.92.168.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [27], [28], [29], [30]
• 195.92.168.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [31], [32], [33]
• 195.92.168.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [34], [35], [36], [37]
• 195.92.168.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [38], [39]
• 195.92.168.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [40], [41], [42], [43]

The relevant IPs are shared proxy webserves and so not really block candidates given the relatively sparse pattern to the edits. However, we have reached level 4 on warning templates for the worst cases. Can anything be done beyond our watching the pages? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the pages for the time being. Maybe they will at least come out to discuss.Circeus 03:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential concern over COI/NPOV edits

A request further up AN/I asked for some attention to the Farmers Insurance Group article.

I responded, found significant POV and large chunk copyvio's on the page, documented them, and by and large fixed it. There wasn't much objection, it was very clear and I clearly and carefully explained the policy related issues.

My attention was drawn to a user after that (Router) by the next (and latest) edit. There had been a criticisms section, which I cleaned and made more balanced, then someone added a plaudits section, I reworked both, reviewed the sources to ensure no undue claims were being based on unreliable sources, and created them as one section "Third party views", to avoid a "good things people say!" ... "Bad things people say!" re-enactment of the previous dispute.

(Buzzards39, who added the plaudits section seems to be trying to keep to policy, we spoke a fair bit and I explained in detail how things work. I'm not concerned about him right now, he seems for the moment to be trying to comply with our approach now it's getting more balanced attention.)

My attention was drawn to this edit then, by Router, in which he split "Third party views" into "criticisms" and "accolades" again. I'm not convinced. But before discussing on the talk page I thought I'd look at his editing history, since his name had been mentioned more than once as a person coming from a string negative point of view. This was his edit history:

• First edit: farmers (feb 2006) "Criticism is essential in knowing about a company. When you think of Enron, what do you think of? Individual stories that make headlines are relevant and need to be documented as so, under Criticism"
• Next major action: (may 2006) create article "gripe site" and adds back criticisms of "Farmers", also (rightly or wrongly) reverted of the person who removed the criticisms.

Since then he's repeatedly edited strong critical views into Farmers, its business affiliate Zurich, Allstate (another insurer), and Paypal.

Router's edits:

• Farmers Insurance Group: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]... (23 edit(s))
• Farmers Insurance: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]... (19 edit(s))
• PayPal: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] (9 edit(s))
• Talk:PayPal: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] (8 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] (8 edit(s))
• Gripe site: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] (7 edit(s))
• Allstate: [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] (6 edit(s))
• Zurich Financial Services: [102] [103] [104] [105] (4 edit(s))
• Others in namespace (main): [106] [107] [108] (3 edit(s))
• Others in namespace User talk: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]... (28 edit(s))
• Talk:Farmers Insurance Group: [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] (6 edit(s))

Criticisms input is valuable. But given the "gripe site" edits and suspicion by other editors that Router may run such a gripe site, I'm reluctant to step in without requesting at least some other experienced editor to review the article, advise first, and also watch this situation and help ensure that it remains balanced and calm. Also to ensure that if any editors wish to edit with a strong viewpoint on these articles, they are doing so with understanding of what wikipedia (RS, COI, NPOV, V, NPA and all other relevant policies) would require of any editor. I am slightly reassured in that he hasn't massively reverted anything though. But I do feel this small setup could spiral a bit and right now it could readily be defuzed with help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove them. If a gripe site contains negative information assembled from reliable sources, that information can be incorporated into the main article (subject to the usual editorial discretion and consensus). Sites that consist of personal anecdotes, blogs or fora, and other types of original unverified research should not be listed, per Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research (emphasis added).Thatcher131 03:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Personally I think that Router is associated with the #$%^sucks.com sites, and I'm watching Farmers, Zurich, PayPal, and Allstate at the moment to see that they don't creep back in. I've got your back, FT2, and am very appreciative of the work you did on Farmers. Syrthiss 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

This page needs some love, there seems to be an anon asking for more "alternate theory" space in the article and people just reverting. Even my comments on the issue seem to be getting deleted. I asked one of the original people to just let the anon make his case and to stop reverting but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears, now its just becoming a mess and an edit war, one of the admins semi-protected the page, but that just stops the anon from making their point, doesnt seem constructive and a bit on the WP:BITE agenda. Can someone who is willing to actually play the middle person get these folks talking and not reverting, its annoying to have my comments removed when they revert and more annoying to not be able to post because of the reverting. --NuclearZer0 01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote WP:TALK: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Drama and vacuous accusations of vandalism[125] and trolling[126] create unnecessary drama. I suggest this drama should be ignored without further... well, drama. Revert, block the associated drama queens (User:TheHoleKittenKabudal User:InAPartyDress User:JuranJuran et al), ignore per WP:RBI. Weregerbil 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dramatize or de-dramatize, that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler in the WP:TALK pages to suffer
The WP:TROLLs and the WP:SOCKs of Dramatic Encyclopedians
Or to take WP:BLOCK against the flood of drama queens
And by exposing their WP:SOAP, ban them. To revert, to ignore...

Weregerbil 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On the plus side, I am sitting in the departure lounge of Philadelphia International listening to the Poulenc Gloria, which can only be good... Guy (Help!) 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And might I suggest a little Telefon Tel Aviv to soothen the tensions? ;) Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On the what side now?! Anyway, for your apparent lack of respect re my poetry skillz, I punish you with:

There once was a troll from Nantucket

Who thought, 9/11? We'll dramatize it

When vandalizing the talk

Forgot to use his sock

And promptly for his error got blocked.

(It's got to be Friday.) Weregerbil 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your passage, though those words seem stolen from somewhere I can't quite place it. It did make me smile. However, I think you make several logical mistakes in all of this. Since when has blocking a Cplot sockpuppet ever "ended" drama. MONGO's original mistake was thinking that blocking Cplot would somehow protect Wikipedia from drama (he claims to be clairvoyant about this: I'll take him at his word, after all he did make us immortal). Anyway, I think you're grossly misinterpreting the Talk page policy. Every editor should edit talk pages with the understanding that their off-topic rants may get deleted. However, no editor should ever remove another's off-topic rants making claims of trollishness or vandalism (unless something is clear vandalism or a clear personal attack; forget about trolls because trolls are only mythical). Entering into a revert war with another editor who you have dismissed as a troll or speaking off-topic, does not end drama it creates it. In the immortal words of Chicago's former Mayor Richard J. Daley, speaking about the anti-war demonstrations accompanying 1968 Democratic Convention: ‘The police aren't there to create disorder. THe police are there to preserve disorder.” If you think something is trollish, Wikipedia policy recommends ignoring it. If something is clearly vandalism, Wikipedia recommends deleting it (just make sure it's clear vandalism). If you think someone just posted a comment that—if you posted it—you would be expect others to revert it, then explain to the editor what they posted that should probably be reverted. End it there. Don't get involved in an extended discussion with the editor over some meta conversations over whether the comment belongs or doesn't belong on the talk page and creates unnecessary drama. --MONGO 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On the pus side, I am sitting in the departure lounge of Philadelphia International listening to the Poulenc Gloria, which can only be good... Guy (Help!) 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not using one of those dreaded WiFi hotspots are you? I here those are just as bad as open proxies. Of course I heard that from an insane person, so don't give it too much credence. --Tbeatty 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that a rap? I guess admins prefer edit wars I do not mind, its weregerbil who is getting the bunt end and an article as popular as 9/11 attacks not getting any contributions. --NuclearZer0 02:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on it! There once was a man from Nantucket. And thanks for your help with detecting another half a dozen Cplot socks! WP:RBI worked fine again. Weregerbil 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a bad limerick. Um.

A user from downtown New York

Engaged with the people on Talk

but conspiracy theory

made editors leery

of risking a WP:STALK

Or something. Oh, is that my flight being called? A narrow escape for all... Guy (Help!) 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice but as you see its not really helping the page at all and the edit war continues, with many more comments getting lost in the shuffle. Can a non-involved admin look at the issue, one who is willing to do more then slap on a label. --NuclearZer0 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I agree with NuclearUmpf here. Why should we ever protect an article's talk page. There's got to be something very wrong if we find ourselves protecting talk pages. Think about it. --Guy (Help!) 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As the page is now being targeted by aged accounts, I have fully protected it until a resolution can be reached here. Please feel free to modify the protection as is deemed appropriate. Naconkantari 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the idea of full protection. Even though there was a sock attack on that talk page, it was a talk page with ongoing discussions and those discussions have now been cut short. --Wildnox(talk) 15:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And the sock parade continues into request for page protection. ----Wildnox(talk) 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

LithiumLollipop (talk · contribs)

I'd like to get a review of my indefinite block of LithiumLollipop (talk · contribs). Although the user's contribution page reveals nothing, I request admins to look at the (deleted) history of Kirsty Cotter. It just seemed too high on the creepy factor for me... -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Odd. Indef-block is fine to prevent further problems, see what they have to say for themselves. Unblocking would be acceptable if they show they have got the point. Guy (Help!) 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I was able to see one page before it was deleted, and shouldn't such things be forwarded to any police? _→AzaToth 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• It just looks like yet another autobiography to me, from another person who has mistaken Wikipedia for a free hosting service for pages about themselves. (Culture varies across the world. I'm sure that many editors would be surprised what some people in some countries find to be perfectly acceptable to write about themselves on their own web pages.) Deleting the unsourced biographical article is proper. (Even if acceptable to the autobiographer, such content is most definitely not acceptable here.) But an indefinite block on the article's author seems rather harsh, though. To me, the username connotes nothing more than the rather surrealistic image of a lollipop made of lithium. Just the deletion of the article seems sufficient. Uncle G 13:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jefferson Anderson violating WP:POINT and WP:NPA

Jefferson Anderson appears to have violated WP:NPA and WP:POINT by creating a user box directly attacking another editor, Mattisse. See this diff. BostonMA asked him to remove it but it was still there last I looked. Earlier, Jefferson Anderson also created a "List of rude editors" which only included Mattisse's name. He removed the "list" after another user commented unfavorably on it but replaced it with the userbox above.

Jefferson Anderson also significantly edited the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page (here and here), which is a WP:POLICY, without any discussion on the talk page. Please note that Jefferson Anderson has been named in a Checkuser motion in the Starwood Arbitration, thus may have ulterior motives for wanting the policy worded differently. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence and workshop pages of the arbitration case are the appropriate places to bring this to wider attention. Jkelly 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I added this info into my statement on the evidence page there but thought a, um, more immediate forum might also be appropriate. I guess I'm feeling a certain frustration at the length of time since the beginning of the case without certain changes in behaviour. (Yes, I'm aware that Arbcom cases generally run from 1-2 months.) It was not my intent to circumvent the arbitration and apologize if it seemed so. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pontius Ethics

This story is short and simple. About a year ago, a user "Gammamute" began vandalizing the Church of the SubGenius article. See: Special:Contributions/208.233.32.44 and Special:Contributions/Ktulu_Kuppa

After being quiet for the past year or so, the user Pontius Ethics popped up and began vandalizing the same Church of the SubGenius article once again. See: [127] and [128].

After I posted one warning for this user to stop vandalizing the article, he began posting whiny "legal threats" on my talk page. See: [129] and [130].

I'm actually a Wikipedia admin and I could block this guy myself. But, I'd rather take the tried-and-true method and put this one up to more neutral admins to check out.

Thank you for your assistance. --Modemac 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't the best of vandalism warnings. However, I've looked at the two edits linked to. It seems clear that the person has a serious intention of instigating legal proceedings against another editor. Therefore I have revoked the account's editing privileges until either all legal threats are retracted or all legal proceedings are appropriately completed, per our Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Uncle G 13:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sanghak

I'm notice that this user is had the superb imagination in the various part of Wikipedia. See Special:Contributions/Sanghak.

First, i'm notice that he is likely to upload an sourceless image to the Wikipedia. While the bot is edited out his image editing to the articles, he is revert the bot editing and restore to the previous version while the source yet to tagged.

Second, he have the superb imagination to the country codes in football template. While the FIFA is not granted any country codes to that country (it is not a country indeed, and just province), he is create the template with a "special" country codes while the list is not exist.

Third, i'm also notice that he is like to create an article with unverifiable content such as page Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) national football team and doing some awful job in some sub article in FIFA U-20 World Cup.

Fourth, i'm notice he is like to vandal, such as the FIFA host for 2008, he wrote Japan [131], adding football team while it is list of flag [132], put the extra line in article [133], adding nonsense content [134]

All this only few newest editing, while he is doing the same in the past. Please assistance to resolve this probelm. Thank you Aleenf1 05:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As I checked his contributions, he has been violating copyviorights, and recreating non-sense articles, just for disruptive behaviour. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you check his Talk page, you'll see that I blocked him some twenty minutes ago. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 05:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already given you the head's up in an earlier section. (See Sanghak (user-contribs) above). He even kept adding names of solitaire card games without providing his sources. He doesn't even observe alphabetical order. Yes, there is a block, I don't think 48 hours is enough. When he does something, he either ignores the warnings or just doesn't read his talk page. Is there something further that can be done? Despite that, thanks for your vigilance, Mel Etitis. - 上村七美 | talk 10:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, 48 hr block is enough for considering himself about copyvio. Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Flameviper

Looks like User:Flameviper's account was compromised. I've blocked; what is supposed to happen next? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait until the (presumably) real Flameviper comes back in some form and says OMG UNBLOCK ME and then unblock and monitor. Some kind of external confirmation is good, such as an IRC confirmation or something (if he uses it.) Grandmasterka 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He has e-mail set up; might that not be a good first step? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh duh. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get the article for discussion withdrawn that he may have started while compromised? Thanks! [135] Kyaa the Catlord 06:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not like the other edits that were made after the (presumed — he might be having a nervous breakdown) compromise. Is there any reason to think that it's bogus? Aside from the fact that you're desperately defending the articles under discussion, of course... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So the nom was made prior to him being compromised? He seemed to be willing to withdraw the nom (not like the one I'm talking about has a SNOWBALL) Kyaa the Catlord 08:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Threats being made/Need others to Defuse

I have no wish to inflame a situation, but this threat made on the Admin Noticeboard must be reported. The user called Husnock is at present the subject of a very heated Arbitration case, stemming from his having made a supposed death threat against another Wikipedia user. Husnock left this site about two to three weeks ago, but there have been reappearances of persons on various ip addresses, claiming to have known him or to be supportive of him. The evidence of these persons to the Arb case was all but dismissed, even though some of it was valid, with a group of 2 to 3 people charging Husnock with using different accounts. The ip addresses used by these persons are ranging from several spread throughout a particular region, some of them miles apart posting within minutes of each other, but all of them were being called Husnock simply because he had once lived in the area and that these addresses were giving support of him. In any event, things boiled over when a user called Pahuskahey was charged with being an alternate account for Husnock. Pahuskahey was openly called a liar about most everything he posted or said, which by the own definitions of this site qualifies as WP:NPA. Husnock himself apparently returned to clear the air, stating he did not want to edit on this site and that these persons over the past few weeks were not connected with him. This was immediately attacked by certain persons followed by a threat from Charlesknight that Husnock better “seriously think about what he was doing” or there would be “serious real world ramifications for you” and that Husnock should “think about your career and where you are”. Wikipedians, what ever you may think about Husnock, that statement I just quoted is a threat pure and simple. Husnock was dragged over the coals because he made a vague reference to someone watching what they said because he was in the military, this later being called a death threat. What was said by Charlesknight is much more blatant a threat than anything Husnock ever said or did. It references Husnock’s real life, his job, and then says that he better think about where he is, as if someone is going to come and find him. Husnock’s initial actions (which I cannot defend because they have been pretty low) does not give others the right to now threaten him and throw all policies of this website to the wind. Pure neutral people need to handle this and need to end this. The same group seems to be reappearing, over and over again, trying to attack and bring down this user with this spilling over to Pahuskahey who hasn’t done a thing wrong. This business about his son I cannot comment on, but I have recommended that he simply remove the offending picture. Thank you for your attention to this matter. –A concerned Wikipedian (-213.42.2.11 06:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

That is not a threat; it's trying to point out to someone that being stupid on Wikipedia isn't an action in isolation, divorced from the real world. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The anon (Husnock mockpuppet?) is, of course, wildly exaggerating, but I am puzzled about what Matthew Brown (Morven) meant by these terrible things that will happen to Husnock (I know not what, but they will be the terrors of the Earth...), which he can't mention in public. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean User:Charlesknight rather than Morven? —bbatsell ¿? 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry (I'm editing in the early morning because I couldn't sleep...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be very vague here and if an admin requires a fuller explanation of what I'd talking about I'll email it because it could make matters worse.

All of the following can be found on wikipedia - Husnock is in the miltary, he's even posted a picture that clearly identifies him. He's now operating a sockpuppet who claims to have had a son die in action and receive the Silver Star and Purple Heart. he supplies so much information about the "death", that's it's a pretty simple matter to work out it's a total fabrication. I don't think it's a threat to point out to another editor, that if he wants to play the sockgame, he does not want to do it in such a manner that leaves a trail of breadcrumbs that can lead straight to his door. I'm frankly sick of the whole affair but I think it would be remiss of me not to point out to Husnock the possible ramifications of someone in the miltary pretending to have a dead son who was a solider who died on active duty. My "threat" was to suggest that Husnock kills his sock account and starts again with a clean account and gets on with the business of editing. He could have done that with the Pahuskahey account but instead he decided the best course of action would be to get it to post on the Husnock accounts arbcom within 3 or 4 posts thus drawing it's attention to everyone.

The real crime here is that at one stage Husnock was an administration - a position that is a indiciation that (at least some) the community has spoken and said, "hey you do a great job here", at the moment he seems intend in destroying any rep he has left.

Unless an admin wants to discuss this further, I'm sick of the whole thing and will say no more on the matter unless requested. I'm sure various other socks will appear from various UAE IPs (like the one who started this) but the attention-seeking has to stop and I don't intend to feed it anymore. --Charlesknight 11:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Chadbryant sock/impersonator

Thad Tyrant is definitely a sock/impersonator of Chadbryant. One Night In Hackney 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No question. Blocked. —bbatsell ¿? 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to a note from DXRAW, I blocked Pedorelli (talk · contribs). Fewer contributions, but clearly a sock of someone's, and completely in line with Chadbryant's edits, so I went ahead and pulled the trigger. I invite review of my actions here. —bbatsell ¿? 07:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:70.251.123.231

70.251.123.231 (talk · contribs · count)

This user doesn't have an effort when he is interpolating a talk page and is a puckish purpose even if this is careful and will contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore, it proposes a posting block for 6 months. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks, but not for 6 months. That's a little steep for a first time block. User Talk page semi-protected, too. -- Gogo Dodo 07:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks, USER:Charles8854

• User:Charles8854 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Long term pattern of inappropriate behavior, personal attacks, and bullying.

• lengthy diatribe with lawyeresque tones. (second one here)
• Expression that Charles8854 is upset at an editor's refusal to give his real name/contact info
• long diatribe challenging wikipedia policies in light of the "Propaganda-Wars which are clearly manifesting on the eastern horizon"
• Personal attack upon your babylonian-whore/capitalist financed aristocratic education and You gate-keepers for the capitalist, slave-trading, babylonian-whore jurisdiction, seem to have won this round. You-all go on ahead and continue on with your ivory-tower sniper-attacks against the hapless commoners attempting to contribute good material here at Wikipedia.
• passive-aggressive hostility towards an editor responing to first personal attack and scolds the respondee like a child while declaring Glory be to yaweh
• responds to incident report by calling another editor child of darkness
• responds to an already-answered request for mediation by bullying the requestee!
• Calls David Duke's appearance at the Holocaust Denial convention an honorable thing and attacks another editor: You are nothing more than morally-compromised political-hacks for the imperial defacto-state; & your tower of babylonian slave-trading oppression is crumbling around you & your fellow gate-keepers every-where
• Again seeks to gain personal contact information and confront other editors

This guy needs to be stopped -- there is absolutely no evidence that he will do anything other than continue his bullying, rantings, and attacks. /Blaxthos 07:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Although he certainly has a right to his opinions, his description of David Dukes's actions at the recent Tehran Holocaust denial circus as a "noble effort" is disturbing. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't wish to censure anyone's opinions, however i respectfully submit that his behavior writ large is disturbing. From name calling to attempts personal confrontation, this is exactly what will push people away from contributing to Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour (especially unchecked) hurts us all. /Blaxthos 19:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack and Uncivility of user Anonimu

In the Communist Romania article, user Anonimu after reverting the article to fit his POV added in Romanian a message for other users:

"luati'mi pula la frecat"

which means "Take my cock out and rub it".

This is not the first time Anonimu ressorts to personal attacks, he did so in the past on the discussion page of the Romania article, archive 4, "the deleted fragment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romania/Archive_4#The_deleted_fragment) when again in Romanian said:

"o sa bag toti mafiotii ca tine din tara care au furat din averea poporului roman asta in puscarie."

whcih means: "I will put in prison all mobsters like you [refering to another user] who stole from the wealth of the Romanian people"

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's rules but this strikes me as a certain violation.

(Reply to poster), suggest checking WP:CIV and WP:NPA for him and WP:SIG for you. 68.39.174.238 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles knight must die!

Hi - not sure of the best place to do this. I've been pretty active dealing with vandals and never-do-wells over the last couple of years, that tends to attract various bits of attentions - that's no problem. However it seems that another real-life Charles Knight has been caught in the crossfire and he has received various unpleasant emails. I have no problems in changing the account to something else but how do I do it? Do I start a new account? Can the name of this one be changed? Charlesknight 11:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can request renaming, see WP:CHU. MaxSem 11:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

and it's done. thanks. (so I'm crap at pennames - so sue me!) --Larry laptop 12:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job! I really like that name. Unique. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please investigate ScabbinOnTheAngels

It appears to be an spa just to make the same spam to many talk pages. WP:POINT? Fiddle Faddle 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, sockpuppet of banned user. MaxSem 11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it is disruptive and needs an assisted passage off here :) Fiddle Faddle 11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminated. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently Cplot is finding it hard to accept that he is not welcome. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you have it all wrong Guy. Cplot feels very welcomed here. However,, no one wants Clowns propagandizing. It's the Clowns that are unwelcome. Don't take it so personally though. --LightUpMyRoom 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus you're all so kind to let us Cplot sockpuppets post here at our whim. And you always remove it promptly to let us know you read it. You're all so kind. --LightUpMyRoom 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I have to say that I really think the CheckUser and Privacy Policy violations represent very poor manners. I mean sure maybe you're immune from criminal and civil suits, but at elast be upfront with the people and just erase those policies. Hey I should bring a rpoposal to the village pump. Guy you and me have a great brainstorming synergy. --LightUpMyRoom 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Topper vandal - second request for assistance

Hi, I posted a request here yesterday for an urgent block on a persistent vandal who's been vandalising articles with misinformation for months and that I've been cleaning up after for three weeks now. Nobody responded to it. He's now taken to removing prod tags I put on his hoax articles, so this morning I had to put three of them up for AFD. Can someone please block him? Thanks. Vashti 11:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Templated Signature + Ignoring talk page = Block warning

I've just placed a [block warning] on Why1991's talk page: if you use the templated signature again, I will block you until you foreswear doing so. While I was strongly against the block of User N for having a "disruptive" signature, this user is doing something that the dev's made a software change to prevent. I'm sure that he knows this as well, because he must be copy/pasting the template in as opposed to using "~~~~" as it would subst the template automagically. I've brought the warning here for review, preparing for the trout slap if I'm smoking crack.
Again.
brenneman 12:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask him to substitute it? WP:PERF comes to the defense of b00bies n00bies. Meh. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He obviously left a trail – [136]. If its not allowed by the devs, how did he do it? — Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, when devs forced auto-substing of signatures, it didn't affect already defined signatures, only new ones. And even if someone would like to change their sig later, there's still a way to fool MediaWiki around. I won't disclose it for sake of beans, but feel free to email me, if you'd like to know (this doesn't seem to be Why1991's case though). MaxSem 12:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy had a signature that took up 5 or 6 lines in the edit window. When it was pointed out to him that this was incivil and unacceptable per WP:SIG, he changed to the template, presumably because that doesn't take up much space in the edit window. Seems as though that isn't allowed either. Why he just doens't remove most of the useless nonsense in his signature is beyond me. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Templated sigs are now automatically substed (just as ~~~~), resulting in the bulk code still ending up on the talk pages and in the edit boxes, essentially defeating the purpose of his template. --Edokter (Talk) 00:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All he has to do is trim the signature down to something of reasonable length. I think the warning is fair. --Cyde Weys 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor sockpuppeting

This is strictly Junior-League stuff, so far, but might just as well nip it in the bud.

Brand-new user Horário nobre (talk · contribs) is created at 00:54, January 6, 2007. First two edits are to immediately create a short but rude User Page message ("Foda-se. Não podia ter sucesso nos Estados Unidos, não?", which is Portuguese for "Fuck. It could not have success in the United States, not?" according to Google's translator). The only other edits are to nominate Neal's Yard Dairy -- which I had recently whipped up -- for deletion, even including shortcut-linked text in the nomination, and, when that fails miserably, removing from the article the external link to NYD's Web site and throwing on some random {{fact}} tags. So what's this guy's game, I wonder?

Of course, I really should have run the user name through a translator when he popped up, since "Horário nobre", it turns out, means "prime time" -- as in indefinitely banned Primetime (talk · contribs). The boy does NOT give up. --Calton | Talk 13:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the operative phrase is "Bwuhahahahaha!". Guy (Help!) 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged and noted as appropriate, CheckUzer request for IP-investigation filed. 68.39.174.238 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal abuse by User:Ednas

User:Ednas (and his suspected sockpuppet User:Zizitop) has been persistently abusing other editors on Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Some of this abuse is arguably antisemitic. He has referred to other editors as "members of the sanhedrin", a "loosely affiliated undercover netwok of operatives working to further the Zionist agenda", "Zionist moles", "Zionist gatekeepers", "an established crypto Zionist", "a Jewish Tribal activist", "worms [who have] come out of the Wiki woodwork" and other choice epithets taken from the lexicon of Gilad Atzmon himself. I have just deleted an offensive personal attack on User:Antifascist. This level of personal abuse goes far beyond any acceptable level of debate, and the racist comments have no place at all on Wikipedia. Can any steps be taken to restrain or sanction this editor? RolandR 17:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ednas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was clearly only an attack account, and I've blocked it indefinitely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronen Segev

We may have a developing WP:BLP issue at Ronen Segev. There are several users attempting to remove negative material from this article, whose subject has apparently enlisted ReputationDefender. See especially this blog post. Additional eyes would be very much appreciated here. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather then blogs, find and use actual news accounts. --Farix (Talk) 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Return of the GMC blogger

See MedicalNews (talk · contribs), especially this diff [137]. Also General Medical Council Abolition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Good doctors, safer patients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Unikkatil

I'm edit-warring at Unikkatil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with Astrit (talk · contribs) over the mention of Kosovo and Serbia. So far, I haven't been able to get Astrit to either discuss the issue or explain changes using edit summaries. - Regards, Evv 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Guardian Tiger and the unblock template

I blocked Guardian Tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an abusive sock and advised him to put up the {{unblock}} template for review by an uninvolved admin. He did, making a detailed argument for the block being unsupported by policy as well as me being personally unfit to impose it. User:Pgk reviewed and rejected the request and replaced the template with {{unblock reviewed}}, but Guardian Tiger has now replaced the {{unblock}} template. I feel a bit of a fool at this point, since I realize it's a common occurence, but what's next? It seems kind of obvious to assume that he doesn't get to keep doing that; should I (or, very much preferably, somebody else) politely tell him so? Or is it OK to have the block reviewed several times? Personally, I would like to see this block amply reviewed, since the user has impugned my credibility as the blocker. Thoughts? Bishonen | talk 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, I'll review it. And I'll protect his page if the request is invalid.--Doc^g 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Block looks good to me. Socking is obvious and admitted. Bishonen has plently evidence of abuse. Talk page protected to prevent further unblock requests. I suspect there's plenty of admins have checked this as valid now.--Doc^g 22:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiger is claiming that access to the original account has been lost, so there is a possiblity that Tiger could now be considered the main account, not a sock. However Dmcdevit has confirmed that the user has at least one other unblocked account, so I wouldn't stress too much. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement Request on BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for sockpuppetry, block evasion, and disruption.

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine (4th) and especially the requested sanctions (bottom). This user continues to use this confirmed sock to edit and harass other editors. Thank you so much. --BenBurch 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact he is now editing in the Sock Puppet investigations page trying to start a sockpuppet investigation against myself and the other editor who have been reporting his sockpuppets! See; [138]. --BenBurch 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Started a legitimate meatpuppet case against this user and his inseparable friend, F.A.A.F.A. The evidence against them is voluminous and compelling. He considers this "harassment." I am not a sock puppet. I am a different person who uses the same computer. If admins would bother to look beyond the IP address to my history of contribs, compared to Bryan's history of contribs, they would know that I am not a sock puppet. - ClemsonTiger 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, at the moment you are putting immense amounts of effort into being as disruptive as possible. The sad part is that you are a highly intelligent editor; stay within Wikipedia policy and your contributions will be heard and valued. But for now I have no choice but to support an extension of the original block. - Merzbow 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wish he would be honest about the fact that he is sockpuppeting. He's been caught at this now four times for six different sockpuppets now;

• ClemsonTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JohnnyCochran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kynouria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 12ptHelvetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• DP1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can we get this to stop somehow??? BenBurch 01:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• It would appear that this matter has been concluded. Thank you. BenBurch 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked 38.119.66.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for this, which I also reverted. Chick Bowen 03:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW. That is upsetting. BenBurch 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that tears it. E-thuggin' to the max! - Merzbow 06:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

24 (season 6) page

Please lock the season 6 page so that severe spoilers are not posted until AFTER the official broadcasts (in the US, or the week-later broadcast in the UK, i don't care which). There was an illegal posting of the first 4 episodes, and Wikipedia is being used to disseminate critical plot information. Thank you. Kermitmorningstar 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP, but I'll protect it anyway. Cbrown1023 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not censored to spoiling the plot of works of fiction. However, reading the article's talk page the issue appears to be that people are submitting original research that is based upon their firsthand viewing pirated copies of the television episodes, violating both the copyright of the publishers of the television show and one of our core policies at the same time. Uncle G 01:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

block evasion

Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked for racism and personal attacks, and trolling has been editing under an IP address Special:Contributions/74.98.241.189. He was so careless as to canvass support using his signature [139] and graffiti-tag an article tag page him and meatpuppets revert warred on [140].Bakaman 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms this IP is the same one used by Nadirali. Dmcdevit·t 02:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal information

203.135.21.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added a desperate plea for help on several articles. See for instance [141] and [142]. This person requests "POLICTICAL SHELTER" in Great Britain, apparently following a trial against the authorities in Pakistan. He claims there are "MANY EXTRIMIST PLOTING AGAINST ME." This person ends the pleas with his bank account number, his address and his mobile phone number. Pakistan is not a terribly free country, and if his claims are true that extremists are plotting against him, should we protect him from these edits? Should they be removed from the article history? Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

These edits do not make sense - he seeks political asylum and admission to the law school? Nah. This sounds like a variation of the Nigerian email scams. I would more fear for users who are guiled into giving this person money, account numbers etc. I will delete these, but I also suggest some administrator take further action. Jance 03:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a shared IP, possibly covering much of Pakistan. Since these edits seem to have stopped, it's probably best not to block right now--if he comes back we can do a short block to discourage him. Chick Bowen 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing those edits from the history would be a good idea - I only removed them from the article. Jance 03:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Chick Bowen 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WillyofToxteth (talk · contribs)

I have blocked WillyofToxteth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely, as a self-proclaimed Willy on Wheels sockpuppet. The guy has recently been making some odd page moves (take a look at his contributions), but I can't figure out what he's doing. It does not appear he is replacing letters with similar characters, but whatever he is doing, it is certainly disrupting the pages. If anyone can enlighten me on what exactly this guy is doing, please do. In the meantime, I'm going to go revert his enigmatic page moves. -- tariqabjotu 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

He is replacing letters with identical-looking—but different—characters; you can tell when you check the actual URL of the moved pages. Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that... I was looking for the more obvious letter ls versus number 1s, but could not find them. But yes... it appears something along those lines. -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that his purpose for using wikipedia, just disrupting wikipedia and getting banned. Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Appears he is replacing ASCII with Unicode. BenBurch 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yeb. Daniel5127 <Talk> 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

71.231.107.188 (talk · contribs)

Could someone please block this user for just half an hour or so? He is on a wholesale deleting spree and isn't looking on his talk page, where I asked him politely to stop. I may be wrong, but at least I'd like to talk about it with him before he continues. — Sebastian 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why it's such a problem that he was deleting dead links. An admin apparently rolled back all of his recent changes, so now all we have are a LOT of articles with dead links to yahoo news that he spent a lot of time deleting - there are no citations to be found, simply blue text that says "Yahoo news report" that leads to a 404 page. I totally understand the reasoning behind not deleting viable citations simply because the url no longer works, but it seems like what he was doing (at least, in the most recent edits) was valuable grunt work, and he was repaid by having his changes reversed wholesale.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there was no admin rolling back of his recent edits. Regardless, I must agree that the IP may be doing us a favor. I know for a fact that Yahoo! news links often expire quickly, over time, and do not contain original reporting. Thus, they tend not to be good references (and are discouraged from being used on Portal:Current events). -- tariqabjotu 06:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right I noticed that a lot of a random sampling of edits had been reverted by the same editor, seemingly without looking at what the edit was, and I assumed it was a rollback. I was mistaken, I didn't look closely enough--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

68.84.128.226 (talk · contribs)

Could someone please block this user. They have blanked warnings from their talk page about a dozen times in the past week. They have been warned not to delete warnings twice and they continue to blank them. --FrankCostanza 04:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User WillyofToxteth

WillyofToxteth has consistanting been vandalising pages. He did so to the talk page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, and I don't know how to revert it, because I can't find the history! The history is of his move only, but the move was to the same page?

Can someone please assist, he has been blocked indefinitely, but some of his vandalised articles are still vandalised, I'm not sure how to get the talk page back on the WikiProject Baseball.. --Borgarde 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Kirill Lokshin 05:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Evan Sackett

The article Evan Sackett is currently up for deletion here. Article was created by User: C. Evan Sackett, likely COI. Article about Sackett's website, Visual Circle.org, was created by User:Visual Circle, another COI. This article was prodded by me. Meanwhile, an anon IP, 68.47.251.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been flitting among the three (two articles, one AfD). Anon edited Evan Sackett in a "constructive way" but also added attack text to it about Sackett's sexuality etc. and has several times blanked the page's open AfD. However, anon also left a message on the Visual Circle talk page claiming to be Evan Sackett and asking everyone to mind their own business about his articles. Anon is also going around to various other articles (such as this one), inserting self-aggrandizing statements about Sackett, suggesting either anon really is Evan Sackett and Sackett has split personalities, or anon is engaging in rather complex vandalism. (Anon has also engaged in additional, childish vandalism of other articles, such as this one.) The whole situation is a little weird and I am wondering if an admin or two could keep an eye on this business for a bit, in addition to blocking the anon IP. Thanks--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also note that User:C. Evan Sackett edited Evan Sackett several times while the attack text was present but did not delete it, instead fixing typos and adding a relevant image. This is all very strange.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki watch on 82.159.137.19/User:Mac needed

• Mac (talk · contribs) 17Wikipedia:Commons categories (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Commons categories|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (See Jan 9th)
• 82.159.137.19 (talk · contribs) 3 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.159.137.19

As anom this editor left a series of nonsensical edits that are definitely wide of being useful or desirable on the commons, so I thought maybe he would benefit from a little extra 'help and oversight' from solicitous admins. I'll nudge him on this and ask him to clean up after himself. Sigh. Just like getting my youngest to use the clothes hamper! Best! // FrankB 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Renumbering of mailing list posts

Apparently, incidental to the installation of the new mailing list server, the posts in the archive have been renumbered. Consequently, most if not all existing links to mailing list posts bring up the wrong post, e.g. [143].

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Administration request

Could you please ban User:Alansohn for a very long time for what he's been doing on Joyce Kilmer? Also view the talk page to find out more as to "why". I'm to the point now that I really wish he'd die or go away, but I know he won't. His acrimonious pedantry will not stop, and while I've had my share of ignoring WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA this guy just takes the cake. —ExplorerCDT 06:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a relatively straightforward, if heated, content dispute that has reached high levels of incivility on both sides. I might humbly suggest that all involved take a day off from editing this article rather than requesting blocks on each other.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both warriors with a {{3rr}}. If either reverts again tonight he should certainly be blocked. Chick Bowen 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not making any specific judgements since I don't know the particulars, but I wish people wouldn't lose perspective on things here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In failing to research this issue, you more definitiely prevent any user from improving the article, exactly what ExplorerCDT seems to want. Among other offensive edits and edit summaries, "accept the fact that I said I'll have a source in a day or two and stop being a dick." and ... you and your buddy Alansohn want to rape Wikipedia policy and turn this article into a page worthy of inclusion at ancestry.com. So, do something productive instead of fucking up articles with unencyclopedic shit. go along way to demonstrating the persistent violations of WP:CIVIL that ExplorerCDT has spewed, and are only among the more egregious violations. I have repeatedly tried to make productive edits, provided sources, and reworded the changes in an effort to mollify ExplorerCDT, desperately trying to try to reach any form of consensus, to little avail. Any edits I have made to the article in the past 24 hours have been reverted. I sincerely regret any negative personal comments made in an effort to try to reach a compromise, but I am at wits end. I will step away from this article for now, in the hope that some mutual agreement can be reached. Alansohn 08:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Opening an incident and stating that "I really wish he'd die or go away" seems to be a rather clear demonstration of the level of abuse, and refusal to cooperate, coming from ExplorerCDT. Alansohn 08:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest JB196 sockpuppet

12.164.70.194 has been inserting a link to JB196's original research [144] [145] and adding prod tags to non-US based wrestlers [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] both of which are the usual M.O. of JB196 and his socks. One Night In Hackney 08:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, THAT'S a JB sock. I reinstated a couple prod's, and I suggest the others be looked at by folks as well... but.. well.. is he even trying? SirFozzie 08:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)