Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uppland (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 12 October 2006 (→‎[[User:Highperformanceauto]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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



    User:Bobabobabo

    Bobabobabo (talk · contribs) refuses to stop putting fair use images in User talk:Bobabobabo/works and User:Bobabobabo/works. The user has been warned repeatedly about this, and by admins. She needs a SEVERE warning and perhaps deletion of those pages. Interrobamf 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bobabobabo seems to not care about what we say concerning fair use images. I just hope s/he didn't revert my orphaning of all of them. Ryūlóng 02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zero1328/Work_Area&oldid=80336661 has fair use images. So why can't I? Bobabobabo (12:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    That page is a TEMPORARY workspace. They will all be removed as soon as the work is completed. --InShaneee 16:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And that means you should leave it alone in the mean time, Bobabobabo. Ryūlóng 22:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's now copying Zero's work area into one of his own. I've blanked it (not the first time that's been done, apparently), and warned him that he'll be blocked next time he tries pulling this garbage. --InShaneee 03:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary workspaces don't make using images acceptable. It's still a fair use image that doesn't fit fair use guidelines. Commenting out the images temporarily would be sufficient, however. Ral315 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not used my Workspace for some time due to some problems with it and I was leaving it there for reference. I've now blanked the page. Even so, User:Zero1328/Work Area is in my User space and I consider it impolite to alter someone's WIP without permission, as it may disrupt the work. Please refrain from copying it again. - Zero1328 Talk? 08:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like how he calls a registered user an anon in this diff. As he had in the past to others. Ryūlóng 23:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And how he's reuploaded formerly orfud'd images. Ryūlóng 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated failure to adhere to Wikipedia FU policies...

    Hi. I have a problem with user Buenaparte_Social_Club. He/she keeps removing the 'No Fair Use Rationale' template for the following images without properly adding the fair use rationale:

    1. Image:Avalonenpolognetheatricalpolish.png
    2. Image:Hellhoundsmanga.png
    3. Image:Tome1kamuikerberos.png
    4. Image:Amazingcomicsissue2.png
    5. Image:Patlaborwxiiiscreen.png
    6. Image:Otoko-tachiguishi-poster.png

    Let me also add that this user quite possibly is the one who made a personal attack against me with a sockpuppet account (see my discussion page) which had words which stated my edits were "peanuts" and calling me a "dick" . Edit: I've communicated with him several times and he still does not take me seriously. See his/her discussion page; he/she was completely rude as well. New Edit: I just noticed this user has deleted my no fair use rationale warnings from his/her discussion page.ResurgamII 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He's incorrectly tagging them, as well, such as describing the fifth image there as a 'screenshot', but tagging it as a Movie Poster. --InShaneee 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    - So can you please help me in this situation? He/she obviously does not take me seriously as I have no power over him/her (as a administrator). ResurgamII 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him indefinitely. I already ran into this user before and he shows no intention whatsoever of reforming or ceasing blatantly violating our copyright policies. Plus, add the usual incivility, incapability of responding reasonably or rationally to issues raised, etc. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Posing as an administrator

    EinsteinEdits This user has caused some problems on the spam front, but now EinsteinEdits claims to be an administrator... Quite a step up..thanks LOL Hu12 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the template from his userpage. Naconkantari 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ec In the future, when using templated warnings, it is probably best to put them on the user talk pages instead of on the user page. Jkelly 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Naconkantari much appreciated. Jkelly, seems Philosopher06[1] may have placed it there by accident instead of the talk page, I did not want to revert out the boxes, so i did a warning revert by hand. Hu12 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, just checked this person's talk page and I noticed he has moved his talk page to User talk:EinsteinEdits nonsense and removed some warnings from his talk page. I restored these warnings and warned him not to do it again. When I explained to him that removing warnings is considered vandalism, he left this uncivil comment on the page. Seems like someone who doesn't understand the problems of what he's been doing so far. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He posted uncivil comments on my talk page as well. keep an eye on this one. Hides under different ip's, heres one [2] Hu12 02:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've edited as IP at times, there could be a very good reason. I don't log in at all from work unless I have to, as I'd rather not have my coworkers get access to my enwiki account on accident. At home, I've edited and clicked save, to find out that I've been logged out somehow. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems the problems with EinsteinEdits, who also posts as 64.12.116.203 have escilated regarding the blog and spam links on Tickle Me Elmo. This has brought more abusive comments on my talk page, the comments under "new complaint" by 64.12.116.8 must be friend of EinsteinEdits and has posted threats. not sure the policy on this, but some assistance would be appreciated. Hu12 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • After some digging looks EinsteinEdits is here to promote sites after all, here's his info. he posts as MountainLife at digitalpoint.com, and has recently decided to sell his site, quote: "Would like to field some offers for these, TMX-ELMO.NET, TMX-ELMO.ORG,TMXELMO.ORG, I think it's a pretty potent package". The first noticeable spamming was www.tmx-elmo.org, was Created On:19-Sep-2006, and does not appear in the search engines. and has been added and re-added Eleven times ([3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]) This is an alarming amount of spam, whats disterbing is his other sites are in MountainLife's signature, and have been spammed on wiki also examples: www.cocaine-drink.com ( [14] under IP 205.188.116.133, [15] under IP 76.182.42.121,[16], [17], [18], [19]), www.dieselsmoke.com ([20], [21] under IP 64.12.117.10 and [22]. www.nascarspace.com ([23], [24] under IP 205.188.117.5 and here [25] under IP 76.182.42.121 and www.nitrousdirect.com ( [26],[27]). Thanks for your attention in this matter Hu12 17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I have zero affiliation with any such sites. I am here to try to help and your nazi type approach has made it virtually unbearable. I copied some user icons to spruce up my user page and made the mistake of copying a user admin icon. I apologize no where did I claim to be an admin? I asure you I am here to help and clean spoam, and add valuable links that I come across on a daily basis. I'm not sure why you think I am someone else or own sites but I do not. I'd appreciate if you laid off I'm trying to be apart of the wikipedia experience and your constant abuse and torment is making it very unpleasant to try and contribute--Edited By a Professor of Life 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see you removed your links from your signature since i posted this MountainLife. nice strawman tactic. Hu12 21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Hu12 was referring to this edit where you added {{user admin}} to your userpage, which states "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia." Now, as part of assuming good faith I'll just assume you're an admin elsewhere and put it on your userpage by accident, but you may want to read the Wikipedia policy on external links before adding any more of those valuable links you mention, please. We thank you in advance for following the policies and guidelines in place at Wikipedia!
    Oh, instead of {{user admin}} you might want to use {{User System Administrator}} or whichever appropriate other occupational userbox applies. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies i copied a list of neat looking user icons and that was included. Again i'm sorry what is the issue that you can not understand that it was removed, not put back, and apologized for. I had no idea how user icons worked or userpages i thought it was your own place to list stuff. Again sorry. As for other comments I have zero clue who that person is, don't see any links, don't know what you mean by strawman but you guys are really going overboard I was simply contributing, and have no affiliations other than being a member on one of the message forums I found useful. --Edited By a Professor of Life 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for making the admin tag confusion clear. My point after was that when www.tmx-elmo.org was removed, because it had ads, the ads disappeared. After mentioning that the same group of links you have inserted and focused on here at wiki (www.nitrousdirect.com, www.nascarspace.com, www.dieselsmoke.com , www.cocaine-drink.com ) were curiously in a "signature" on another forum, showing their relationship to you, they too disappear after its mentioned. then my user page gets vandalized excessively, along with all but my contribs involving you. An amazing string of coincidences. A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of a position. Any way best of luck in your endeavors. Hu12 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fleshlight DRV/AFD

    I realise this may be controversial, so I'm listing it here for discussion and review. Danny speedy deleted the article Fleshlight under the new CSD. As it had previously survived afd, a DRV was begun and is still running. See here for the DRV. Whilst that was still in progress, Phil Sandifer started a fresh Afd, here. I've speedily closed the afd, until the Drv has finished. Else we could end up with two contradictory results, and a resulting mess. I'm sure Phil was trying to do the right thing, but for once I think we need to follow some order of process if we are to harmoniously arrive at a result 9whatever it may be).--Doc 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you were absolutely right to close of the the 2. Personally, I think it should have gone to AfD in the first place, so I would have kept that one and closed DRV. However, it did NOT go to AfD in the first place, so technically policy says DRV should happen first. Therefore, I can't fault you for the choice you made. Johntex\talk 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Phil Sandifer reverted me back to his own version. I think this is now a mess as the discussion is split between two fora, which may come up with contradictory results. If the AfD comes up with a keep, shall I open a DRV to review it? I invite someone who is not involved in this to try to sort out the mess. One of these discussion should be closed and stay closed.--Doc 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is a mess. All may not be lost, however. The question at the DRV is not really whether the article should be deleted or not, but whether it was properly deleted or not (under proceedure). I haven't counted heads, but it is clear that a significant number of people think it was *not* closed properly. Since Wikipedia is not a vote, does it matter if those people end up being 40% or 60%? Either way, maybe the AfD is a good idea. So, we just look at the DRV as demonstrating the AfD should run its course, and we accept the results of the AfD. Johntex\talk 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've closed the deletion nomination pending the close of deletion review, including a note to all participants pointing to the DRV. This will almost certainly bork the DRV beyond belief. However, it was opeend first, so we let it run its course, then hopefully have a more reasoned debate once everyone's passions have cooled. Between this and Powerbook, Snowspinner seems intent on gumming up the works... is anyone going to tune him up? - brenneman {L} 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I think that's the right course of action. But, I'm sure Phil's motives were good.--Doc 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poorly phrased on my part. I've never doubted Snowspinner's motives were for the good of the project, simply that he often chooses to follow though in disruptive ways. In both of the cases I referenced above, he acted quickly, with little discussion, and contrary to the status quo. It would have been better had I said, "Has anyone whom he will lisen to talked to him about either one or the other of these actions?" - brenneman {L} 10:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Jayalalitha

    I've observed frequently few users like idleguy launches lot of personal attacks against her. She is the one of the political leader of India. They write about her personal life and quote references from gossips appeared in various magazines. They also mentions defamatory languages like that she is the concubine, she has child(though she is spinster)etc etc which are not relevant for the article concerning political leader. Could you please something to prevent such vandalism. Lravikumar 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to be a content dispute rather than vandalism. Some of the references you blanked are from academic journals, Asia Week magazine, and several other sources. While unsourced material may be removed per WP:BLP, if there is any info from a reliable source, I do not see any problem. --Ragib 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked him to reply to this complaint and do not edit that section (Secret Personal life) until that. NCurse work 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears Lravikumar has mistaken me for someone else who might have indulged in personal attacks in the past on such articles. I saw that a certain user named Jjayalalitha had blanked the section in this edit and a couple of edits later I reinstated it and added more sources for the same. I reworded "conspiracy theories" which has an entirely different meaning to a temporary heading of "Secret personal life". I also provided credible sources for the "mistress" issue and can continue to point to other edits like this in the past where I've blanked baseless allegations whenever this article does catch my eye. I've even replied in the talk page previously here stressing that "Her so called marriage with Shoban Babu unless backed by a proper cite will have to go soon" and retagged the 2nd para talking about her alleged wedding as [citation needed]. I have given solid sources for the "concubine" issue and I can provide tons more if needed. (btw concubine isn't the correct term and was planning to change that until I was notified not to change for the time being) There has been no violation of any WP policies, especially concerning biographies of living persons. The contentious first para's statements are verifiable instantly, not original research and taken from multiple non-partisan sources. I suspect Lravikumar has not fully read the sources, half of which come from reputable Indian publications like for instance The Economic Times or DCRC, a Delhi University research center among other esteemed publications which cannot be dismissed as mere "gossips". Idleguy 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree with your view. Any mention of derogatory statements like concubine,mistress etc to be avoided on living persons. You can get umpteen sources regarding personal life of notable public figures.For example,I can find 1000 websites which makes derogatory statements about Bill Gates or George Bush.(There is a website which even says Bill Gate is dead.Will you believe it?).If some website says person "xxx" is gay does not give authority for wikipedians to edit concerned person article saying that he is a gay quoting that as a citation.

    Any personal allegations regarding illegal relationship,dating,sexual orientation etc on individuals to be considered wrong unless it is accepted by concerned person even if there is 100 gossip websites writing about it.I wish Wikipedia to remain as collection of knowledge not as a collection of gossips. If we allow this to happen then each article on living persons will be flooded with Junk personal attacks. Jayalalitha is a political leader. I don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc.I even wish to develop consensus on modifying Policy on living persons to cite my views without any ambiguity. I can argue that each one of your citation is from unreliable sources. I don't want to indulge in edit war.I hope you will agree with my points and remove concerned section.--Lravikumar 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You should have only blanked the page after a consensus was reached. More over, there is nothing called as Gossip Magazine. It is Magazine. And I don't agree with you calling all the sources as Gossip Magazines. You should note that the para is based on well cited sources, which no one in Tamil Nadu can disagree.
    Point two. I disagree with your view that don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc Even that has to be cited and there should be more sources for that.
    Remember that it is clearly given (in another article) that another Tamil Nadu CM has two wives.
    If people go on blanking all that is not good about their favourite leaders, then we will have no articles in Wikipedia at all.
    There is no policy in Wikipedia which says you cannot write about affairs. (Note that Sexual Orientation is different from affairs). See Princess Diana and Bill Clinton for example. Of course, you cannot write completely baseless affairs. But the para is question is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH and should be maintained as it is well cited.  Doctor Bruno  19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Dr.Bruno/Idleguy. 1) As suggested in my Talk page, I will edit only unsourced contents of the page till we reach consensus on controversial sourced edit. 2) Regarding your comments on sourced edit. a) I did not mean she can be attacked politically without citations. b) Having two wives is not derogatory term.(which is also accepted by biographer) Alleging affair is derogatory term especially when it is not accepted by biographer. c) Both Bill Clinton & Diana has accepted their extra marital affairs. So it can be mentioned. But same is not the case with Jayalalitha. d) I edited many pages of Movie actresses and other celebrities when personal attacks are launched against them. You can see from my contributions. Jayalalitha is not my favourite leader as indicated(I hope you also did not mean that Jayalalitha is my favourite leader and indicated in generic sense.I know you will talk only issue and not launch personal attack) e) Personal attacks on personal life are common against prominent public figures. They cannot see all news articles and refuse them. So unless otherwise accepted by biographer,we should not consider it as a source.(For example if you search internet, there may be 1000's of personal attacks against George Bush personal life. Do you think it gives right for any wikipedian to add such material in criticism or personal life section of George Bush). Jayalalitha herself launched personal attacks by using filthy languages against people like sonia gandhi,vajpayee,Janaki ramachandran,Advani etc etc without giving any proof. Does it give right for wikipedians to add such personal allegations in respective biographies. f) I have quoted relevant wikipedia policies on living persons in concerned article's talk page about why it needs to be removed.Pl clarify me if you feel that my understanding of policies are wrong. Thanks --Lravikumar 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    first i think u r in the wrong place. See above "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department." and your issue is about the content in which case again this isn't the right place.
    Second, I urge you to go through WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, the three official policy critieria which has to be followed in any article edit, especially biographical articles. All have been followed in so far as the offending 1st para is concerned. That is all that matters, really. I suggest you avoid unnecessarily complicating things. Thanks. Idleguy 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hv come to right page. I came to this page to inform to administrators about editing incident.I read and quoted from above policies. You did not answer my question directly. --Lravikumar 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seanmerc

    Single purpose vandalism-only account. See contributions for evidence.--Rosicrucian 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He got a test4 warning. Next time he'll be blocked. Thank you for reporting this. NCurse work 05:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FANSTARbot

    This bot has been making mistakes on wikipedia fr and it. It adds interwikis to templates without noinclude and never asked for the bot flag (we have a procedure). Perhaps it dit the same on wiki en. Poppypetty 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot blocked pending approval, as per blocking policy. A member of the Bot Approval Group will unblock the bot once it has been approved for use on English Wikipedia. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiding talk page warnings

    DrL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and her "friend" Asmodeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are involved in a dispute with myself. The nature of the dispute is immaterial here, but can be found under this RfC. My question here is entirely peripheral to the dispute currently at the RfC.

    My concern is this: I warned her about blanking pages [28]. She proceeded to remove the warning, claiming to "archive" it (but she didn't put it in her archive: she just deleted it) [29]. I replaced the warning, and warned her about removing talk page warnings (an annoying habit she has). She responded by setting her Werdnabot talk page archiver to only 1 day, and then posted this comment, where she not only insults me (calling me "Byrgleturd") but brags about how her Werdnabot will remove the warning for her. I find this devious sort of behaviour deeply worrying.

    Can something be done? Removing the Werdnabot facility from her talk page would probably be a good start, since she is clearly using it for purposes for which it wasn't intended. Thanks. Byrgenwulf 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I know the Werdnabot banner on her talk page says it is archived every 3 days, but here one can see how she set it to 1 day intervals. Byrgenwulf 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeezum Crow how often is this going to come up, anyway. Vandal fighters like to say that removing warnings is vandalism. The user page policy allows editors to remove warnings from their own talk page. This naturally creates a conflict that has resulted in more than one edit war over policy, not to mention many needless edit wars over talk pages. He/she can remove the warnings. The most recent discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Funny problem with false warnings on my talk page. Thatcher131 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of a warning is not a mark on someone's "permanent record", a warning is a message to a user to stop behaving in a certain manner. If the user removes said warning, that should be taken as an indication of having read it. Thus, if the user repeats said behavior, it is time for a stronger warning and/or a block. Removing warnings is not in and of itself disruptive. >Radiant< 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate username?

    I encountered Hitman000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today for the first time when s/he made the following edit to a Talk page:

    Who die'd? I think this show should be canceled a.s.a.p. Maybe we can vote on it and send a petition? I want to shoot the kid in the bed, right in the face, with a pellet gun, not a real gun. POP POP POPOPOPOP[30]

    The account was created on 29 September 2006 and has 52 edits. A lot of the edits are to Talk pages or to the reference desk. A few are to articles. Some of the edits to articles are clearly improper, even if they aren't vandalism. E.g.:

    *Some consider Gordon an active homosexual, however, there has been no evidence, so it is often disregarded by the public or avoided.[31]

    Some edits may be OK - I don't know. Suggestions? -Johntex\talk 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the user should be asked/warned of his behavior and if it consists he may need to be blocked. "Hitman" doesn't seem like an inapropriate uesername to me.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already warned him about both of the above edits, but I am concerned by the combination of his username and the fact that he wants to shoot someone in the face with a pellet gun. Johntex\talk 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I get a bad feeling about this one. Although he does have some good edits, he's trying to force rumors and innuendo into Jeff Gordon in spite of the actions of several other editors and your warning. Also have a look at his history at Rachel Bilson, its talk page, and the actions of the anonymous editor 68.202.128.153 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I think we need to be careful about people who edit articles about living people with this kind of malice. No more Siegenthalers. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammer 58.170.16.240

    User:58.170.16.240 is spamming a website promoting a book on Glycaemic Index diet to multiple wiki pages. Could an Admin do your roll-back thingy please ? David Ruben Talk 02:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Alphachimp 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    JarlaxleArtemis

    If the requests at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JarlaxleArtemis are confirmed, please block the IPs and/or IP ranges which banned user JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is using to create his throwaway vandal accounts. He's recently been causing problems on User:Psychonaut and its various subpages. —Psychonaut 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This version of JA's page lists his numerous other-language user pages. I chose the one in French. There's no sign on it or its talk page that he's blocked. As I'm not an admin of fr:WP I can't check if he actually is blocked. If there's a simple way to protect other-language WPs from this person (and I really don't know), I'd recommend it. -- Hoary 08:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The checkuser requests have just been confirmed. If it's possible to block the IPs used by JarlaxleArtemis to perpetrate this vandalism and to evade his blocks, then please do so. —Psychonaut 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Some protection is needed

    Jagex Have been vandalized allot in the past 15 days. I am thinking its because School (this is a company that made the RuneScape Game). Its mostly from unregistered users. Is it possible for an admin to put some kind of protection on the page (at least so only registered users will be able to edit it.) If it will be protect for about a month or so vandls will stop. Jagex History --Wiz126 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    'kay, it's semiprotected. Any admin may revert without contacting me, etc etc... ~Kylu (u|t) 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, please use the request for page protection page. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    LorenzoPerosi1898

    LorenzoPerosi1898 was blocked for three months by PMA for "POV edits, article degradation" - the actual reason appears to have been a fairly minor content dispute between the two on Groucho Marx. No warnings were given. I'm fine with squashing obvious vandal/troll/POV-warriors with long blocks without warning, but a look at Lorenzo's history shows this isn't the case. I've left a note on PMA's talk page and removed the block, which seems outrageous to me. I'd welcome other opinions. --ajn (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First, any block should surely be explained on the user's talk page. There doesn't seem to have been any explanation there. I'm therefore forced to guess that, yes, it's related to Groucho Marx. I haven't carefully gone through the edit history of the Marx article, but Perosi seems to have made the mistake of disagreeing with PMA. He may also have done something like 3RR (I haven't counted, and it's not what he's accused of), and he may, according to your taste, be too interested in anecdote or too prolix, neither of which is a blockable offense. The talk page of the article contains no argument that he has wilfully ignored. All in all I can't see any reason why he should have been blocked at all. The onus is on PMA to explain the reason, and also to explain why 24 hours (at the most) shouldn't have been tried first as a preventative/deterrent measure. -- Hoary 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) This sure doesn't seem appropriate. I cannot attest to the accuracy of those quotes or sources, but those were the very first attempts at any referencing in this article that PMA reverted without comment. There is no apparent discussion on this issue, except some comments on the talk page from 2005 which would support Lorenzo's additions. I agree with Andrew's assessment from what I've seen. Grandmasterka 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From a cursory look at PMA's user page and talk page, he/she also seems to have recently blocked User:Misanthrope00 for 31 days without warning, and PMA's user page is protected. I'm sure there may be good reasons all around, but maybe someone should have a conversation with PMA on admin interaction style? Martinp 09:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa... The images of hers that I looked at looked fine to me, the few that weren't were promptly deleted. And a little warning wouldn't have hurt before this user was blocked for a month. This seems really serious. I was about to unblock this user but I thought I'd wait for more input. (Copyright problems are to be taken seriously.) Grandmasterka 10:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the Marx article - that person was also the source of some very POV pro-Groucho material (in the ad-lib section) that was removed by another user. I provided a cite for my part about Groucho being senile towards the end of his life - I feel that Mark Evanier is extremely trustworthy when it comes to matters like this and, seeing as there seemed to be no possibility of "LorenzoPerosi1898" backing down on his/her POV given their history, i saw no choice but to block. As for User:Misanthrope00, I was planning to put a block notice on her page but real life intervened and i was away from my computer for an extended time - my apologies. Also, there is no guarentee that if i unblock her that she will not return to her image stealing copyright infringing tricks - i've been with this project for nearly five years and know how much trouble such people can cause - DW for example - in these circumstances it is better to be safe than sorry. (looking at the talk page Netsnipe seems to agree with me). PMA 14:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    PMA, I have a lot of respect for your 5 years service to the project and 3 years admin. But your reply above disquiets me. Regarding Lorenzo, you just should not block a user you are in a content dispute with, and the argument "he was making POV edits, I had provided a reference for my side, and I thought he would continue pushing his POV" just does not cut it for appropriate admin blocking behaviour. I see you have blocked a number of users for increasing lengths of time over the past few weeks for "POV edits and article degradation", including an anon who you blocked (for 30 days) 17 days after his previous edit. The lack of apparent communication -- for any reason -- around several of your blocks seems a bit disturbing as well. While I know battle fatigue sets in for all of us, I would challenge you and us all what we can do to limit curt damage-control actions to a minimum and avoid behaviour which make slightly misguided but potentially valuable contributors feel pushed around rather than welcome. And apologies in advance if I have completely misread the situation. Martinp 15:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin, perhaps you are right about "battle fatigue" - just i have learned the hard way over many years that with some people you just can't argue with - i wasn't always this way - i gave such people lots of chances once but it was thrown back in my face repeatedly, culminating in what Americans call "felonius impersonation" in order to defame me. What am i supposed to do about people like Lorenzo who ignore credible cites - Evanier knew Groucho in the last few years of his life and i footenoted his articles about Groucho's decline. As for Misanthrope - Netsnipe agrees that she ignored warnings - it seemed like another DW to me - i apologise. PMA 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was pretty much the definition of a sterile edit war... why didn't you bring the discussion of the credibility of the source onto the talk page, and at least explain yourself there? Georgewilliamherbert 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

    Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

    Refered there after a report at Personal attack intervention noticeboard, I'm dumbfounded. However, my knowledge of this subject is so microscopic I'll make others stupider simply by talking about it. Can someone who knows anything about Hinduism look at it? Otherwise I'll just brutally trim it back to a verifiable stub, cull the external links, and hope for the best. - brenneman {L} 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That article is an abortion of a thing. Far too many people falling over each other to get their point across. Guy 11:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Highperformanceauto

    Highperformanceauto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be a single purpose account with the intent to whitewash diploma mill Saint Regis University and defame physicist and anti-diploma mill activist George Gollin (who was called something bad, which I won't repeat, here and whose bio was prodded by the user). Tupsharru 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Would suggest giving them a warning first.--Andeh 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, did you actually read the attack against Gollin? This user is obviously no confused newbie; s/he knowns what WP:PROD is and how to use {{fact}} tags. People writing stuff like that shouldn't be warned, they should just be told to go to hell. Tupsharru 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The same person seems to be editing as 75.31.70.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and has been warned by somebody else. It also appears that Gollin himself has now registered and edited as G-gollin (talk · contribs). Tupsharru 05:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Content Blanking of Tamilnet by User:Snowolfd4

    Hi, I wanted to bring this problem with user snowolf doing content blanking of stuff on Tamilnet. User snowolfd4 has come up ambiguous/mickey mouse reasons to remove relevant content from the Tamilnet article as he did for the Vellupillai Prabhakaran article (diff) [32] (his justification then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Velupillai_Prabhakaran, after which he backed down following admin intervention ). We really need admin intervention.

    Here is his justification for blanking parts of the Tamilnet article:

    Sudharsansn the reasons are given in the edit summery. Thats not vandalism. Get your facts straight. Practically everything I removed is irrelevant to the context of the article. The international news organizations don't say sympathetic to LTTE website. Its plain pro LTTE website. That means they support the LTTE. Plain English. Not sympathetic. Support. And stuff like

    David Jeyaraj a Canada based freelance journalist known for his neutral stance in the current Sri Lankan civil war had written that Karuna, was personally involved in the murder of famed journalist Taraki Sivaram

    is just not encyclopedic and doesn't belon in WP. So again I'm removing irrelevant content and restoring my previous version. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    He claims David Jeyaraj's ( a journalist) statement (with reference) is unencylopedic, so he decides to remove it completely. He also insists on mentioning the LTTE with the list of countries banned in detail. Is the article about the LTTE or Tamilnet ? But he wants to include as much negative detail about the LTTE in order to highlight his POV. He also insists on saying the website supports the LTTE, which is legally vague. Material support, financial support, political support what does support mean ?? The best word as far as I see it is that it is sympathetic to the the LTTE. Furthermore he blanks many other factual statements, with relevant citations without even discussing it. Here is the diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamilnet&diff=80561873&oldid=80558808)

    Please also look into the section which labeled as "Time", because there is the added complication of old Sri Lanka time (5h30 difference from GMT) and new Sri Lanka time (6h difference from GMT) with regards to one of the allegations.

    I had also switched the title of the allegations section from "Allegations of False Reporting" to "Controversy" because:
    • Only one incident is where Tamilnet is accused of false reporting, the other two references, it is called discrepancies [33], [34].

    Thanks, Elalan 13:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lightning-Feather makes legal threat

    This user has engaged only in vanity editing, mentioning himself as a great philosopher all over the place. I alterted him that WP doesn't allow editors to write their own biographies or use themselves as authorities. He then threatened on his Talk page to sue me and to "alert me to the Anti-Defamation League" (though why that organization would care, this not being a matter of racism or anti-semitism, is beyond me). When I told him to not make legal threats, he then began to accuse of racism and anti-semitism (see this edit to my Talk page) I know that in the past legal threats have been taken very seriously, so I hope that my case will be dealt with appropriately. CRCulver 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant sentence on his Talk page, made after I simply alerted him to rules against vanity or autobiographical editing is: "I know your identity and if you should seek to defame me any further I will seek legal action in court! And I will report you to The Anti-Defamation League B'nai Brith for further investigation." CRCulver 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Subtle spamming

    I just noticed something that seems a little too big for me to deal with. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=free-game-downloads.mosw.com&limit=500&offset=0 shows links to a particular game download site in many articles, 50 of them so far. The curious thing, having done a small random check, is that they have been added recently, each time by a different anon IP with no other contributions. Rather than just wade in and delete, I wonder if this merits deeper investigation. Notinasnaid 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. They almost have to be proxies, don't you think? They're all over the world. Thatcher131 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a job for the spam blacklist. And if those links actually do lead to somewhere where the games in question can be downloaded, that's bad news too, as most of them aren't in the public domain and still covered by copyright. Providing links to download spots for copyrighted games is shaky legal territory indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's now 56. I wonder if it is actually a series of zombies, which would be an alarming prospect for the future. Should anyone want to investigate, cleaning up will make it very hard to track back so here is a list of the current 56 articles: Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder! Theme Park (computer game) 1943: The Battle of Midway 1942 (arcade game) True Love (game) The Neverhood Return to Zork Mixed-Up Mother Goose Below the Root Sanitarium (videogame) 5 Days a Stranger 7 Days a Skeptic Les Misérables Wing Commander (computer game) 3-Demon Prince of Persia AAARGH! Abuse (computer game) Action Fighter ActRaiser Captain Comic The Oregon Trail (computer game) Mario Teaches Typing The Incredible Machine 3 in Three 7 Colors 3D Lemmings Lands of Lore Pool of Radiance Abandoned Places Advanced Xoru SimEarth Wing Commander: Privateer Red Baron (game) Chuck Yeager's Air Combat 4x4 Off-Road Racing A.G.E. A-10 Tank Killer A320 Airbus Abrams Battle Tank Ace of Aces (computer game) Championship Manager 2 Ultimate Soccer Manager ABC Wide World Of Sports Boxing Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 20 Jones in the Fast Lane Transport Tycoon Star Trek: Starfleet Command III Constructor (video game) Panzer General 3D Construction Kit 3D Construction Kit II Adventure Construction Set Notinasnaid 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I remember abandonware are titles that you legally can download for a certain period of time. While the patter is disturbing if this is true these links are actually helpful, however if its not true please inform me and I will help cleanup. --NuclearZer0 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I found my own answer its illegal, I will start removing the links starting from the bottom. --NuclearZer0 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Got to Ace of Aces and got tired, if someone can cleanup some more its appreciated. --NuclearZer0 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, some were missed, and more continue to be added (see the link in my first post). I've done a few more, but when will it end? The abandonware problem seems widespread: Ascendancy had three different links. Notinasnaid 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and Category:Abandonware websites is interesting... Notinasnaid 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see someone is hard at work keeping up, and I've added a request for blocking. Here is something that might be interesting: the editor or program is currently working through their PC games alphabetically, and at the time of writing reached Ecco the Dolphin. It might be possible to anticipate a couple of articles ahead and (a) try rearranging the page to see if a robot can be tricked (just to see if it's a robot or a human; all edits I've seen have been at the end of the last section, but before the trailing stuff); (b) stick a warning in, though someone determined enough to use a different IP for each edit isn't likely to heed a warning. I also speculate that the web site might be creating zombies as people sign up (ironically, the "free" software requires a subscription). Notinasnaid 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to keep up, but I see you're right about the alphabetical thing. If they are only into the E's, this is going to be a long night... Satori Son 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I must be going mad

    Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Stating the obvious
    If I'm wrong here can someone please tell me where and why, because I can't see it myself. -- Steel 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see how this is a situation requiring administrator intervention. --InShaneee 16:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. This is more suited for the Mediation Cabal. Shadow1 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohnoes! More work! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Afrika paprika (nth time)

    The "Tiger" Afrika paprika (talk · contribs) was blocked by Aldux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 72 hrs, but he continues to edit as 89.172.229.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as he regularly did before. He operates from IP range of approximately 89.172.192.* to 89.172.238.* Duja 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See this diff which confirms sockpuppetry to evade a block. I have tagged as such, but account is still being used and needs admin intervention. --Satori Son 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspect source for negativity in articles

    Dear Administrators,

    I am concerned about two articles about brands of rolling papers, Bambu and [[Shttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestampmoking rolling papers]]. There has been a sort of edit war between User:Mrtobacco and an anonymous editor for the sake of adding and removing a claim that the manufacturer of Smoking rolling papers did something illegal. Unfortunately, the only reference is in Spanish, and a Google search did not provide any more insight into the matter other than the article in Spanish.

    I don't feel that an article I can't even read should be enough to justify damning comments about a living person or working corporation. - GilliamJF 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [35] Google Translate, there is also Altavista Babbelfish if you want to use that. --NuclearZer0 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that suggestion. - GilliamJF 19:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article source is legit. There has also been a criminal court proceeding against the company for endangering public health. I would say, this is not just damning comments. They should be mentioned in the article. Regards, --Asteriontalk 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Afrika paprika

    User:Afrika paprika has been blocked by User:Aldux for continous edit-warring (on Pagania, Travunia, Zahumlje, Doclea and Croats), incivility/personal attacks, numerous 3RR violations and avoiding wikipedia's rules by logging off to rv and then logging back on in 20:51, 10 October 2006. He has repeatedly violated his block, returning constantly as an annon whose IP adress is starting with '89.172'. His most recent adress was User:89.172.229.140. If his contributions are observed, it will be noticed that he continued edit-warring, reverting Duklja in 16:40, 11 October 2006, Travunia in 16:46, 11 October 2006, Zahumlje in 16:46, 11 October 2006 and Pagania in 16:46, 11 October 2006. He is self-confirmed as Afrika, as seen here on Pagania's talk page from 16:59, 11 October 2006, here on User:Edison's talk page from 16:53, 11 October 2006 and here on Nikola Tesla's talk page from 15:06, 11 October 2006.

    He has also been deceptive, claiming that he cannot be held for his provider's actions - alleging that it was not him on his talk page in 00:38, 11 October 2006. It is therefor that I suggest lengthening his block, watching the articles he edits (preferably semi-protect them), officially warning him on his/her talk page and putting him on a probation period. Best regards, admins and hope that you'll respond soon as you can. With heart, --PaxEquilibrium 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Afrika just now re-emerged as User:89.172.204.126, continuing the edit-war of Croats in 19:31, 11 October 2006 and Travunia in 19:37, 11 October 2006, as can be seen on his contributions (self-confirmation present here as well - please see this and [36] from 19:43, 11 October 2006 and 19:51, 11 October 2006 at his/her talk page). --PaxEquilibrium 20:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed his/new annon sockpuppet - 89.172.232.157. He/she edited Zahumlje in 20:51, 11 October 2006, Croats in 20:49, 11 October 2006 and Duklja in 20:51, 11 October 2006. Althogh there is no direct confirmation of Afrika's identity behind this one - the edits show all themselves. --PaxEquilibrium 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Afrika has been blocked indefinitely by User:Pilotguy for incessant edit warring, sockpuppeteering and violating existing blocks. Separately, I've semi-protected Croats to discourage further anonymous edits from Afrika. I agree with the block and suggest that it be treated as a community ban; he's a frequent edit warrior, he's had numerous previous blocks for the same offence and he plainly hasn't learned (or just doesn't want to learn) from the experience. -- ChrisO 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely reaction... See this. --Asteriontalk 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or this... we're definitely better off without this idiot. -- ChrisO 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that he fully earned is ban, as I agree with ChrisO that this should be treated as a community ban. I have also extended semi-protection to Travunia, Zahumlje, Pagania and Duklja, also under attack by Afrika paprika through anon. accounts.--Aldux 23:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    EDO Corporation

    Sustained edit war going on here, between a user wanting to add extensive criticism and another removing it. - RoyBoy 800 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave the entry a minor cleanup and dropped the contesting parties a note on the talk page. El_C 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cory Lidle

    Is it possible to semi-protect this page from unregistered editor for a bit - the breaking news means that every IP going is trying to edit the page - making it impossible to alter the article in a coherent manner and in keeping with the style guide.

    Semiprotected, see [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Full Protection of Lidle Page|Full Protection of Lidle Page]] for more information. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    --Charlesknight 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cory Lidle

    News is breaking about this athlete. Anticipate a "Steve Irwin" type incident.

    • CNN ([37]) is reporting that the Yankees have confirmed it's his plane. A lot of edit-warring on the article. Fan-1967 21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added it to {{In the news}} for the main page. I think it is worthy of that... Man, it just had to happen in Manhattan. Grandmasterka 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected, see [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Full Protection of Lidle Page|Full Protection of Lidle Page]] for more information. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user: Chadbryant

    Type F. I have a suspicion that after being blocked for a week for repeated violation of 3RR, this user continued editing under the name twentyboy. My reasoning:

    • IP 65.31.99.71's first edit to WP was to make a small stylistic change to one of Chad's talk page edits, and he started editing after Chad was blocked.
    • Twentyboy started editing just after Chad was blocked, and started off by posting a message on the talk page of Chad's favourite article, the "Randy Orton" talk.
    • After being warned by me for posting inappropriate content on article talk pages, Twentyboy started threatening me at User_talk:Yandman#Twentyboy, but forgot to log in for his last message, signed IP 65.31.99.71 .

    I was told that this wasn't worthy of a checkuser, because 3RR blocks are not "community based blocks". This means I can't really prove they're the same, but the evidence seems pretty overwhelming. Thanks. yandman 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For this, I would suggest you to report this on the Wikipedia:Request for checkuser, so some admin will take a look on this. Daniel5127 (Talk) 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection of Lidle Page

    People are using the entry of Cory Lidle as a personal blog. Editing the page with each bit of "breaking news" and using present tense speech such as "ESPN is now claiming that..." or "The mayor of New York City is now saying...". Can this page be blocked from any further editing until the news calms down please?--Kester Teague 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is supposed to keep up-to-date. This is posted at the wrong place anyway. (see WP:RFPP) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend against full protection for more than 5 minutes as this is a major current event. Naconkantari 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it's a current event. But an encyclopedia is not a blog. I've never seen an encyclopedia that uses the present tense or has things like "ESPN is reporting..." and "The mayor is on TV now claiming...". Those types of things are for the article's discussion page not the actual article itself.--Kester Teague 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but generally, that stuff is reverted quickly. General rule of thumb is to keep pages unprotected if they are listed from the main page. There are exceptions in extreme cases (Steve Irwin) but this is not one of those. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued sockpuppetry of blocked User:Zorkfan

    Can something be done about user Zorkfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He keeps evading the block by creating sockpuppets. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zorkfan. Disclaimer: I was among those who conflicted with him over content in the past. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicole Sheridan

    I found this article tagged with the "autobiography" template. But on the talk page there is no mention or evidence of her herself contributing to this article. What is the deal with this? UCF Cheerleader 01:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It probably means she is believed to have contributed under a username that is not here real name. Did you read the Discussion page of the article to see if the tag is explained? Johntex\talk 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read my post carefully? It would behoove you to do that. Thanx UCF Cheerleader 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops. Sorry. Either too much caffeine or too little. I've removed the tag since no justification for it was given. Johntex\talk 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent spammer

    24.42.163.237/Picassoo has been adding his/her website (ottomanonline.net) to various Ottoman-related pages for weeks now. I'm not sure if this is a serious enough of a matter for the website to be added to the spam blacklist, but I've gotten tired of reverting, especially because of the fact that this user switches between editing anonymously and with the Picassoo account, which makes it more difficult to warn him/her. Any suggestions as to what I should do? —Khoikhoi 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If either of them edits again re-inserting the link, I'll block both of them the same length. Grandmasterka 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, didn't take long. Blocked them both for a week (the IP had been blocked twice before for the same thing.) Grandmasterka 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again, that saves me a lot of time. —Khoikhoi 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=80958147"