Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive322

Range block on New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

As a disruptive sockpuppeter utilizing many ip's in that range, I've blocked that range (129.138.0.0/16) for 24 hours, not anon only as he/she had sleeper acocunts. _→AzaToth 00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

personal insults and racial comments by User:202.10.89.28

123.176.40.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started by calling me this and I was about to let it go when he went ahead and repeated himself. The fact is I don't like being called neither a stupid asshole, nor a tatar and explained it to the other contributor. The fact is he insisted on calling me a such. Adding this to his generlly disruptive behaviour. --Laveol ^T 00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a friendly note warning him about his behavior. Hopefully he'll cut it out. --Haemo 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Although I already tried to explain to him he's insulting me and it's obvious he really understands it --Laveol ^T 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Socky puppet (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked for username, auto-block enabled due to disruption. TigerShark 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has been repeatedly re-adding fair use images (I got that right I hope) of television shows to his userpage. He has been warned, but continues to do so. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account for username violation and left the auto-block on, due to the attempted disruption by an individual who is obviously well versed in Wikipedia. TigerShark 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with the assessment of username violation, I must agree with the indefinite block for disruption. –Crazytales talk/desk 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What am I seeing?

Look at this and tell me what's going on [1]. I already blocked one... are these compromised accounts? Hiberniantears 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... appears I have my hands full then! thanks! Hiberniantears 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The socks are blocked for now, right? It's just a typical move vandal. Block and revert, repeat as needed. Who wants to write a GrawpBlockingBot? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on the reverts... I blocked the wrong editor (since unblocked and apologized to). Too many question marks in that title to see straight. Hiberniantears 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All/Specialadmin/monobook.js may help you next time, it includes a button to pseudoautomagically revert all moves by an editor. east.718 at 04:10, 11/7/2007

Cody Finke

Cody Finke, a banned user and know sock puppet is back again.

Current alias:
codyfinke2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Banned aliases:
codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy is just problematic at best, he has been banned twice and is back again and up to his old tricks.

Could some one please take a look at this issue. Again.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Make sure you get them all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - blocked about 3 more of them. All socks of User:MascotGuy - Alison ^❤ 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Champlain College rangeblocked

Hi all. I've rangeblocked the reasonably narrow 216.93.144.0/20 range associated with Champlain College, anon-only, and sent a courtesy note to their NOC. Block is for seven days due to rampant vandalism across multiple articles using multiple IP addresses over the space of a week or more. Just so's you know :) - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Steven Andrew Miller

Steven Andrew Miller has created pages Don Draper and Roger Sterling, which are now in AFD. He created two subpages, User:Steven Andrew Miller/Don Draper and User:Steven Andrew Miller/Roger Sterling, which contain fair use images. I remove them, and he is persistently re adding them, saying "rvv". I have warned him, but all he does is remove the notices. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to potential copyright issues, we don't play games. — Thomas H. Larsen 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he also removed BetacommandBot's tags. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did remove BetacommandBot's tags. The errors that BetacommandBot alerted me to, I fixed. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If a legitimate article draft is in user space, and a fair use image is eventually intended for that article, the right way to fix the draft is to switch the call from an image call to an image link by prepending the ":" character, as is done in this image link: :Image:Example.jpg. Then the fair use image isn't displayed in user space, but it is a trivial edit to switch back to a link when the article goes to main space. GRBerry 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD assistance required

Please see this TfD. I have closed it as delete, but the link template does not transclude the same in each article, so I cannot figure out how to get AWB to easily replace it. The template is linked over 900 times and they all need to be removed. Please feel free either to inform me when the de-linking is complete or simply delete it yourself. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[^]\*? *\{\{nndb name.*\}\} *[\n$] as regex maybe? I don't remember if AWB supports regexes though... east.718 at 04:35, 11/7/2007

It does support regexes... let me try this one. (I never could have thought of that on my own.) RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Nice try though, thanks. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've actually tested this one and it does work: \*? ?\{\{nndb name.*\}\} It does leave a dangling newline though. east.718 at 04:53, 11/7/2007

Yes! That's perfect. Thanks so much. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, because of that, I made my 11,000th and 12,000th edits within three hours of each other... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CORP and advertisements like Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts

I have already complained that wikipedia is used for advertisement by writing articles claverly and professionally so that they look like encyclopedia articles. Instead of narrating current incidents, I would like to request to read 'SD tags' section on my talk page. Please note that I tagging articles which are already tagged as COI. Thanks. abhih 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incident -Talk The Holocaust

User-Mona23653 deleted a post that I had made on Ukrainian Colloboration in WW2, this post included a link to another Wikipedia article. I have restored my original post. User Mona23653 should not be allowed to censor the talk page.--Woogie10w 11:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just leave them a message, there isn't really anything that requires administrator intervention. east.718 at 16:29, 11/7/2007

This is the text of my message to User Mona23653--- " Don't delete my postings, I am one person you can't bully. I mean it, stop deleting what I post!! " User Mona23653, I noticed has been accused of hostile postings in the past. I don't appreciate my posts being censored, especially when they direct readers to another Wikipedia article.--Woogie10w 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To ice the cake Mona23653 makes statements regarding the Holocaust in the Ukraine that are not backed up with sources. Mona23653 attacks my source because he is a Russian.--Woogie10w 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alert to any admin familiar with User:SEGA and his ongoing activity despite a community ban

To any admin familiar with the "SEGA saga". SEGA has been permanently banned (See Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Community_ban_on_User:SEGA ). However, this user is still active under a number of IPs. 67.33.61.18 (talk · contribs) was originally blocked for 6 months prior to SEGA's community ban being put into effect. The 6 months has ended and that IP is now active again. Recent edits by 68.112.18.13 (talk · contribs) are also SEGA stepping around his permanent block. 68.112.18.X is another IP range identified in SEGA's very lengthy Sockpuppet case and this IP has been mirroring the edits of 67.33.61.18. Also note: after being tagged as a SEGA IP sock, 68.112.18.13 blanked their sock template with this edit. Admin Wiki alf replaced the tag here. And again the IP blanked their talk page here. Since SEGA is under a permanent community ban, shouldn't all his usual IP haunts be blocked... or re-blocked as well? 156.34.142.110 15:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:209.94.170.126

Resolved

209.94.170.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism only from this IP. 2 blocks in the past, 2 warnings about vandalism today as of this entry. I think it's time for an extended block. SWik78 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 72 hours. Please make future reports like this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks! GlassCobra 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Here to troll

Resolved

Here to troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user while on the Yellow Pages article. Only one edit, but the content of that edit along with the username suggests no interest in constructive contributions. Arakunem^Talk 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely. Please report future violations like this to WP:UAA. Thanks! GlassCobra 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, pretty much everyone beat me on this one; I got beat on the block, edit-conflicted here... man, just when I thought I was on the ball, too. Bah! EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Review of Mattisse's Talk page

Mattisse was recently blocked by the admin LessHeardVanU after LessHeardVanU viewed the posting to AN/I I made several days ago about Mattisse's treatment of another user. The block was for 24 hours. However, after viewing the user's Talk page [2], I believe the block should extend further and a review of the user's sockpuppets should be made if technically feasible. Much of the improper conduct is directed toward LessHeardVanU, but extends to other users as well, including myself. Though LessHeardVanU is willing to look the other way, at the same time he is ignoring years of misconduct by this user and her recent insults to other users. The administration should not turn a blind eye to this kind of conduct. - Cyborg Ninja 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Included is a threat to user Blueboar, who was originally the victim of the subject of the previously stated AN/I posting. [3]

Blueboar, you have no credibility with me. I will cause you endless misery if I am unblocked. Please make sure I am not. You are a hypocrite and I have no respect for you sanctimonious two-faced attitude. I did everything I could to get through to you to no avail. Pleaded with you for help.

Now I am saying, you better make sure I am blocked forever. I will never contribute anything constructive to Wikipedia again. It is in your interest to have me blocked forever. Remember that. So do it. --Mattisse 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyborg Ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) neglects to mention that I also blocked their account for violating a warning I gave in regard to harassing User:Mattisse by attempting to create disruption on articles and in user talkpages previously edited or interacted with by Mattisse. Cyborg Ninja also left this message on my talkpage regarding said block - I'm a little confused that I am now being used as an example by Cyborg Ninja in a complaint regarding Mattisse... My review and block of Mattisse, and Mattisse's subsequent posts in relation to it with me and other editors, is nothing to do with Cyborg Ninja; but serves as an indication of the level of obsession this editor seems to demonstrate with the other. Whatever problems I may think that Mattisse has with their interaction with some other contributors I recognise that they produce a lot of good quality content for the encyclopedia. I feel that Cyborg Ninja should be encouraged to turn their attention to help building the encyclopedia and to drop the matter of the edits of Mattisse. LessHeard vanU 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The specific edit in question is this one. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That comment was made in anger, after I blocked, and was later rescinded and removed with the help of another admin. LessHeard vanU 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be me I think, the two most inflammatory things are gone now... I'm not sure how this is all going to play out but I'd advise just waiting and seeing, for a while at least. Cyborg Ninja, if Less is cool, you should be too. Let's just everyone see what happens for now, eh? ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that an administrator such as you, LessHeard, would think that my actions are not in good faith. Anyone, frankly, can see how offensive and disturbing Mattisse's behavior is, and your attempt to claim that I'm somehow "obsessed" is not the type of behavior appropriate of an administrator. You yourself saw that my AN/I posting from several days ago about Mattisse's attack on Blueboar was legitimate, and yet you have never thanked me for notifying the administration it. Instead, you continued with your subsequent block of me to tell me to "use appropriate avenues." Apparently asking for an informal arbitration for Caisson (Asian architecture), and then a formal one, and then creating an AN/I posting after days of attempting to forgive, is evidence of "stalking" and "harassment" to you. You see, I believe that the stronger person ignores insults from others to them, but will not stand idly by when others are insulted and harassed. That is a quality of a strong, personable human being. Not an "obsessed" one. By the way, as for me leaving out how I was blocked, look DIRECTLY ABOVE YOU. - Cyborg Ninja 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this issue is not resolved until other administrators become involved due to your conflict of interest, which you yourself cited in a previous discussion about a week ago. Even if there were none, your judgment seems severely flawed here and I plead to other administrators to review Mattisse's history, including 18 known sockpuppet accounts (and more), multiple conflicts with other users besides myself, and current use of threats and vile insults before considering this matter resolved. Once again, the type of behavior visible on the user's talk page is not at all indicative of a worthy Wikipedian contributor, and bare in mind the majority of the user's edits consist of adding citation tags, up to the amount of 300+ a day. - Cyborg Ninja 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the {{resolved}} tag as neither party appears blocked - nor needs to be. This matter is still open. LessHeard vanU 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that Mattisse could definitely improve the approach taken but what I am seeing is that some attempt to improve things is already underway. Perhaps I'm too optimistic but I'm not sure that Cyborg Ninja's approach is the best way to go, I'd let this abide a while, as I said. Citation tags, if well placed, are helpful, they advance the improvement of the encyclopedia. We all do what we can to help. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added the resolved tag, but I noticed that Mattisse mentioned she didn't know she was blocked originally for the 24-hour block, so maybe there's a bug. I don't really have an "approach" except to review Mattisse's treatment of other people through her contributions page because of the number of times I've seen other people have conflicts with her. There's a policy issue going on here with the administration -- and that problem lies with giving dozens of chances that aren't deserved. I'm all for forgiving people, but this is ridiculous. Mattisse had 18 known sockpuppet accounts, constantly fought with other users, said she'd vandalize and issued threats, was the subject of multiple AN/I's and RFC's, and repeatedly claims she'll leave Wikipedia in order to garner sympathy. It's very disturbing to me that the administration is unwilling to do any research. I have my own life obviously (hell, I just got laid last night), but even I'm willing to do more work and frankly a better job than LessHeard vanU here. I have tried to involve mediation in the Caisson article, which Mattisse rejected both times. I have tried to help on the drapetomania article, but due to Mattisse's pride was ignored. And yet, LessHeard vanU ignores this and believes that asking a question about old people on oil rigs is harassment.

Even though I tend to ignore insults to me by Mattisse and focus on her attacks of other people... One thing that is highly despicable about this entire thing is something she left on her talk page about how stupid she thinks my User page is. My User page describes my extensive, chronic and terminal illnesses. How could you possibly put my behavior, which has been entirely polite and civilized, on the same level? I was blocked for the same amount of time as Mattisse. If I said what she did, do you think I would expect not to be banned? Of course not! The vile words spewed after her block are not from just anger. They're from someone of unsound mind. The irony that she claims to be a psychiatrist is not lost on me. - Cyborg Ninja 05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The resolved tag was added in error, which I confirmed with the editor concerned after I removed it, and nobody was indef blocked. LessHeard vanU 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CN- diffs, please, of where she's had a go at your userpage. I think it was some of your other comments (maybe on your talkpage?) she said weren't worth answering. She's not a psychiatrist, but a PhD in psychology. I don't think she picked specifically on your userpage at all, she definitely didn't say anything definite about any details on it. But if someone were to, it certainly wouldn't be for your illnesses;) It is you who was by implication ageist and sexist, making personal comments about Mattisse's age and sex, which is why you were blocked, as the person blocking you explained to you.Merkinsmum 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant comments attacked Mattisse's apparent inconsistency in claims about herself, not her age or sex per se. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

They're viewable if you look at the History of Mattisse's Talk page. It's pretty obvious. I haven't looked at the page for several days, but I imagine it would still be up there because she was not reprimanded for her conduct. I'm surprised that you would even ask, considering a comment you made supporting a banning of me about two weeks ago. And the comments I am referring to about her Talk page about me were specifically directed at my User page. Do your own homework, please. - Cyborg Ninja 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting unblock of 82.148.97.69 (talk · contribs)

This Ip 82.148.97.69 (talk · contribs) is the Ip address that is registered to the entire nation of Quatar (Population: 800,000) as backed by thousands of sources, and it states on the talkpage that this Ip should not be blocked for long periods of time, 31 hours at the most, Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked this Ip for six months, and when other admins have blocked the Ip for this amount of time the block has been shortened. I am objecting towards this because that is causing problems for the whole country. For the nations sake I would be grateful if this Ip address would be unblocked, as we've been through this before and it certainly isn't right to block a whole nation, and even Jimbo said that. The sunder king 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I've reduced this to a 4-hour AO block until we can get this sorted out. east.718 at 22:06, 11/6/2007

Thank you for your consideration. The sunder king 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, the block lasted for nearly a week before we noticed. Hopefully the Communications Committee has been notified at least. FunPika 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done it already. east.718 at 22:27, 11/6/2007

Though in the same vein, the fact it lasted for a week before anyone complained suggests that either Qatari usage is very low, or the IP doesn't service as wide a range as suspected. ELIMINATORJR 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still pretty serious. Remember this fun bit of publicity? east.718 at 22:50, 11/6/2007

Indeed; I was just pointing out the slight discrepancy. ELIMINATORJR 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

cough - 82.148.96.68 (talk · contribs) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the other Quatar IP? FunPika 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At least it wasn't me this time. Caknuck 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User: ForeignerFromTheEast=User: Mr. Neutron and others

• Meatpuppeteering

Several users: ForeignerFromTheEast, Laveol, GriefForTheSouth, Lantonov and Jingiby are jointly involved in a systematic pov pushing, specificaly in the articles related to Republic of Macedonia or Ethnic Macedonians.

• Posible sock

Some of them frequently move their usernames to new ones: ForeignerFromTheEast has been formerly named Mr. Neutron, while GriefForTheSouth has been formerly Jackanapes, Wickedpedian and Vulgarian. The latter was warned by an administrator to stick to a single username once for all.

• Dubious sources

In numerous cases, they provide (or advocate) highly questionable sources like personal nationalist websites, such as the one used in Krste Misirkov, or private blogs, as in ITRO, or in many cases- they dont provide sources at all. Some of their sources: private nationalist website, again, personal blog, geocities page, some strange word document etc. They almost turned National Liberation War of Macedonia into their political pamphlet. This led to protests from other editors, vandal retaliations and finally admin interventiions and page protections. Some of the statements that they've added there can be described as neonazi (for example: "the German and the Bulgarian WWII armies were greeted by the population in the occupied areas"), and a book published by the Axis Bulgarian military in 1941 is used as a "source" there. They have also turned the corresponding talk page into a mockery of the subject the article deals with. With their behaviour they are ruining the reliability of Wikipedia itself.

• Living person biographies

They insist on keeping some highly controversial Bulgarian nationalist sources in a living persons biography (Kiro Gligorov, see: external links). recently I tried to clarify that those sources originate from a Bulgarian nationalist political party VMRO-BND but i was revereted with a false explanation that "the party doesnt say that" although those links lead to the party's official site. I returned my removed edits however they can remove them again at any time for no valid reason.

• Arbitrary Deletions

Makedonsko Devoiche is just one of the many examples. Its a Macedonian song article which they have rewriten to suit their agenda claiming that the song is Bulgarian. I contested their unsourced pov statements, and in return, ForeignerFromTheEast having no valid counter-arguments decided to nominate it for deletion. However, before i showed up to contest the article and while it represented a Bulgarian POV, he didnt have a problem with its existence. Same scenarios have already happened in the past. Fortunatelly this article was not deleted due to admin intervention, however their dubious and unsourced claims are still in the article.

• Reverting valid edits

On numerous occasions they have reverted valid edits, and often their edit summaries include fake info (for example rv vandalizm when there is no actual vandalizm, probably to mislead an eventual recent changes observer). Once I was reverted for "forking" in Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo although I provided sources and explanation for the renaming (redir) of the page from Golo Bardo to Golo Brdo. Finally an administrator had to intervene and things settled down. However, yesterday they tried to sneak-in a personal blog as a "source", but was removed after i contested.

• Pseudo-admins

they systematicaly patrol Macedonian-related articles which can be noted by their contribution lists, behaving like sort of administrators. Instead of constructive additions, most of their edits consist of adding contentious and often poorly or unsourced claims to Rep. of Macedonia-related articles, be they historical, geographical, political and even trivial such as teenage pop stars biographies. They revert anything that they personaly dislike including valid edits claiming them irrelevant (for example once the Struga Poetry Evenings link was removed from Tuga za Yug, because in Foreigner's personal opinion that international festival which hosted several Nobel Prize Winners was "irrelevant".)

• double standards

I've also noted a problem in Tose Proeski and on its talk page. It seems to be the following: while english artists such as Elton John are mentioned as English rather than UK or British and while they have the flag of England in the infobox instead of the UK flag, these Bulgarian editors impose other standards for the Macedonian singers who were born/or emerged during the SR Macedonia period. They have started a tendentious campaign of adding "Yugoslavia" to almost all of the singers' articles (example: Karolina Goceva), at the same time they have ruined the look of many of the corresponding infoboxes.

In certain cases there's a mild level of personal attack or cynicism probably used to provoke an agry reaction from the opposite side and a subsequent block. And most important, in many cases whenever someone rightfully protests against their behaviour, they counter-attack with refering to certain Wikipedia rules accussing the person of personal attack, socking etc. I wrote a honest "face-to-face" message to ForeignerFromTheEast regarding his behaviour but there's no answer, although he was online yesterday (reverting as ussual), so I have nothing else to do except to ask the admins to take necesary actions --Dzole 08:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a very good venue for this as this noticeboard moves very fast... I suggest you open a case at WP:SSP. east.718 at 16:27, 11/7/2007

There's nothing for SSP to do here, the identies of these accounts are clear. But in my opinion this whole situation is ripe for Arbcom. Too much permanent edit-warring, on all sides. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute. east.718 at 16:53, 11/7/2007

Looking at his contributions ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit descriptions (ie, "why remove this?", "no need for this"), long term edit warring and talk page discussions, I'm having an increasingly harder time assuming WP:good faith from this user. SWik78 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Swik78, still better than leaving no edit summaries at all in your case. Dzole, how ironic of you to speak about sockpuppets when it is pretty clear you were behind the recent massive sockpuppetry (to name a few):

• Kebolji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poniranje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wreasuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iamgoku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Picatikoyama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (offensive name)
• Jaditrici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zambez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Szbgm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nekojdrugsea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zorla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onoj so tri bukvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tiibam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ForeignerFromTheEast 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be defending your edits rather than attacking mine. Feel free to open a complaint about the things I do incorrectly but do it in a different section. SWik78 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should do exactly the same. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a section about User:ForeignerFromTheEast and I am lodging complaints about edits from User:ForeignerFromTheEast. What am I doing wrong? SWik78 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to stand up to the same standards as those you measure others upon? ForeignerFromTheEast 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In this particular section right here, titled User:ForeignerFromTheEast, the only issue that should be discussed are edits from User:ForeignerFromTheEast. Not my edits (unless they're somehow related to yours), not what I eat, not my favourite colour, not anything else other than edits by User:ForeignerFromTheEast. Take up issues about me in a section about User:SWik78. SWik78 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is more an issue of hypocrisy than favorite colors. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Favourite colours have absolutely nothing to do with this which was exactly my point. Thank you for confirming it. SWik78 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

comment: despite all, ForeignerFromTheEast continues agenda pushing in the living person's biography: Kiro Gligorov particulary regarding the claims about Gligorov's alleged "Bulgarian ethnicity". Certain poorly scanned documents are provided in the external links section as "sources". they are hosted at the official site of the nationalist poltical party in Bulgaria VMRO-BND (its Plovdiv office). The douments: [4], [5], [6]. From the homepage (in Bulgarian): © 2006 ВМРО-БНД - гр.Пловдив Всички права запазени. (transl. copyright VMRO-BND, city of Plovdiv, all rights reserved). Whenever i try to clarify the origin of those "sources" in the main text, Foreigner reverts me without providing any valid reason. He claims that the party itself "doesnt say such thing" about Gligorov although those documents are hosted on their server. Asked at the talk page about where such claims originate from then, if not from the party, he avoids answering and providing sources. Now he even warns me about the 3RR on my talk page --Dzole 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Save TheFingerer

I was editing under the account TheFingerer when it was brought to my attention that several of my edits were against policy. This occurred in the form of three warnings within seconds of each other at 7:42 [7][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFingerer&diff=next&oldid=169815184][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFingerer&diff=next&oldid=169815204], all for edits I had made prior to my initial warning. Upon receiving these warnings I promptly stopped editing except for a message left on the note of the editor who warned me, however was still blocked at 7:44 [8]. I posted an unblock request asking for a second chance, however John Reaves declined my request stating I had already been given plenty of warning [9]. I attempted to bring it to his attention that all three warnings were for edits I had made before the first warning and that I had stopped immediately upon having received these warnings, but he reverted my edit and protected my page [10][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFingerer&diff=next&oldid=169824762]. Given that I cannot contact the editor to ask for a review under my old account I am posting here to ask you to consider the facts I present:

• I received three warnings in under a minute all for edits I had made before the first warning.
• I did not make any edits after receiving the first warning bar asking a question on the page of the warner
• I was blocked having made no inappropriate edits after I received my first warning
• An unblock was declined because I had apparently received enough warning

All I am asking for is a second chance. SaveTheFingerer 09:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions on your talk page, if you're interested in a second chance. Note: I have blocked SaveTheFingerer indefinitely as a sock and bad faith user. You clearly knew what you were doing and are no longer welcome to edit here until you've proven your good faith. henrik•talk 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about the time line of this. First warning through third warning was at 7:42. Block was at 7:44, no "fingering" went on after the 7:42 warnings. While I suspect I am assuming too much good faith and this truly is a vandalism only account, the fact that his page has been protected and email blocked (which he hasn't abused as far as I know) disturbs me. His accounting is correct. Usually when a vandalism only account gets caught, they go away, change accounts, and don't try to put up a fight. This is a bit different. I am commenting purely on the timeline and the general way this was handled. spryde | talk 12:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that henrik gave a clear explanation and i am still concerned about the username. Nothing changed so far. It still refers to [Image:Male right middle crop.jpg] which he used to harass many users. We don't want anyone to 'finger' any user. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am not denying what he originally did was wrong. I am just concerned about the timeline. If I am crazy, tell me I am crazy and I will go back to editing my Lumber Tycoon/Politician/Heckuvaguy article :) spryde | talk 12:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Well, the proper procedure is to contact the blocking admin Icairns (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and discuss that w/ them. I've just commented on the fact that the blocked user is still obsessed w/ 'fingers'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) Read the contribs: the first sixteen edits were to give "the finger" to other editors. It is a disruption-only account opened by an experienced user who is now trying to game the rules to get an unblock. The unblock reason was "I was not given warning, I was unaware that my actions constituted vandalism, can I have a second change (sic)" which is not compatible with their earlier statement that "Giving the finger promotes WikiHate". Perhaps a checkuser might be in order? The behaviour of this account is unlikely to be an isolated incident. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, new accounts knowing exactly what is WikiHate, how to make a template, adding pictures to it, coming here to complain, etc... are w/o any doubts sock puppets. This is clearly a sock puppet of someone who got some problems w/ the editors he 'fingered' them. There's really nothing to do here and believe CU would be just a waste of time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pure, thoroughbred bullshit, you knew exactly what you were doing, as long as I am editing wikipedia, you will never change any page. You are a pathetic wated excuse for a human. This is Zanusi 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil. Corvus cornix 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Neil. shoy (^words _words) 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

'Wated'? HalfShadow 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of User talk

Any objections to the restoration of User talk:Eyrian? Mercury 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously don't undelete the last revision. I don't think it really matters much, so why bother doing it? GRBerry 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This request is probably linked to This thread. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor having returned, an in light of the above thread and RFAR, I have undeleted the talk. The right to vanish in this case would only apply to those departing with no intention to return. If I have made an error, any admin acting in good faith may undo this action with my endorsement of reversal. Best, Mercury 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did he return? I don't see anything in his contribs or logs since Oct 28th. User:Veesicle 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He "left" in august. His most recent was a few days ago on the 28th. Given Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Eyrian I believe the restoration was ok for the circumstance. Best, Mercury 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Ivo seems to be getting calmer by the minute. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked IvoShandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for gross incivility. Edits such as this and this are completely unacceptable here and he's been here long enough to understand that point. He's excerising his right to vanish, but he shouldn't do this in a disruptive way. Could someone do review for me? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good block and it's sad that it was needed. As IvoShandor was a valued, long-time contributer... I think he should be unblocked if he indicates he's calmed down and will stop with the attacks. --W.marsh 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course W.marsh, that's my plan, I'll make that clear on his talk page. He's a good user, but we should assume that he is really wanting to vanish, and if that's the case, then we don't want him taking other users with him because of his attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with W.marsh that it was a good block. I might have warned the user first to give them a chance to back down. I believe there is a school of thought among some admins that "civility blocks never work"; I do not however recall what, if any, alternatives are offered by them to deal with this kind of serial incivility. --John 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a very prolific contributor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, and I really don't want to see him vanish. That said, he seems to have had a rather mercurial personality lately. He's been getting frustrated rather easily at certain incidents, like with Mattisse (talk · contribs) at WP:DYK and with TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) in several different situations. I'm not sure why he's been frustrated at working in a collaborative environment lately, except for the possibility that he's been butting heads with a few strong-willed people. I don't have any opposition to the block, but it's regrettable that it's come down to this. I wish he'd find a way to deal with these frustrations and not get upset so easily. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, he snapped at me yesterday. Of course, my response wasn't particularly nice, but what he said today was unacceptable. SashaCall 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And he hasn't learned his lesson [11] SashaCall 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rants & attacks by User:Thomasinventions

Resolved

 – User blocked with polite but firm message, feel free to unblock if he calms down and shows signs of becoming rational. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm receiving lengthy rants and attacks by Thomasinventions (talk · contribs), which could probably benefit from an outsider's intervention. User added this piece of original research to Ebay, which I reverted. Presumably the same user, under various related IP addresses, previously added the same info (diff, diff, diff, diff), which me and other editors had previously reverted. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Trainunion

I am not sure this counts as vandalism, but new user account Trainunion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) revered 6 prods without explaination. When asked why the answer was [12].--Gavin Collins 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned by another user, I reverted the violation of WP:NPA he left on your talk page. Cheers, Qst 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User is now blocked, and is now asking for unblock, which is likely to fail. I don't think we need to worry about him anymore. --EoL talk 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:East718, User:Nancy, User:Qst and yourself for acting to timely and effective manner. --Gavin Collins 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on... wait... the user continues to make personal attacks, however, they claim to have good intentions (saying the articles are notable). Should we do a good-faith unblock? --EoL talk 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, he is entitled to remove the prod templates as he did give a reason: they are "plenty notable". However, his respose to my questions as to why they are notable [13] was responded to by [14]. I think he had a chance to respond in good faith already. --Gavin Collins 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The Prod's that he reverted are all related, so they were not random troublemaking. Additionally, the prod template does say that anyone can remove it if they "object to (the article's) deletion for any reason". An explanation is requested, but the language suggests that one is not required. While I do not condone the user's over-reaction and associated incivility, I don't think he was out of line in removing the Prods. If someone objects to the prod, they may remove it. If someone objects to the removal, the next step is to list at AfD, which was not done here... Arakunem^Talk 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this thread, and had already dropped the block down to a day. I'm willing to unblock him if he ceases edit warring and personal attacks. Thoughts? east.718 at 21:43, 11/7/2007

Once the prod tags have been removed, my understanding is that they cannot be restored, unless there is an exception? Could you confirm if this edit is in order [15]. I presume the next step is to go to AfD. --Gavin Collins 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The only exception I'm aware of is if the tag was removed in error (which is certainly not the case here). The next step is to go to AfD, if you wish to pursue the deletion of the article. Other options, like discussion or walking away, are, of course, always open. -Chunky Rice 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of another exception why a prod template would be restored: reverting vandalism, which was what the user Nancy did. But you ignored her reasoning. Why was this?--Gavin Collins 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not ingored anybody's reasoning, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you'll take a look at the relevant policy (WP:PROD), you'll see that a PROD tag should not be restored, even in the event that it appears to have been removed in bad faith. I don't think that you understand that the PROD system is set up to faciliate uncontested deletions. Once it is contested (even by an SPA), PROD no longer applies. -Chunky Rice 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD says that the prod template should not be removed if the edit is not obviously vandalism. Nancy believed in good faith it was obvious vandalism; but you assumed she restored the template by mistake. Is that correct? --Gavin Collins 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism in removing a PROD tag has to be a little more than removing it and stating the article is notable in the edit summary. So, yes, I believe she was mistaken if that's what she thought. An anon could remove a PROD tag without any edit summary, and that should not be restored. Unless it's a part of blanking vandalism or it's being replaced with racial slurs or something like that, PROD tags should not be restored once removed. -Chunky Rice 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of a redirect appears to be invalid, please help

I just found this on my User Talk:

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of misgivings/problems with this:

1.) I have no idea how one can place a "hangon" tag onto a page that does not appear to allow one access to it long enough to hit "edit this page". Is there a trick to this I don't know about, by any chance?

2.) The actual complaint is that it redirects to a "non-existent page". This is a truly bizarre claim, because it actually redirects to the main disambig page, Girls Just Want to Have Fun (disambiguation)... which, you know... exists. As opposed to being "non-existent", which requires, well, not existing. The pages were created the same time as each other - months and months ago - so I don't know how this got to be a reason given for a "Speedy Delete" nom.

Additionally, having looked at the Criteria for Speedy Deletion in regards to redirects, I do not feel this necessarily warrants it anyway (meaning I would LOVE to use the hangon tag... if I could even manage to figure out how to in this case), as not only does the redirect go to a page that does in fact exist, but it happens to be a VERY common misspelling of the title of the original song, after which several other things are named (sometimes using the "Wanna" spelling to boot), and I thought that it would be simpler and perfectly logical to just include both variations of the title on one disambig page, under the circumstances.

At any rate, it's an odd situation... advice please? Runa27 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's actually anything to do now. On October 16, it looks like there was some page moving, and the page got tagged for speedy deletion, but this was eventually changed back to the original redirect. You're looking at a message that was only valid for a short time about 3 weeks ago. Regarding your 1st point about applying a hangon to the redirect, when you are redirected, you will see a link to the redirect at the top of the page. That's where you'd go to see the actual redirect. Leebo ^T/C 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a way to edit a redirect — after you are redirected to the target page, you'll notice a little note underneath the title that says "Redirected from X", where X is a link to the redirect. Click that link and you'll get to the redirect page without it redirecting you to its target, like this.
• The speedy deletion tag (and subsequent warning to your talk page) came about due to some move mistakes; it was added when the redirect in question looked like this, which was to a page that didn't exist. The redirect was fixed to the proper place and the speedy deletion tag was removed.

Hope this helps. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr unblock request / block

Resolved

Can anybody have a quick look at the unblock request at User talk:Theisles and review also if I 216.143.251.162 (talk · contribs) should be blcoked as well. I warned the both but Theisles went ahead with another revert...--Tikiwont 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock has been declined by JodyB and block will expire soon while 216.143.251.162 has brought the issue to the article's talk page. --Tikiwont 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page moves by User: TheNightmareMan

First off, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or not, so please forgive me if this is the wrong place.

User: TheNightmareMan Special:Contributions/TheNightmareMan has moved a bunch of Talk pages, including today's FA Borat, in an attempt to archive them. I'm not fully proficient with Wikipedia yet, so I don't want to attempt to undo this. Can someone please take a look at it? The pages affected are: Talk:Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan‎, Talk:Beijing opera‎ and Talk:Phishing. Thanks! Ank329 22:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, people do that when a talk page gets too long. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he almost did it right. There are no links to the archives on the talk pages for Borat :-D. Never done this before but wish me luck! spryde | talk 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting comments here after having also reported at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. This user went through an inappropriately "archived" multiple article talk pages by using redirects to move the pages, which has broken the talk page history and left the original talk pages completely blank (he also removed project templates, etc). This also removed current conversations and left several editors baffled. It can be undone by moving the content back to the main talk page, but admin action is needed to fix the histories. Collectonian 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I left the user a note on how to archive. As these page moves were from several hours ago and they have been fixed, I don't see the point of a block. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually only one has been fixed. The Beijing opera and Phising still need fixing :) Collectonian 01:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. like Collectonian said, the Beijing opera and Phising Talk pages still need fixing. Thanks Ank329 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I believe I fixed them. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated re-creation of deleted article Russel Timoshenko

Resolved

The article Russel Timoshenko was deleted on 26 July after an AfD debate. The editor User:Fodient has since re-created the article on numerous occasions: twice at Russel Timoshenko, at Russel timoshenko, at Russell Timoshenko and as a redirect at Russell timoshenko. The editor's persistent re-creation of a deleted article is bordering on vandalism. Thanks, WWGB 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Salted the earth. east.718 at 02:44, 11/8/2007

We been asked at the Belarusian Wikiproject to recreated the article; we rejected it. We also had nothing to do with it's recreation at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Savignac‎

Savignac‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Has been making racist and anti-semitic personal attacks on my userpage, and the talk page of African_diaspora. I have tried to understand what this user wants to change, by he/she will not respond to my questions. It has been really disruptive to the talk pages of these and other articles. Please look at this users contribs to see what I mean. futurebird 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I expressed my concerns about the racism here. But, the user moved my comments to the talk page of the African Diaspora article and seems to be trying to draw editors from others articles in to some kind of flame war? I have no idea. futurebird 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a diff and one more where the user is linking to other talk pages that have nothing to do with the African Diaspora article. futurebird 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I cautioned Savignac several times [16] [17] that his personal attacks and disruptive editing were unacceptable. He ignored my warnings; in fact, his behavior has become much worse. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Savignac moved his edit-warring elsewhere and has violated 3RR. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Savignac reported by User:Yahel Guhan (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I get it. If I'm not colored, then I have no say, no right to put my two cents in. I have to be a committed anti-white devil fanatic and join their wikiproject. I complain about antisemitism and am labeled an antisemite, by futurebird's defamation. Malik is an antisemitic NoI/Black Panther fanatic. I'm his boogie man. The odds are not in my favor. Savignac 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you have to mantain WP:CIVIL in your comments, and discuss your concerns to try to acheive a consensus, something you haven't done. I should remove your last comment, because it is a personal attack, but I won't. Yahel Guhan 06:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, Yahel Guhan, let's give him enough rope to hang himself. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

'Yes, let's continue framing the situation to our benefit and to his ruin--aren't we consumate actors?' Savignac 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also hints that he is a sock, and we will keep coming back. [18] ~Jeeny ^(talk) 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock of a sock, of a sock. What came first, the left sock or the right sock? An egg is a chicken is an egg is a chicken. I have multiple personality disorder, whenever I want. Ask a defunct website for clues as to my REAL ego. They know much more than you ever will, but alas, I killed them, in my fits of enraged jealousy over corruption and kickbacks and totalitarianism to boot. I dislodged a hacker's malicious invasions of user accounts, simply by being persistent in my attempts to whack the Antichrist. WP:DENY Savignac 08:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your own words condemn you, this edit is quite unsavory, but I suppose you pride yourself on stuff like this. --arkalochori ^|talk| 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the irony is lost on you ironic people. I'm dispelling prejudice, by not acting or believing to the confines of your assorted bigotries. I'm at fault too, because I WAS looking for the attention and got it. WP:DENY. Savignac 08:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell are the admins? Wake up! Isn't there a 3rd shift here? My gawd. I don't understand this place at all. [19] ~Jeeny ^(talk) 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no "shift" here. We're not being paid and we're not scheduled. We're volunteers just like you are. If one of us happens to be around and notices something they act upon it. -- Gogo Dodo 09:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

He has been stalking me and making malicious comments about me, including that I am a nazi. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] I suspect this user is a sockpuppet of User:Fourdee because his arguing style is similar (arguing against the editor and "science" etc.) and his racialist opinions are the same.[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] He also claims to be a newbie in one of the links above, but then claims to have been editing Wikipedia since 2003 a bit later.[38] Alun 09:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Savignac for 24 hours due to personal attacks against other editors. Any other administrator who is more familiar with the situation and feels that the block should be indefinite is welcome to reset the length of the block. -- Gogo Dodo 09:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

24 hours? He's done more than personal attacks! He's broken 3RR, stalking, Harass, WP:POINT, etc, etc. Sheesh. I get a block for a freakin week for saying f*ck you on my user talk page? ~Jeeny ^(talk) 09:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with the past history. I was only acting upon the last immediate edits, of which I put to an immediate stop to with the block. It was only after I issued the block that I discovered this thread. As I noted, another administrator who is more familiar with the situation (and happens to be more awake than I am at the moment) is welcome to reset the block for a longer length. -- Gogo Dodo 09:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding about the 3rd shift. I was being sarcastic. I really don't care about personal attacks, (even though I know that's policy, but I can take it), but the disruption. I understand you don't know the past history. At least he's off for now. 24 hrs at least is good enough so I can go to bed now. Thank you for being awake. :) ~Jeeny ^(talk) 09:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone through every single diff presented, but I did go through about half. This comment is particularly disturbing to me, and warrants a more hefty ban because of the magnitude of the flaming/trolling spewing forth from that one comment. This guy doesn't appear to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia - rather it seems he want to cause as much trouble as possible. We don't need users like this, they do nothing to promote cooperation for building the encyclopedia. Period. I'm going to extend his block substantially. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 09:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 800 hours.[39] Don't ask me why 800 hours it just popped in my head. I felt it was more deserving than 24. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 09:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I won't ask why 800 hrs, even though it looks so weird... in a funny way. But this is a weird case...in a not so funny way. Thanks! Oh, it equals 33^3/10 days. lol ~Jeeny ^(talk) 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This guy doesn't appear to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia - rather it seems he want to cause as much trouble as possible. I agree. Thank you so much for your help! futurebird 12:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater

I would like somebody to please review ^demon's closing of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats as "delete". This discussion involves nearly 700 categories, and as they haven't yet been deleted, I do not believe deletion review is the proper venue. If I'm wrong, please say so, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone could read this discussion (4 delete/2 rename/25 keep) as a consensus for deletion. I've left a note for ^demon, but he seems to be out for the night, so I'm asking for a review here. Note that I strongly supported keeping these categories during the discussion, so if I'm simply blinded by my own bias, feel free to point that out as well. The main reasons I do not believe ^demon's close to be appropriate is that 1) the discussion in no way favored deletion, and 2) ^demon nominated all of these categories for deletion just 5 months ago (COI, anyone?)- auburnpilot talk 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn't have closed it given that he himself previously nominated them and there are quite a number of these so it's not a simple close but reading through the keeps there are an awful lot of WP:USEFUL arguments backed up by "Keep per some other WP:USEFUL !vote". If he shouldn't have closed it to begin with then his talk page and ultimately DRV is a better venue for this. EconomicsGuy 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that nobody tries to go through and delete/depopulate 700 categories before this is straightened out. As far as WP:USEFUL arguments go, the only purpose of a category is to be useful...WP:USEFUL even says so. - auburnpilot talk 07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but it depends on the nature of the WP:USEFUL argument. The closer is right that the concerns regarding the nature of the usefulness of these categories were not properly adressed. In that sense the WP:USEFUL arguments are just as invalid as they would otherwise be. EconomicsGuy 07:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, several editors noted that the categories had been appropriately useful in the past, and that's just of the handful that chose to comment. No one provided detailed, comprehensive evidence to back up the usefulness claims, but it doesn't make sense to give one side of the debate an arbitrary burden of digging up a thousand old diffs and emails. The "concern" was "these categories are probably not very useful"; the response was "these categories have been and are useful." In these cases where there is no binary correctness on either side, the issue degenerates into varying standards and speculations of similar quality. There's really nothing particular about demon's standards and expectations to set his opinion apart from those of the other **bignumber** of editors who disagreed, apart from the fact that the former are notoriously outlandish. To argue that deletion might be justified by consensus would really be ludicrous. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record he didn't argue that consensus was in favor of deletion so your last point is moot. He closed it based on policy which is also what the closer is supposed to do. Also, who asked for "a thousand old diffs and emails"? EconomicsGuy 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, demon's close was mostly predicated on insufficiency of evidence -- I'm just questioning the fairness and sensicality of such a demanding, partial burden of proof. "He closed it based on policy" degenerates into the oh-so-fun-to-revisit "policy says what I say it says and I'm going to draw some really outlandish interpretations and extrapolations despite virtually everyone else finding them absurd" brouhaha. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the many reasons why WP:UCFD is so badly broken. It's frequented only by a small core group of—dare I say it—deletionists, and once they kill off a small category nobody cares about, it is used as precedent to delete plenty of other ones with colloborative potential. I have seen lots of strife caused, damage done, and at least one excellent contributor driven away. Perhaps a centralized deletion discussion is in order? east.718 at 07:23, 11/7/2007

All three of your assumptions are unfounded. First, the controverisal action of one editor does not imply anything about the state of the process on the whole. Second, UCFD is not a breeding ground for members of the deletionist cabal. For instance, the editor responsible for most nominations in recent weeks self-identifies as an inclusionist. I comment on most UCFD discussions and I am not a deletionist (I didn't even suggest deletion in this case). Third, what happened to WP:AGF? The argument of precedent is generally applied only in cases of clear similarity. I personally am not convinced that this was one of those cases, but that's no reason to paint the closer, and UCFD participants more generally, with that brush. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think any neutral and moderate editor (not that I am one) would consider jc37 an inclusionist, at least based on his activities in recent months (maybe it's simply outdated -- I wouldn't know). Perhaps the philosophy is "I am an inclusionist until I find a problem with an article, and I do that quite often" -- but to think that way is to confuse the exception with the rule. I was thinking of politely requesting that he remove the box to avoid misleading others, but I suppose it's not anyone's business. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything about you, jc37 or ^demon? I was just making an observation about the process as a whole. east.718 at 16:21, 11/7/2007

I was commenting response to your "one of the many reasons why WP:UCFD is so badly broken" and "frequented only by a small core group of ... deletionists" comments. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One of these days, we'll find someone who actually does research to back up their accusations. (Actually I did, and gave the user a Barnstar for it.) My edit history is there for the world to see, and yet I get accused of being a deletionist for "pruning the bushes". One thing that's great about it though, is that it gives me a tool with which to immediately identify the "IWANTIT" commenters. I would presume that those who would use user categories for collaboration are also those who would do something as simple as check recent edit history before making blanket accusations. - jc37 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What in your recent editing history (which I have looked into multiple times, though admittedly I didn't feel compelled to spend hours analyzing it in detail) suggests anything contrary to what I said? — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jc, I was confusing you and User:Nv8200p, mistakenly treating both accounts as the same person. Turns out I know considerably less about your editing history than I thought I did, so I apologize if I was too quick in jumping to conclusions. — xDanielx ^T/_C 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is not the proper venue at this time because there hasn't been opportunity to discuss the matter with the closer. While I understand the desire to avoid having all of these categories emptied, I think this AN/I thread is premature:

• The categories have not been listed at WP:CFD/WU;
• The bot operator who usually handles the emptying, renaming, and merging of user categories is aware of the controversy;
• The closer has been notified that his decision is being challenged on his talk page and is unlikely to use his bot (User:^demonBot2) to empty the category until (or unless) a resolution is reached.

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being unable to reply last night. After closing that UCFD, I had every intention of coming to ANI myself and putting up a notice, as I was sure it was going to be controversial. However, I stepped out for a cigarette, one thing led to another, and I found myself waking up and rushing out the door to class. And such, here I am.

I closed the UCFD this way for several reasons, that I detailed in my closing rationale (which I won't reproduce here, but here's a diff). First and foremost is the issues of usefulness. It has been a long-established precedent on UCFD that user categories need to have a least some modicum of collaborative nature. As a closer, I don't ask for proof of much, just a little bit to say "This is being used for collaboration." Sadly, no evidence was forthcoming. This group of categories repeatedly has not been able to produce any evidence that these categories are being used for anything above and beyond identification. Show me a few diffs (where members are collaborating because they found each other through the category), and I'll be convinced. Secondly, I saw a great number of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ILIKEITTOO votes, which did not play into my rationale to close as such. I read the arguments for renaming, and I declined to close it that way because of active resistance to the idea with relevant arguments (it's true, being a member of a university does not imply interest, I don't want to collaborate on my university's article for sure...). Finally, the high school decision played into my closing rationale to some extent, as I felt the arguments played out there were particularly relevant, as the scope of categories is almost identical (the difference being a few years' age). I was well aware that I closed against consensus, but I felt I was acting in Wikipedia's best interest, trying to uphold policy and tradition, and try to move us close to the goal of improving the encyclopedia, rather than becoming a social networking website. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was well aware that I closed against consensus..." Then you shouldn't have closed the discussion, especially since you clearly cannot be considered a neutral admin on this issue. It is not the job of the closing admin to interject their own opinion, effectively overriding the community's. Several users have stated they have used these categories, myself included, but I have never gone to a user's talk page and said "Hey, I found you in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: XYZ". There is no way to substantiate the claim. Likewise, there is no evidence these categories are not used collaboratively, this closure was against consensus, and based on policy that was specifically refuted in the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was well aware that I closed against consensus..." Then you did the wrong thing, admins are not empowered to do whatever they like. See you at DRV :) User:Veesicle 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is totally untrue. It is the responsibility of a closing admin to close based on policy, not consensus. If consensus conflicts with policy, policy should be enforced until such a time as the policy is changed. Corvus cornix 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is against policy then the policy needs to change or WP:IAR. KnightLago 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin who closes any xfD discussion in violation of policy should expect to see the article taken to WP:DRV and have him/herself slapped with a trout. Corvus cornix 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was not against policy. ^demon may believe that these categories related somehow to a social network, but his opinion should not cloud his judgment when so many users have stated they believe these are for a collaborative function, not social networking. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't investigated this particular case, I'm merely trying to point out to Veesicle that it's policy that comes first, not consensus. Corvus cornix 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Veesicle (talk · contribs) has listed this at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7. - auburnpilot talk 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of you seem to have not actually read WP:USEFUL in awhile. (I'll put the important part in bold.) "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion." User categories fall within this. To say that USEFUL is not a valid argument at UCFD when USEFUL itself contradicts you (!) is absolutely Orwellian. So there was, in fact, a crystal clear consensus grounded in policy. Because this out-of-policy, anti-consensus, anti-collaboration action will also anger many of the thousands of users in these categories (I'm not one of them, incidentally) this is one of the worst examples of abusive use of administrator tools that I've ever seen. --JayHenry 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg

• Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have indefinitely blocked this SPA because the disruption that they bring does now outweighs their limited contributions. They have a history of revert warring, assuming bad faith and appear incapable of working in a colaborative way. They have ignored an RFC and a RFAR [40] and the latter makes good reading to understand the basic problems with this editor. Perusal of the history of Talk:Least-squares_spectral_analysis would also prove instructive. Last night Mikegodwin removed a bunch of stuff from this talk page at Geoeg's request (no problems with that. Geoeg then took this as carte blanch to remove the RFAR from the page (despite it being open) and several archives from the COI noticeboard. Clearly, if Mikegoodwin had intended this he would have done it himself. I'm tired of this user's disruption and its time to put an end to it. Like all of my admin actions, please feel free to disagree, overturn and comment as you wish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Geoeg is a disruptive SPA who cannot work with other users. Sam Blacketer 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse While Geoeg does have some contributions, the disruption caused by a pattern of tendencious editing seems to outweigh those contribs. (Given that Geoeg hasn't modified his behavior after any of his previous 6 blocks). --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note that there is a malformed unblock request ob Geoeg's talk page if anyone feels like dealing with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• endorse block. Sadly this individual is not able to "play nice". Guy (Help!) 08:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Abhih

I don't know where else to put this, but can someone help this guy out? I'm trying to give him some advice on his talk page about appropriate and inappropriate uses of CSD templates, but instead...he reported me to WP:AIV for removing CSD templates whose claim was essentially that the article was not encyclopedic (which is not a valid CSD reason)...can an admin please explain to him why excessive use of inappropriate CSD templates is disruptive? The guy obviously wants to help Wikipedia, but I think he's having trouble understanding that there are already policies and consensuses in place...and you can't just speedy an article because you don't like it (note that some of the speedies have been perfectly legit)...he seems to have fairly good intentions and could probably be a good SPAM warrior...just a wee misguided. - Smashville 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - he's very enthusiastic about his hunting down of potential COI and advertising, but he obviously doesn't quite grasp the concept of an article expressing notability. Judging from the way he shrugged off Smashville's comments, pointing out that he's not an admin, someone with the bit would probably do well to give him a careful explanation of the speedy deletion rules and some of the other options... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Now he's accused me of stalking him because I sent him a note telling him to listen to the other editors...since I noticed he started the wikidrama at the bottom of this noticeboard. --Smashville^BONK! 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block on IP 165.21.83.230

Resolved

 – Blocked 72 hours.

I've noticed this IP address has made many spam edits. I just reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odex&action=history Please investigate. Talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:165.21.83.230

Jc4k 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days by User;Flyguy649 for vandalism. Next time, please make reports of persisting vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ~ Sebi 09:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

---

Kwsn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) overturned a block of User:Perspicacite by TimVickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). User:Kwsn did this without discussion or notice. He's had the mop for 9 days according to his user page. What's the procedure on something like this? Is there a mentor prgram for inexperienced admins? --DHeyward 06:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The procedure, to me, would be going to Kwsn and talking to him about it, because sometimes people do slip up. However, about a minute before you posted this, he did indeed leave a note with Tim Vickers. So...what's the problem? Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What Mike said - try and engage him on his talk page first before bringing it here. And no, your post to his talk page doesn't constitute engaging him. Viridae^Talk 06:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing the merits of the block or unblock. However, I think it's appropriate for other admins to review exactly what courtesy is expected before undoing someone elses block. Jimbo was pretty clear. This type of unilateral undoing is disourteous and in some cases grounds for desysopping. --DHeyward 07:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, DHeyward waited eight minutes between the block and bringing this to AN/I. Sometimes people need to do things in their real life that might not let them write a note right away. Like, using the bathroom. Or walking a dog. Or eating. Or something. Eight minutes is hardly sufficient wait time before bringing it to AN/I. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --DHeyward 07:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I not clear? At the top of the page it says specifically that you go to the editor's talk page to resolve the issue first. You waited eight minutes between the block and complaining here. In that eight minutes, he contacted not only the unblocked user but the admin who blocked. In other words, the itchy trigger finger is a waste of AN/I's time. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was an hour and a half after he lifted the block. --DHeyward 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh really?

01:41, November 8, 2007 Kwsn (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Perspicacite (Talk | contribs) ‎ (No uncivility found, blocking admin was in conflict with blockee)

01:43, November 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Perspicacite‎ (→November 2007 - unblocked)

01:48, November 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:TimVickers‎ (header)

01:48, November 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:TimVickers

From what I can read here, exactly seven minutes transpired between all of these events. You then posted here that next minute. So where is this hour and a half? Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)‎

Wrong. I posted an hour after those events. here and here. 22:43 vs 23:49. --DHeyward 07:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you're the one that's an hour late. He wrote the note an hour before you got here. His events took seven minutes. You were delayed by an hour. So bringing my mistake up actually still makes you look bad here, because you brought it over despite Kwsn doing the right thing, and had completed that an hour before. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, no. The issue isn't that he "notified" the blocking admin. He undid the block without any discussion with the blocking admin. Jimbo very pointedley called out this type of admin behavior as incivil and disrepectful. I am only asking for comment/review on that action. --DHeyward 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other disturbing signs: Indef block of User:Masonflick as "Vandalism only" after only a single edit to a non-article. Year long block of IP 205.222.248.208 which belongs to a school. This seems to be a little over the top. --DHeyward 06:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Strike based on comments below.

Talk page. Viridae^Talk 07:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The eight-minute trick you just did does not help making your case against him, I'm sorry to say. Keep your ducks in a row before casting aspersions on others. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also probably worth getting your facts correct first. User:Masonflick had created a number of (now deleted) attack and nonsense pages. The achoolblock of 1 year (note - a schoolblock, not a hardblock) comes after increasing blocks of 2 months and 6 months and is a completely normal admin action. Anything else you'd like to bring up here? ELIMINATORJR 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DHeyward, please engage the administrator in discussion first. For your information (as you would have been told if you asked and didn't assume), Masonflick has 10 attack/nonsense page creations which are deleted, hence you can't see them. Daniel 07:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And on the IP, schoolblocks are often made for long periods of time (six months up to two years), with the summary {{schoolblock}}. Anon-only, account creation blocked is perfect (see the template). Daniel 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Masonflick (talk · contribs) created a series of very nasty or just stupid pages and was validly blocked. The block of 205.222.248.208 is also fairly standard given its block history (previous block was for 6 months)... WjBscribe 07:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what an utter waste of time this thread is. Moving along ... AmiDaniel (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's not really anything else to say here. :/ --krimpet⟲ 07:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? How'd this get closed in under an hour? I've reverted that (feel free to revert me back AFTER you've addressed the points I make). Seems to me it got sidetracked by focusing on the wrong person... I'd say a reminder to everyone that communication is good is in order, but that the reminder needs to start with an admin that feels the need to lift a block unilaterally rather than with the person that points out that a reminder is needed (in the wrong place, yes but it's a valid message). How many unilateral block lifts, followed by drama, do we need before the basic message comes through, don't lift without some discussion first? Can we expect that the messenger is always going to get shot from now on too? ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do hope not.

I think it's quite important that miscreants (or alleged miscreants) can't shop around for admins and attempt to play one off against another. Do you guys have some closed sort of clubroom where you can discuss nuances with each other away from the glare and scrutiny of non-admins (and, indeed, newbies such as myself) ? Alice.S 12:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Any large enterprise with thousands of volunteers is going to develop a mix of communication mediums and strategies. Some things are properly discussed in public, and some in private. So yes. And that is eminently right and appropriate. The trick (and it is not an easy one) is to make sure that appropriate use is made of the different channels, and that private channels are used only for discussing things that SHOULD remain private, and not to falsely replace public processes or the public seeking of consensus. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an admirable reply, Larry! (I thought you were Swedish until I just looked at your user page - however did you pick your weird account name?)

Bravo! What a wonderfully transparent, open and honest project I've joined, if you're anything to go by!Alice.S 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really important that we all internalise that. And I've been nicknamed Lar (short for Larry, say it with a long A) for at least 35 years... and have used the id "Lar" online (whenever I could get it anyway) for over a quarter century now... so the "why I got that nickname exactly" bit might be a bit lost in the mists of time... :) ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• And it only took 6 hours before the unblock by Kwsn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had to be redone. See block log of Perspicacite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --DHeyward 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that the unblock was wrong. And it still doesn't excuse you from bringing a whole bunch of !problems here, before you attempted to discuss them with the Kwsn. Natalie 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I went to close this thread, and see its been closed and reopened. We will not be admonishing kswn's behavior here, take it to the talk page first. Allow Vickers and kswn to talk, and/or talk to kswn yourself. There is no need for administrator intervention here. Mercury 14:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The drama that happens while I'm asleep! We've sorted this out on our talk pages. Tim Vickers 17:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or disguising as another user

User:bstringer87 posted on this AfD as [[User:5763497|bstringer87]]. Based on an email bstringer87 sent to my personal email address, I also suspect the user is a sockpuppet of User:Hemstrong due to the fact that Hemstrong is the creator and main editor of an article I nominated for AfD, the AfD linked above, and I pointed out his own admission of affiliation with the subject of the article via a message he left on my own talk page at User talk:Allstarecho#RE: Message. Such of course is within WP:COI. Hemstrong deleted AfD template, left a message on my talk page saying, I've contacted Ally magazine's legal department. It seems your just a sore fag because your a wiki editor and not part of something successful. I hope ALly gets on your ass. and then blanked my talk page. Now all of a sudden this bstringer87 user comes out of nowhere, removing the WP:COI and Unreferenced tags from the article in the AfD and sends me a personal email saying, Ally magazine has notable sources, may edits that you've done in previous history are not notable, I've tagged them for deletion. Also, I've contacted Wikipedia's Manager of Editorial Operations for your violation of Wiki's TOS. I know, it gets confusing. Either the article needs full protection until the AfD is over or the user(S) need a ban - at the least the user posting as someone else. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think [41] is a legal threat. User blocked for 48 hours, so that he can calm down. --Alvestrand 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Endless stalking

Resolved

 – for now, at least - Perspicacite blocked 24 hours for edit warring, querulous complaints and WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I got in a dispute on Tokelau with Alice.S back on Oct. 29.[42] She then proceeded to stalk me, harassing me on as many pages I can. She goes through my talkpage history and tries to get other users to block me.[43][44] She fails so she posts an uncivil rant on my talkpage.[45] I comment on WP:AN/I, so she posts another uncivil rant.[46] I edit Frank Gaffney, so she tries to start a fight with me on the talkpage.[47] I edit Economy of Australia so she tries to start a fight with me there.[48] She then apologizes for being uncivil and stalking me,[49] but apparently the apology was false. I edit Rhodesia,[50] so she reverts me, implying I am vandalizing the article[51]... I talk to TimVickers so she tries to get me blocked.[52] I talk to BScar23625 so she again, tries to start a fight.[53] How many times does she have to follow me to another page and try and start a fight before she's blocked? Perspicacite 07:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the above "summary" is accurate or true - but then I would say that, wouldn't I?

If others spend the time to track the relevant reversions (and lack of discussion prior to those reversions) by Perspicacite a different viewpoint will emerge. My sole interest is encouraging him to change his editing behaviour for the good of our project.

I would like to alert all concerned admins to a peculiar feature of User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour - not as a personal attack but because this behaviour damages collegiality and goes to the very heart of our co-operative enterprise.

I am brand new here and perhaps, therefore, a little naive when it comes to interpreting policies and guidelines but I understood that simple reverts were basically to be used only for vandals.

I have spent some considerable time analysing User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour and discovered that he uses this powerful revert tool excessively - in my opinion.

We all understand that it is the work of a moment to revert to an earlier edit version but, if this is done without due care and attention, then not only can one revert to a version with errors and mistakes but one also risks (unintentionally or otherwise) slighting the work of other editors.

For example, in this recent reversion, User:Perspicacite re-introduced US-English spellings into our Rhodesia article that previously consistently used Commonwealth English against WP:ENGVAR, removed sourced material without explanation or discussion and changed into "redlinks" internal linking that, in the reverted edit, functioned correctly. All with the less than helpful or explanatory edit summary of "Not sure why you're stalking me here...". {this diff shows that the edit in question was actually yet another one of Perspicacites simple (but very destructive) reverts.}

For the avoidance of doubt, our behavioural guideline specifies "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." (my emphasis added).

I have only edited articles where User:Perspicacite's reverts of multiple good faith editors are particularly and unequivocally damaging and I seek neither to aggravate nor antagonise him - merely for him to change his behaviour so that he actually analyzes others contributions and then subsequently makes constructive edits rather than destructive reverts. Alice.S 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the above lie, she introduced American spelling to an article on Rhodesia and restored the racist claim of "uncivilized tribal populations." She restored blatant vandalism just so she could get back at me. Perspicacite 08:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. This is your second revert today to this article.

Like it or not, Wikipedia does not arbiter or adjudge "The Truth". It merely tries to summarize in a neutral and balanced way the various cited points of view from (preferably) authoritative sources.

I would have no beef with you if you would simply expunge text (racist or otherwise) with an edit summary of "un-cited" or "unrepresentative of the majority of authoritative sources" - or better still tag them with a template so someone has an opportunity to properly cite. My beef is that by not taking the trouble to actually edit (rather than revert) texts you introduce mistakes that have been corrected by other editors. In this example you lost a link to Warfarin, altered correct italicization and I would really like you to specify exactly which are the British or Commonwealth usages that you believe I changed to Americanisms.

Here's the "racist" text after I edited:

A lengthy armed campaign by ZANLA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), against the Rhodesian government followed UDI. This became known as the "Bush War" by White Rhodesians and as the "Second Chimurenga" (or rebellion in Shona) by supporters of the guerrillas ("First Chimurenga " was the name given to the Second Matabele War(1896)). The war is generally considered to have started in 1972 with scattered attacks on isolated white-owned farms.

ZANU was led by Robert Mugabe, latterly based in Mozambique and was supported by the People's Republic of China. ZAPU was led by Joshua Nkomo, based in Zambia and was supported by the Soviet Union. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU claimed to represent the 80% of the Black population who were Shona speaking and ZAPU claimed the 20% who were Ndebele-speaking. Most educated Africans supported one or the other of these parties, but the bulk of the uncivilized tribal population was indifferent. ZANU and ZAPU both resorted to intimidation, arson and murder to force the tribesmen to support them.

The degree of support offered by China and the Soviet Union to the nationalist parties was probably less than was commonly thought at the time. The nationalist parties were often described as 'Marxist', but events showed that this Marxism was largely superficial. The main priority of ZANU and ZAPU was to end white rule in Rhodesia.

And here's "your non-racist" revert:

A lengthy armed campaign by ZANLA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), against the Rhodesian government followed UDI. This became known as the "Bush War" by White Rhodesians and as the "Second Chimurenga" (or rebellion in Shona) by supporters of the guerrillas. The war is generally considered to have started in 1972 with scattered attacks on isolated white-owned farms.

ZANU was led by Robert Mugabe, latterly based in Mozambique and was supported by the People's Republic of China. ZAPU was led by Joshua Nkomo, based in Zambia and was supported by the Soviet Union. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU represented the 80% of the Black population who were Shona speaking and ZAPU represented the 20% who were Ndebele-speaking. The degree of support offered by China and the Soviet Union to the nationalist parties was probably less than was commonly thought at the time. The nationalist parties were often described as 'Marxist', but events showed that this Marxism was largely superficial. The main priority of ZANU and ZAPU was to end white rule in Rhodesia.

Can you really not see what you have lost?
Why do you think we do need duplicate internal links to ZANU and ZAPU but not a single link to the Second Matabele War(1896))?

I believe that many of the folks that you antagonize/characterize as "wanting to pick fights with you" are actually just trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to get you to change your sloppy editing behaviour and not victimize or attack you personally - let alone see you receive an escalating series of blocks for incivility, etc... Alice.S 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one attempting to start conflict and that appears to be all that you do. The sooner you are blocked the better. Perspicacite 09:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we close this now? JuJube 09:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One or two weeks for the block? Perspicacite 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, I feel like you are pushing your luck with a second over-dramatized complaint this week. You read apparently polite things as gross incivility, you manage to offend a variety of editors with your behavior, and you have repeatedly demanded or threatened to seek out blocks for relatively minor infractions--and some things that weren't infractions at all. A variety of people, including a few admins, have tried to tell you this, and I've seen no indication that you've paid more than the most grudging sliver of attention.

If you believe somebody is misbehaving, open an RFC. I remind you again to read the top of this page -- this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Yes, Alice probably shouldn't be following you around and butting in. On the other hand, you've been difficult enough that I would keep an eye on you if I had time, so you are unlikely to get the sanctions you seek. And I'd encourage you to consider what role you've played in this. Had you, say, shown a bit of courtesy and a smidgen of contrition for your real but reasonable errors, Alice would likely be off doing whatever she was doing before you two crossed paths, and all of us could be doing something productive.

So either talk it out with her or file an RFC. I'd recommend the former, as you really need to improve your skills in that regard. But either way, stop with the block demands for a while. Thanks, William Pietri 09:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite has instead displayed a wonderful degree of lateral thinking and, instead, reported my constructive edits as something known as "3RR": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=170074528#User:Alice.S_reported_by_User:Perspicacite_.28Result:_.29

However I do take your point that trying to re-educate him and preserve the quality of our articles from his attentions seems a somewhat sterile (and hazardous) exercise so I will remove him from my watchlist. Goodnight!Alice.S 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Exclamation Mark on donation header!!!!!!

Resolved

As much as i love you guys - "You can help Wikipedia change the world!" does not work. I would be appalled if i saw a sentence with one of those things (!) in an article. It's just too mad trot - like headlines in Trotskyist newspapers (see Posadist 4th. Can we get rid of this horrificness (is this a real word? <add exclaimation mark for effect> !) before we drive people away with our dire attempt to solicit money and also try to educate people with our very very lame exclamation marks. Mike33 - t@lk 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied your message to Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Personally I like the exclamation point. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting User:Rama's Arrow username and google search result

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

---

Lord Rama is most devoted figure for one billion Indians and he is always depicted in deity or picture with bow and arrow. When a person enter keyword 'Rama's arrow' or 'Rama arrow', user page and talk page of User:Rama's Arrow appear in first 2 search results. On talk page of this user, there are pictures of some boxer. I am Indian and I think this is insulting for Lord Rama. Since the user has left wikipedia, please redirect his username and talk page to Rama And protect these pages. Thanks. abhih 10:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think the content of a (inactive) user's talk page should warrant a forced name change. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do a Google for "Rama". Only 2 of the top ten hits are about the deity. If you want Rama to get good Google returns, you have more pressing things to worry about. Like all the showbiz-"rama" hits. On the other hand, a search for "Lord Rama" is fine. Carcharoth 11:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What about using name of Rama to puplicise own picture on Internet? Be it active or inactive, keywords on world's most powerful search engine leads to picture of boxer and irrelevent userpage. I have already complained that wikipedia is being used for advertisements, self-bio. And now to publicise own pictures. Be it that picture of the user or another boxer, it is still outragious. Will you people tolerate if keywords 'Jesus second coming' on google leads to pictures of boxer on wikipedia? I once again request you to redirect those pages to Rama. "In fact those pages must be deleted. Thanks. abhih 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They are actually pictures of wrestlers, not boxers, and dead wrestlers at that - see Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero. Having said that, I am sympathetic to your worries. You could try putting {{thisuser|Rama's Arrow|Rama}} on the user page and user talk page, but that should really be left to the user in question. Difficult to know how to handle inactive accounts. Is nofollow used on user pages and user talk pages? For the record, the above would produce the following:

This is a Wikipedia user page. For other uses of Rama's Arrow, see Rama.

Would that be acceptable? Carcharoth 12:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not censored. While I am sympathetic to your concerns, this user is not claiming he is a deity, and it is not necessarily Wikipedia's fault that his page appears on Google. If anything, it's Google's fault for thinking you wish to search for User:Rama's Arrow and not the arrow of Rama. Google, like all search engines, merely seeks out pages that match a query. If Rama's arrow was notable enough to have its own article, a Google search may well point to the article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply putting userpage box and link on userpage and link to Rama on talk page is not enough. Please do not forget that 'Rama Arrow' keywords result page shows these pages on top. People will still see picture of wrestler instead of info about Rama. And perhaps you don't know. I can't edit those pages Because those userpage and talk page are protected.

These are Diwali festival days in India. Tomorrow is Diwali. But in fact Diwali celebrations start one week before and end one week after. It is biggest festival in India and it marks Rama's return to Ayodhya from Sri Lanka. In these days people tend to read about Rama by giving keywords. And 'Rama Arrow' keyword leads to picture of wrestler is simply outragious, unacceptable. Thanks. abhih 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think you may have mistaken Google for something that actually matters. Anyone who is looking for Rama will find the information they seek, all they need to do is ignore the irrelevant hits, just like we all have to do for pretty much everything we search for. Look on the bright side - at least it's not one of those keyword spam sites. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Screaming bloody murder and making all or nothing demands isn't going to get you anywhere. This is a user page. There will be no cross name space redirects just because you complain loudly. EconomicsGuy 13:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• • My response to abhih's message on my user page. I have also replied on his user page: [54]. I hold the position that Rama and User:Rama's Arrow are two distinct entities, and all intelligent people should be able to differentiate between the two and the people searching for information for Rama should be able to understand this distinction. Let the Festival of Light bring happiness to all. --Bhadani (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• I do not see any reason to force a name change. Insinuating that the fact that google returns User:Rama's Arrow somehow hurts the sentiment of Hindus is almost ridiculous. As Bhadaniji said, intelligent people should be able to see the difference for themselves. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If rational of all of you is right, please allow me to use 'Jesus's Second Coming' account as you did with username 'Rama' and 'Rama's Arrow'. But I know you people do not allow to use any account which clearly link to Jesus Christ. This is your blatant bias towards other religions. And it is being proved. You are going to block my both accounts citing any reason. abhih 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE OTHER USERS' COMMENTS. Also, it's bad form to delete your own comments after they've been addressed in subsequent conversation. If your browser is having problems with the length of the page, then click the [Edit] link on the section header for this section. Powers ^T 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured that was your creation -- please read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I am sorry that this upsets you, but no rules are being violated. Find a constructive way to contribute to our project -- perhaps by improving the articles on Rama or Divali. -- Merope 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant to reply to Abhih? Regardless, he's got a point. I can see why the username "Jesus's Second Coming" might be blocked as disruptive since we know Abhih created it, but you blocked it as a violation of the username policy. I don't see how that violates WP:USERNAME, or if it does, why "Rama's Arrow" does not. Powers ^T 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, got edit conflicted. I should have added a note to my block log -- it seemed that creating this was intended to be disruptive and to "invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way". For the record, I would also block an account called "Vishnu's Tenth Incarnation", which I would see as analogous to "Jesus's Second Coming". -- Merope 15:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to last long on the Internet if this kind of thing bothers you that much. JuJube 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can I try and quell any arguments of religious bias by pointing out the existence of User:John the Baptist? --Smashville^BONK! 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block by Merope. --Bhadani (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the matter should be treated as closed, and focus should shift to value addition to the project as suggested by Merope. --Bhadani (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Archving now. Happy Diwali, everyone. -- Merope 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Vandalization from User:161.52.14.2

Resolved

 – both blocked by User:GlassCobra

209.94.170.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly trivially vandalized several pages, seemingly with the only intention of causing trouble. The user has also blanked several pages and been warned for this by bots. This behaviour has continued, and I now propose more permanent action against this user. The IP address does not seem to be shared, since all edits made from that address has been acts of vandalization.

Cambrant 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization from 161.52.14.2

209.94.170.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly trivially vandalized several pages, seemingly with the only intention of causing trouble. The user has also blanked several pages and been warned for this by bots. This behaviour has continued, and I now propose more permanent action against this user. The IP address does not seem to be shared, since all edits made from that address has been acts of vandalization.

Cambrant 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Both are blocked. For future reference, please use the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism forum for such reports. You'll get a quicker response that way. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization by 208.125.109.131

The account has been warned several times before and has yet to be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.125.109.131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifried (talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I left a V4 warning based on a very recent unreverted vandalism. (V4 had not recently been given). If he vandalizes again, report to WP:AIV and appropriate action will be taken. Arakunem^Talk 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic user P.F.O.S.B.

P.F.O.S.B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor may need to be blocked soon for editing which perhaps falls short of being obvious vandalism. They have made a number of edits, clearly NPOV violations, to controversial articles (e.g. Abortion, Lethal Injection) with plainly misleading edit summaries. The editor has also edit-warred on Prison Break and so far has removed one warning from their Talk page without comment (not a crime in itself, I know, but it doesn't help assess the user).

This begs the question of how many "good" edits a user needs to make, to be able to avoid being blocked as a disruption-only account. In their defense, I'm sure P.F.O.S.B. will point to the many speedy-deletion tags that make up the rest of their contribs. However, tagging Base load fallacy as an attack article may not be all that constructive... Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

I've been thinking about this too. The user has made about 80 valid speedy deletion taggings, which is an excellent contribution from a new user joining new page patrol. But, we can't make it seem like one can "buy" POV edits and tendentious practices with a certain amount of near-automatic new page tagging. Leebo ^T/C 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read the message by User:SheffieldSteel on my talk page notifying me of this discussion here. The problem is that I sometimes use Wikipedia from a public computer in our college library. When logging in to Wikipedia I habitually check the "Remember me" box so I must have been logged in to Wikipedia on that computer all the time. Then some other person using that same computer must have made all those stupid vandalism edits you are talking about - which meant nothing to me at first, before I went checking them out just a few minutes ago. I'm sorry for any extra workload that this might have caused you. I'll definitely try to be more alert using the "Remember me" feature but you know how it is with those bad habits... Regarding the Base load fallacy article (which actually was tagged CSD by me) I have to point out, that this article was written like an attack page at that time. However, it has been cleaned up since, so the matter can be considered resolved by now. Maybe I should have put a cleanup tag rather than a CSD on it in the first place, I have to admit that. P.F.O.S.B. 15:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, please keep in mind that you are responsible for all edits made by your account. You have received warnings for these edits, so you may still be blocked if they occur again in the future, regardless of the person physically pressing the keys. Leebo ^T/C 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I made a mistake in my initial assessment of P.F.O.S.B.'s contribs, and apologise for any distress caused. As a non-admin, I couldn't see the number of good speedy deletion nominations this user had made - only the noms that hadn't yet been deleted, plus various POV edits (totalling less than 50 - Leebo's mention of 80 tags alerted me to my error). Hopefully P.F.O.S.B.'s account will in future be more secure as a result of this discussion, so, despite my initial error... all's well that ends well? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:69.226.46.17

• 69.231.5.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.226.46.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mastermesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brother Dave Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently it all started with the popular culture section of the Plymouth Valiant when I added a trivia tag then purged that section, that user got angry and vandalised one of the page I created as seen here as well as writing in to another user with a false statement that I removed it because it had nothing to do with foreign shit boxes, this is without checking my user contribution history

He then under the username Mastermeth (see contribution history), decided to vandalise numerous of my articles, which he ended up getting banned. Following the ban, he than came to my talk page and made another personal attack, accusing me discrediting Detroit and then removed that. I only got to know about it when I received a new message notification. I believe that these listed above are the same users as he has written the same topic about Michigan. Willirennen 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I don't see anything since two days ago. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Willirennen contribs, it looks like he logged in today and saw the new message banner. spryde | talk 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this contribution history, I suspect that that user may be a sock puppet of this user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this user appear to have used two accounts to split his contributions history, also uploading pictures as means to replace the trivia section which has been purged off per policy. Not to mention writing to my talk page and contributing to the same article within an hour of each other. Willirennen 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:63.3.10.130

User:63.3.10.130 attempted to reset my password today, probably in response for me nominating one of his articles for deletion. Is there a protocol for handling situations like these? Caknuck 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now that I look at this more closely, I'm pretty sure we have a sock of User:Cowboycaleb1 here. Look at the date the account was created, the contribution histories & the spelling of "referance" in the edit summaries. Second opinion anyone? Caknuck 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As some small advice, delete the e-mail/ignore/don't do anything with it. Maxim 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I figured. Thanks, Caknuck 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I'm not sure it's worth spending a second bothering with that idiot. He twice tried to have my password reset which is annoying but completely harmless. I see that the IP has now been indef-blocked though I'm guessing this will be lifted at some point due to collateral damage. In any case, CowboyCaleb1 has also edited from public computers so he'll probably continue to be a nuisance. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be alert

Everyone's favorite foul-mouthed, likely-Canadian-expatriate vandal is back. This is following a four+ month absence, so watchlisting the articles on the linked page, or at least some of them, would be greatly appreciated. Natalie 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Add 58.8.21.24 (talk · contribs) to that list. I had a lovely little exchange with this dapper young gentleman. JuJube 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And 58.8.28.232 (talk · contribs). JuJube 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's fun. A real charmer. Natalie 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• And 58.8.26.174 (talk · contribs) yesterday. Pascal.Tesson 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Venusboat

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Shell Kinney. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to voice concerns about this user. He has been removing a smile on Jimbo Wales's talk page saying it is "unencyclopedic." Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the guy is now calling Angel David (whom posted the message) a "derranged stalker." I'm starting to think this guy is somewhat of a troll. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, he's a troll for sure. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, it was pretty clear from his first edit that he was a troll. Corvus cornix 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Choo Weets continuing blocked user's editing pattern

Resolvedblocks issued GRBerry 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Choo Weets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the editing pattern of indef-blocked user XusSatyrtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see previous notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:XusSatyrtn, disruptive edits, possible sock of blocked user). 71.49.175.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be involved as well, although that was yesterday or the day before. Powers ^T 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User/Bot VoABot II

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked for COI/promotional username --Haemo 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to add information for a client of mine, PPG Industries. Several times I've attempted to do so and each time it gets taken off. This is very frustrating as it is my job at the moment. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPG Performance Glazings (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a very obvious conflict of interests issue here. I suggest you look at that link and then figure out what to do. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• You can write encyclopedia articles about acrylic, adhesion, ASTM, casement, caulking, and so on. Or, if the articles already exist, you can expand on those terms or terms within the glass industry. Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of that knowledge, particularly in regard to articles in Category:Windows. If you add all that terminology only within the PPG Industries article, though, it might be hard for others to find. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User blocked due to promotional username. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that VoABot's use of the word "vandalism" in its revert edit summary is appropriate, here. ClueBot's explanations are much more helpful. Corvus cornix 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kizor and inappropriate speedy keep

Kizor and I disagree on deletions in general. He does not like me nominating things for AFD even though they clearly don't meet Wikipedia standards. However, I believe this closure was inappropriate and that he did it solely because he doesn't like me. He gloated inappropriately about it on my talk page. Now, if the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights) had been a snowball keep then I would have agreed, but it is not. He simply doesn't agree with the AFD so he just closed it. This is not appropriate behavior from an administrator. Pilotbob 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...I closed it because the article had been kept less than a month ago, and because two other administrators I asked agreed.
I keep away from closing fiction AfDs specifically to keep my opinion of the merits of the articles from being a factor, and made an exception here because the closure was on fully procedural grounds.
Later on, I decided to explain my reasons in detail on Pilotbob's talk page, to make sure this didn't jeopardize our good relation - he'd previously made a polite, respectful reply to me that was highly refreshing, and I want(ed) to talk to him further later - by making him think what he now does. Obviously the message went gravely wrong, so I'd appreciate your comments on how it did.
:(. --Kizor 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just put it up on deletion review. I know we disagree on deletions and it struck me as a bad faith move. If it had been an admin that never voted on my AFDs or expressed their displeasure on my AFDs, I wouldn't have tought that. The same as if all the responses were keeps. But seeing an approximately equal number of keeps and deletes gave me pause and I was a bit upset. I'm sure Kizor is just trying to help out and do what he thinks is best, but we disagree on some things. Pilotbob 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not sure your closure was appropriate. You closed it as premature due to a recent AfD; normally that would be correct, but the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". I believe current guidelines allow for near-immediate (although not compulsory) re-nomination in the case of no consensus. Powers ^T 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Those I asked were Jimfbleak and Resurgent Insurgent, though I mistakenly gave the time from the last nomination as five weeks. Jim told me to go ahead, Res said that he wouldn't close a nomination made over a month after a nc - and this turned out to be made under one. I searched the rules before closing, without finding anything about the grace period of a no consensus being shorter. --Kizor 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule about the time frame for nominating articles for deletion after a previous attempt, nor is there a hard and fast rule about closing such nominations. Personally, I wouldn't have closed an XFD discussion where there were already good faith !votes expressed unless it were clearly slanted one way or another or it was clear the nominator was not acting in good faith. I don't think either of those were the case here. That said, I don't think Kizor was acting maliciously and he was simply exercising his judgment. Unless Kizor feels the need to reopen the discussion at this time, I'd simply suggest the nominator wait 2 months, and then renominate it if the reasons it was originally nominated have not been addressed. This isn't an "emergency" situation and there is no timetable for considering this article for deletion.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If Pilotbob were to relist it at WP:DRV, I would surely !vote that the AfD closure was inappropriate, in light not only because of the obvious ill-will from Kizor, but Kizor's closing explanation being that there was a recent AfD, which is an invalid speedy close rationale. Corvus cornix 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, deletion review is certainly an option as well.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukanta Das

Resolved

 – 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukanta Das has been repeatedly posting a 45 kilobyte rant on Talk:Prabir Ghosh, consisting largely of insults and personal attacks against the page's subject. He has ignored multiple warnings, and became insulting to me when I removed the flaming (see User talk:Sukanta Das), as well as feuding with Prabir Ghosh's son User:Pinaki ghosh. User:Sukanta Das is a single-purpose account, with the purpose of condemning Prabir Ghosh. This is not by itself a problem, but the personal attacks are. Michaelbusch 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

o0; Blocked for twenty-four hours. Any sysop can feel free to extend the block if need be. — madman bum and angel 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – User blocked, likely sockpuppet. --Haemo 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the hedging with disclaimers (the user is, after all, a lawyer), I think this edit by 222.155.216.84, the IP avatar of Forrestergaz, constitutes a legal threat. I'm not an admin; are there any who think a block is in order until it's retracted? It would at least put a temporary end to his interminable screeds in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Forrester. Deor 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a threat to me, and they're demanding an apology from a blocked User, so even if that User wanted to issue an apology, they can't. Corvus cornix 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a month, but looking at the AFD, it's probably dynamic and certainly used by User:Forrestergaz. I warned at the account talk page, too.--chaser - t 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Forrestergaz has been very verbose on the AfD page for what is presumably his autobiography, and has just posted a sample of what I presume is his own poetry. I think a block for disruptive editing might be in order now, given all of the warnings he's been given. Michaelbusch 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults and now religious slurs.

Resolved

 – user blocked --Haemo 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I earlier reported User:Shabiha for consistent personal attacks over the past few months at 22:03, 29 October 2007. This included, among other things, her constantly calling me a Wahhabi despite me explaining numerous times that it's a derogatory term. I was advised to take the issue to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, which I did, and got no response.
Most recently, this user has been engaging in an edit war with myself and other editors on the Barelwi article. No big deal, I tried to discuss things on the talk page. Rather than doing that, Shabiha kept reverting and at 16:15, 8 November 2007 outright called me a Wahhabi again in the edit summary. She then left a comment on my talk page at 16:30, 8 November 2007 calling me a fascist among other accusations as well, all over a content dispute.
Look, how long will this be allowed to go on for? I came here to ANI, was sent to Wikiquette alerts, and am still being subjected to a religious slur. This user has been editing for a while, is familiar with site policy, and has been warned by multiple users multiple times. Something should really be done about this. MezzoMezzo 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for general disruption. Edit warring coupled with personal attack isn't on. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Abhih Advocating Vandalism and Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – User blocked until after Diwali, since that seems to be the source of his uncontrollable angst. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is about as straightforward as it comes. --Smashville^BONK! 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An exhortation to vandalise WP, but as long as the article in question is spam. Now I've seen everything. Relata refero 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a note. If that doesn't help, feel free to ask for more assistance. Given his willingness to use socks, I'd rather we try to engage him in dialog on this account, so I'd appreciate other admins not blocking him unless he gets really crazy. If you're an admin annoyed by bad speedy tags, though, a couple more comments might help him see his behavior is counterproductive. William Pietri 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See more drama at User talk:Merope. Getting a bit WP:POINTy. -- Satori Son 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Vhayste

Resolved

Hello admins,

I would kindly request, if possible if I you can email me the original codes of my previous user page? I understand the reason it got deleted and I was religiously maintaining it thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Anyways, I don't have any requests to restore it or such but at least let me have a copy of the original source code.

Many thanks and more power! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhayste (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done! Email sent. --Haemo 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:210.54.245.44 resumed edit warring

210.54.245.44 returned from a 31 hour block for edit-warring and went immediately back to edit-warring on the same article, The X-Files. --Pleasantville 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User has stopped. In the future, please report vandalism to WP:AIV for a better/quicker response. --Haemo 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user abusing talk page

User:75.83.171.237 using talk page to make threats and relay messages from banned user User:Ilena, I blanked the page and protected it from editing. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/75.83.171.237. Was this proportionate? Tim Vickers 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It would seem that User:Ilena, banned by ArbCom, has been continuing to work through a handful of proxies here. Given the relentlessly vituperative nature of her input, I think your response was appropriate. Of course, she won't have to work as hard to "out" you as she has been working to out me and every other editor she's crossed paths with... although I have to say I'm flattered by most of the guesses she's made about my real-life identity on the InterWeb. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've always felt vaguely dissatisfied that even though I've been in the admin cabal for ages, and I have even provided people with a photo, nobody has yet bothered to add me to their list of enemies on any of those attack sites. Their disregard is humbling. Tim Vickers 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Kafhimpa [55] has accused Touch Of Light of vandalism and spam [56] and made a legal threat in the edit summary in response to Touch Of Light posting the standard greeting on Kafhimpa's talk page. Edward321 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contribs look bad all around. There's a definite hostility going on. Probably needs a block, as he contribs show an ongoing pattern. ThuranX 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24h, but am open to extension of the block if people think that is too lenient. Tim Vickers 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That may depend on whether or not you get berated for spamming his talk page :) ---- WebHamster 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jidanni (talk · contribs) disrupting DRV and more

I encountered this DRV posted by Jidanni, for an article about himself. The DRV pretty much does nothing but make accusations against admins and the community, as the article in question has never been deleted or even nominated for any type of deletion. I speedily closed it, and admonished him on his user talk page. He responded with the same accusations and bad faith as before, then opened a WP:POINT DRV on Josephine Ho, which was deleted per A7. I speedily closed that because the nomination was still more accusations and bad faith against the community. I strongly support a short-term block for disruption and incivility, though I shouldn't do it myself. --Coredesat 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Another admin's waring wouldn't hurt. I thought his gratuitous insults were inappropriate, myself, as is clear from my comment on the DRV. Corvus cornix 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Squirrel1607 (talk · contribs) Apparent vandal only account

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by John --Coredesat 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[57], [58], and [59] were the only 3 edits he has made in order from most recent to first edits. The most recent are worse. And if this is the wrong place, point me to the right place. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is better. Viridae^Talk 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of 70.52.172.0/22

I have just blocked the range 70.52.172.0/22 due to the return of an individual who was supposed to have been dealt with concerning this abuse report. The individual operating out of these ranges have vandalized various articles I work on and does not respond to any communication. Blocks also do not seem to make him get the point either. I had sent another abuse report to the ISP and have been in contact with Darkwind who worked on the other abuse report. For a diagnostic edit, see this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that those edits by that IP is clearly unacceptable. Greg Jones II 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You ought to let Darkwind know, as he was the one in communication with his ISP. Corvus cornix 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already contacted him concerning the newest IP. I will leave him a message concerning this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

122.161.26.156

Please block/ban 122.161.26.156. It has placed irrelevant, vandalesque, and generally worthless comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medicare_%28United_States%29. The comments could not be undone, so I deleted the offending section. Annorax 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism intervention is thataway -> HalfShadow 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on the Annorax's and IP's talk page. Hopefully this is resolved. --TeaDrinker 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jbloun1 on New York City article

I am running out of patience with User:Jbloun1 on the New York City article. This user continues with personal attacks [60] and making edits against consensus. I'm sure the user is frustrated that he/she cannot just replace all the pictures in the article with his/her own, without discussion and consensus. But, I don't have a lot of patience for this sort of behavior, and to try and reason with the user. If an independent admin can look at the situation, it would be very helpful. --Aude (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic user P.F.O.S.B.

P.F.O.S.B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor may need to be blocked soon for editing which perhaps falls short of being obvious vandalism. They have made a number of edits, clearly NPOV violations, to controversial articles (e.g. Abortion, Lethal Injection) with plainly misleading edit summaries. The editor has also edit-warred on Prison Break and so far has removed one warning from their Talk page without comment (not a crime in itself, I know, but it doesn't help assess the user).

This begs the question of how many "good" edits a user needs to make, to be able to avoid being blocked as a disruption-only account. In their defense, I'm sure P.F.O.S.B. will point to the many speedy-deletion tags that make up the rest of their contribs. However, tagging Base load fallacy as an attack article may not be all that constructive... Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

I've been thinking about this too. The user has made about 80 valid speedy deletion taggings, which is an excellent contribution from a new user joining new page patrol. But, we can't make it seem like one can "buy" POV edits and tendentious practices with a certain amount of near-automatic new page tagging. Leebo ^T/C 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read the message by User:SheffieldSteel on my talk page notifying me of this discussion here. The problem is that I sometimes use Wikipedia from a public computer in our college library. When logging in to Wikipedia I habitually check the "Remember me" box so I must have been logged in to Wikipedia on that computer all the time. Then some other person using that same computer must have made all those stupid vandalism edits you are talking about - which meant nothing to me at first, before I went checking them out just a few minutes ago. I'm sorry for any extra workload that this might have caused you. I'll definitely try to be more alert using the "Remember me" feature but you know how it is with those bad habits... Regarding the Base load fallacy article (which actually was tagged CSD by me) I have to point out, that this article was written like an attack page at that time. However, it has been cleaned up since, so the matter can be considered resolved by now. Maybe I should have put a cleanup tag rather than a CSD on it in the first place, I have to admit that. P.F.O.S.B. 15:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, please keep in mind that you are responsible for all edits made by your account. You have received warnings for these edits, so you may still be blocked if they occur again in the future, regardless of the person physically pressing the keys. Leebo ^T/C 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I made a mistake in my initial assessment of P.F.O.S.B.'s contribs, and apologise for any distress caused. As a non-admin, I couldn't see the number of good speedy deletion nominations this user had made - only the noms that hadn't yet been deleted, plus various POV edits (totalling less than 50 - Leebo's mention of 80 tags alerted me to my error). Hopefully P.F.O.S.B.'s account will in future be more secure as a result of this discussion, so, despite my initial error... all's well that ends well? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:69.226.46.17

• 69.231.5.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.226.46.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mastermesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brother Dave Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently it all started with the popular culture section of the Plymouth Valiant when I added a trivia tag then purged that section, that user got angry and vandalised one of the page I created as seen here as well as writing in to another user with a false statement that I removed it because it had nothing to do with foreign shit boxes, this is without checking my user contribution history

He then under the username Mastermeth (see contribution history), decided to vandalise numerous of my articles, which he ended up getting banned. Following the ban, he than came to my talk page and made another personal attack, accusing me discrediting Detroit and then removed that. I only got to know about it when I received a new message notification. I believe that these listed above are the same users as he has written the same topic about Michigan. Willirennen 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I don't see anything since two days ago. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Willirennen contribs, it looks like he logged in today and saw the new message banner. spryde | talk 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this contribution history, I suspect that that user may be a sock puppet of this user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this user appear to have used two accounts to split his contributions history, also uploading pictures as means to replace the trivia section which has been purged off per policy. Not to mention writing to my talk page and contributing to the same article within an hour of each other. Willirennen 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:63.3.10.130

User:63.3.10.130 attempted to reset my password today, probably in response for me nominating one of his articles for deletion. Is there a protocol for handling situations like these? Caknuck 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Now that I look at this more closely, I'm pretty sure we have a sock of User:Cowboycaleb1 here. Look at the date the account was created, the contribution histories & the spelling of "referance" in the edit summaries. Second opinion anyone? Caknuck 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As some small advice, delete the e-mail/ignore/don't do anything with it. Maxim 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I figured. Thanks, Caknuck 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I'm not sure it's worth spending a second bothering with that idiot. He twice tried to have my password reset which is annoying but completely harmless. I see that the IP has now been indef-blocked though I'm guessing this will be lifted at some point due to collateral damage. In any case, CowboyCaleb1 has also edited from public computers so he'll probably continue to be a nuisance. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be alert

Everyone's favorite foul-mouthed, likely-Canadian-expatriate vandal is back. This is following a four+ month absence, so watchlisting the articles on the linked page, or at least some of them, would be greatly appreciated. Natalie 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Add 58.8.21.24 (talk · contribs) to that list. I had a lovely little exchange with this dapper young gentleman. JuJube 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And 58.8.28.232 (talk · contribs). JuJube 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's fun. A real charmer. Natalie 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• And 58.8.26.174 (talk · contribs) yesterday. Pascal.Tesson 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Venusboat

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Shell Kinney. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to voice concerns about this user. He has been removing a smile on Jimbo Wales's talk page saying it is "unencyclopedic." Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the guy is now calling Angel David (whom posted the message) a "derranged stalker." I'm starting to think this guy is somewhat of a troll. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, he's a troll for sure. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, it was pretty clear from his first edit that he was a troll. Corvus cornix 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Choo Weets continuing blocked user's editing pattern

Resolvedblocks issued GRBerry 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Choo Weets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the editing pattern of indef-blocked user XusSatyrtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see previous notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:XusSatyrtn, disruptive edits, possible sock of blocked user). 71.49.175.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be involved as well, although that was yesterday or the day before. Powers ^T 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible sysop impersonator

Resolved

Hello, I'm having a small problem with Tubesteak (talk · contribs). According to User talk:Tubesteak and User talk:Neranei, he is a sysop editing under an alternate account. Why, I don't know. As seen by the discussion, he will not tell me who he is an alternate account of. When I asked, he said that unless I was nominated, he wouldn't talk to me. I explained that I'm a current adminship candidate, and told him to take a look at my RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neranei 2) to prove that I'm a current candidate. He then changed to saying that he wouldn't talk to me unless I was a sysop. The whole issue is raised because he made an edit to Tube steak redirecting it to penis instead of hot dog. I gave him a level-1 warning as usual, but he asserts that his edit was correct and cites Urban Dictionary. I just wanted to bring this matter to your attention; all but one of his edits have been made to his userpage (which claims that he is a sysop), and the one is the disputed redirect. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignore him. No reasonable editor would cite urban dictionary. Friday (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of quoting 'Family GUy'? HalfShadow 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that it was simple vandalism, however, the user continues to assert that he can't speak to "a civilian" regarding the sysop issue. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I call vandal. Just block him as a troll account. JuJube 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block for either 1) pretending to be an admin or 2) invalid use of alternate account (avoiding scrutiny). -- Merope 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaand blocked. -- Merope 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Good call. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

appears he was trying to impersonate/claim to be/confuse other editors that he is User:Turnstep per the Tubesteak user page. Dureo 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, "Turnstep" is just the first administrator that comes alphabetically after "Tubesteak". That userbox links to the userlist specifically searching in the "Administrators" group starting with the user's name and limiting the list to one account. Since Tubesteak was not an admin, he was not in the Administrators group, so it listed the first account in that group that comes after 'Tub' in the alphabet. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, was trying yo figure out how they actually got it to point there, makes sense now. Dureo 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the user page, most of the userboxes were copied from Alex Bakharev. -- Gogo Dodo 00:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is User:Sixstring1965. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User/Bot VoABot II

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked for COI/promotional username --Haemo 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to add information for a client of mine, PPG Industries. Several times I've attempted to do so and each time it gets taken off. This is very frustrating as it is my job at the moment. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPG Performance Glazings (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a very obvious conflict of interests issue here. I suggest you look at that link and then figure out what to do. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• You can write encyclopedia articles about acrylic, adhesion, ASTM, casement, caulking, and so on. Or, if the articles already exist, you can expand on those terms or terms within the glass industry. Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of that knowledge, particularly in regard to articles in Category:Windows. If you add all that terminology only within the PPG Industries article, though, it might be hard for others to find. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User blocked due to promotional username. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that VoABot's use of the word "vandalism" in its revert edit summary is appropriate, here. ClueBot's explanations are much more helpful. Corvus cornix 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukanta Das

Resolved

 – 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukanta Das has been repeatedly posting a 45 kilobyte rant on Talk:Prabir Ghosh, consisting largely of insults and personal attacks against the page's subject. He has ignored multiple warnings, and became insulting to me when I removed the flaming (see User talk:Sukanta Das), as well as feuding with Prabir Ghosh's son User:Pinaki ghosh. User:Sukanta Das is a single-purpose account, with the purpose of condemning Prabir Ghosh. This is not by itself a problem, but the personal attacks are. Michaelbusch 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

o0; Blocked for twenty-four hours. Any sysop can feel free to extend the block if need be. — madman bum and angel 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – User blocked, likely sockpuppet. --Haemo 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the hedging with disclaimers (the user is, after all, a lawyer), I think this edit by 222.155.216.84, the IP avatar of Forrestergaz, constitutes a legal threat. I'm not an admin; are there any who think a block is in order until it's retracted? It would at least put a temporary end to his interminable screeds in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Forrester. Deor 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a threat to me, and they're demanding an apology from a blocked User, so even if that User wanted to issue an apology, they can't. Corvus cornix 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a month, but looking at the AFD, it's probably dynamic and certainly used by User:Forrestergaz. I warned at the account talk page, too.--chaser - t 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Forrestergaz has been very verbose on the AfD page for what is presumably his autobiography, and has just posted a sample of what I presume is his own poetry. I think a block for disruptive editing might be in order now, given all of the warnings he's been given. Michaelbusch 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults and now religious slurs.

Resolved

 – user blocked --Haemo 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I earlier reported User:Shabiha for consistent personal attacks over the past few months at 22:03, 29 October 2007. This included, among other things, her constantly calling me a Wahhabi despite me explaining numerous times that it's a derogatory term. I was advised to take the issue to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, which I did, and got no response.
Most recently, this user has been engaging in an edit war with myself and other editors on the Barelwi article. No big deal, I tried to discuss things on the talk page. Rather than doing that, Shabiha kept reverting and at 16:15, 8 November 2007 outright called me a Wahhabi again in the edit summary. She then left a comment on my talk page at 16:30, 8 November 2007 calling me a fascist among other accusations as well, all over a content dispute.
Look, how long will this be allowed to go on for? I came here to ANI, was sent to Wikiquette alerts, and am still being subjected to a religious slur. This user has been editing for a while, is familiar with site policy, and has been warned by multiple users multiple times. Something should really be done about this. MezzoMezzo 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for general disruption. Edit warring coupled with personal attack isn't on. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Abhih Advocating Vandalism and Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – User blocked until after Diwali, since that seems to be the source of his uncontrollable angst. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is about as straightforward as it comes. --Smashville^BONK! 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An exhortation to vandalise WP, but as long as the article in question is spam. Now I've seen everything. Relata refero 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a note. If that doesn't help, feel free to ask for more assistance. Given his willingness to use socks, I'd rather we try to engage him in dialog on this account, so I'd appreciate other admins not blocking him unless he gets really crazy. If you're an admin annoyed by bad speedy tags, though, a couple more comments might help him see his behavior is counterproductive. William Pietri 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See more drama at User talk:Merope. Getting a bit WP:POINTy. -- Satori Son 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Vhayste

Resolved

Hello admins,

I would kindly request, if possible if I you can email me the original codes of my previous user page? I understand the reason it got deleted and I was religiously maintaining it thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Anyways, I don't have any requests to restore it or such but at least let me have a copy of the original source code.

Many thanks and more power! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhayste (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done! Email sent. --Haemo 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:210.54.245.44 resumed edit warring

210.54.245.44 returned from a 31 hour block for edit-warring and went immediately back to edit-warring on the same article, The X-Files. --Pleasantville 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User has stopped. In the future, please report vandalism to WP:AIV for a better/quicker response. --Haemo 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user abusing talk page

User:75.83.171.237 using talk page to make threats and relay messages from banned user User:Ilena, I blanked the page and protected it from editing. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/75.83.171.237. Was this proportionate? Tim Vickers 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It would seem that User:Ilena, banned by ArbCom, has been continuing to work through a handful of proxies here. Given the relentlessly vituperative nature of her input, I think your response was appropriate. Of course, she won't have to work as hard to "out" you as she has been working to out me and every other editor she's crossed paths with... although I have to say I'm flattered by most of the guesses she's made about my real-life identity on the InterWeb. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've always felt vaguely dissatisfied that even though I've been in the admin cabal for ages, and I have even provided people with a photo, nobody has yet bothered to add me to their list of enemies on any of those attack sites. Their disregard is humbling. Tim Vickers 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jidanni (talk · contribs) disrupting DRV and more

I encountered this DRV posted by Jidanni, for an article about himself. The DRV pretty much does nothing but make accusations against admins and the community, as the article in question has never been deleted or even nominated for any type of deletion. I speedily closed it, and admonished him on his user talk page. He responded with the same accusations and bad faith as before, then opened a WP:POINT DRV on Josephine Ho, which was deleted per A7. I speedily closed that because the nomination was still more accusations and bad faith against the community. I strongly support a short-term block for disruption and incivility, though I shouldn't do it myself. --Coredesat 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Another admin's waring wouldn't hurt. I thought his gratuitous insults were inappropriate, myself, as is clear from my comment on the DRV. Corvus cornix 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Squirrel1607 (talk · contribs) Apparent vandal only account

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by John --Coredesat 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[61], [62], and [63] were the only 3 edits he has made in order from most recent to first edits. The most recent are worse. And if this is the wrong place, point me to the right place. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is better. Viridae^Talk 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of 70.52.172.0/22

I have just blocked the range 70.52.172.0/22 due to the return of an individual who was supposed to have been dealt with concerning this abuse report. The individual operating out of these ranges have vandalized various articles I work on and does not respond to any communication. Blocks also do not seem to make him get the point either. I had sent another abuse report to the ISP and have been in contact with Darkwind who worked on the other abuse report. For a diagnostic edit, see this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that those edits by that IP is clearly unacceptable. Greg Jones II 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You ought to let Darkwind know, as he was the one in communication with his ISP. Corvus cornix 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already contacted him concerning the newest IP. I will leave him a message concerning this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

122.161.26.156

Please block/ban 122.161.26.156. It has placed irrelevant, vandalesque, and generally worthless comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medicare_%28United_States%29. The comments could not be undone, so I deleted the offending section. Annorax 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism intervention is thataway -> HalfShadow 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on the Annorax's and IP's talk page. Hopefully this is resolved. --TeaDrinker 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jbloun1 on New York City article

I am running out of patience with User:Jbloun1 on the New York City article. This user continues with personal attacks [64] and making edits against consensus. I'm sure the user is frustrated that he/she cannot just replace all the pictures in the article with his/her own, without discussion and consensus. But, I don't have a lot of patience for this sort of behavior, and to try and reason with the user. If an independent admin can look at the situation, it would be very helpful. --Aude (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit War?

I have a couple NBA players on my watchlist, and I've noticed that 8-Hype (talk · contribs) and Downwards (talk · contribs) seem to be arguing over fairly minor details. Just look at the history of Ray Allen, Gabe Pruitt, Scot Pollard, and Tony Allen. Just thought you guys should know. SashaCall 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: check out Downward's block log. Sasha C. 06:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second note: I realize that checkuser isn't for fishing, but a quick look at both user's contribs shows some overlapping, and I was wondering if anyone thinks these two users are just one person having too much fun. SashaCall 06:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, maybe, but you need some evidence to even support a request for checkuser. In the meantime, 48 hours off for both accounts.--chaser - t 06:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I thought someone would say that. The block should work for now though. SashaCall 06:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NikkiZ23

This user has only made 3 edits since it joined but they can all be considered as vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NikkiZ23). All edits were fictional facts in three different biographies, which can be easliery confirmed. He/she has given no reason for the edits. This user deserves at least warning, or to be blocked. Thanks.

Tanyawade 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a warning and will watch him for the next few hours. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 10:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

World Pie Eating Championship

Resolved

LessHeard vanU 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, World Pie Eating Championship keeps being vandalised with homophobic content. Can you put a block on non-registered users and User:Winnets from editing it please? Thank you, Darkieboy236 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither the ip nor World Pie Eating Championship has edited today, and Winnets was indef blocked two days ago. In future WP:AIV is the place to report current vandalism. LessHeard vanU 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article semi-protected but please Darkieboy, do not use the word 'idiot' when reverting vandalism. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris Mordetzky

Resolved

A user did a copy and paste move to this page from Chris Mordetsky without telling anybody or asking for consensus. In all likely hood because when WWE announced his suspension they spelled his last name with the 'z' as opposed to the 's'. Anyway, can an administrator please merge the histories as it is now all screwed up? Thank you. Bmg916^Speak 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't specify which article to leave it at, leaving it at the newer article with the 'z' spelling will be fine as we have a reliable source for that spelling. Thanks again! Bmg916^Speak 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try my hand at this. --Yamla 17:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Edokter

There is a problem concerning a change to MediaWiki:Common.css. I am partly responsible for the problem in making the original change, but I would like to draw administrators' attention to the behaviour of Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in opposing this. A discussion thread regarding the change is open at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Edoktor seems to be threatening unilateral reversion on the main CSS file for English Wikipedia, here. He/She has already made changes here which had to be reverted here because of the problems they might cause. A subsequent change here is of a similar style. This administrator seems to have significant WP:OWN problems with this important page, and has not hesitated to make impetuous changes. I ask for guidance on how to proceed. Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've explained my reasons on MediaWiki_talk:Common.css. First, you added a class that is only use in one template, without any prior discussion. When I made the first change, I reverted it myself (not "had" to be reverted). The last edit I made was simply consolidating the two identical classes, and should have no negative effects on your template. Just because I look out for Common.css doesn't mean I WP:OWN it. But I do understand the importance of the file. I have also tried coming up with a solution to prevent future bloating of Common.css in this respect (a general metadata class), but you keep dismissing that; you seem to set on including the InChI class while better solutions are available. — Edokter • Talk • 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Files like that do seem to need discussion before editing - it can have further implications on other templates. After all, Common.css is loaded across all Wikipedia users. If you need CSS for a single template, consider putting the CSS raw into the template itself. I don't believe, for example, that it would be appropriate to put .x42bn6 { font-size: 72pt; } into Common.css just so that I can render my signature nicely, or for usage on my userpage, or for use on a template. Heavy-use templates may have justification to warrant an entry in Common.css - but that boils down to discussion and consensus. (Non-admin) x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock policy and Good hand/bad hand accounts

(from User talk:Lar) I don't want to add to the AN/I thread because that will keep it out of the bot's hands for another 24 hours, which is not necessary, so I'm explaining here. Will Beback said: "WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here." To which I responded, that the prohibitions were involved, in that they seem to be relevant to the discussion, but as I discussed earlier in the thread, "Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their spotty record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here?" Which is why I said that PM's behaviour was not in breach of WP:SOCK. Hope that makes it clearer. Thanks! Relata refero 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above reasoning about policy (and also with wanting to have this thread archived when discussion isn't over yet). The sock policy is intended to protect longstanding editors (admins or no) that might have good reason to avoid being associated with certain very limited edits in controversial areas, (and I believe the original intent was to protect editors working in ARTICLE space, not policy space). It is NOT intended to give relatively new editors the ability to compartmentalize edits into benign and disruptive ones, or to shield scrutiny of one account. The sock in question here is not, in my view, a valid one, in that the primary editor is not that longstanding, and edits in the same spaces, and the sock is not editing difficult things where shielding from stalkers and exposers is needed. Ironically, it seems to be arguing in favour of exposing the very kinds of accounts it is using. The policy may need to be made more explicit to cut down on ruleslawyering, but I very much doubt it intended to be used this way. In fact, it may need changing completely to disallow socks that are not registered with ArbCom and strictly monitored... ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with your proposal, Lar, is that it's only enforcible against alternate accounts which candidly admit their nature. Here, the sock was only "caught" because he was forthcoming in private communication to the wrong people, a lapse of judgment easily remedied by the expedience of silence or a lie.168.103.150.1 07:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. There are other ways of detection. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, that's a massive change to WP:SOCK and one which I fancy you will have a hard time implementing as well as enforcing; and I want to add that it will not change WP for the better. As long as some editors persist in incivility to those who edit in their pet areas, I'm afraid people will want to have legitimate alternate accounts. Plus WP is not 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit as long as they haven't edited it before logged in differently.' Relata refero 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is underway, see WT:SOCK#Proposed_rewrite, and I'm not sure how it will come out yet but there does seem to be agreement among many that some aspects of current policy are problematic. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem to employ an alternate account to edit in contentious areas. I don't see why so many people seem to feel so strongly about it. I don't do this myself (Disclaimer: This is my main account, and I have several others, usually created on occasions where I forgot my password. I do not violate policy with them). No more bongos 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the goodhand/badhand problem, not the editing in contentious areas itself. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that some people believe that editing in contentious areas with alternate accounts is inherently "good hand/bad hand". —Random832 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not me. What is bad is using one account to shield the other where policy violations are being done. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are probably some good reasons to use alternate accounts in contentious issues, but there are so many bad reasons that the loophole should be tightened or even closed. If folks are held responsible for their comments and actions on contentious issues then they will tend to be less contentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem as I have said several times is that people are not held responsible, especially not those with highish edit counts and three good edits about eight months ago - and are obviously not socks. A bit of enforcement of civility, and the need for legitimate socking would go away, and be rarely used. Instead, whenever anyone is blocked in these areas, absurd little orgies of unblocking and recrimination happen here at AN/I. Consider the whole Irpen nonsense just a few days ago, to which I made this comment which was heartily ignored by all concerned. Of course, given your premise is so completely incorrect, the rest of your argument can be dismissed. Relata refero 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How does using sock puppets improve the problem? If Irpen had been hiding behind a sock puppet how would your complaint have gone? Prohibiting sock puppets won't solve every problem on Wikipedia but it will help solve some problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it will make them worse. If earlier I had wished, as a productive contributor, to edit in that area, X might have considered that he did not wish facing and responding to that sort of incivility to colour his entire time here, and chosen to edit under an alternate account. If your desired changes go through, X will not edit there at all. Second, if Irpen had been hiding behind a sockpuppet to make the incivil edits, that SP would have been blocked. It's because it of an "all the established contributors in that area do it" attitude that legitimate alternate accounts are required. Cut back on incivility, have ArbCom hand out bans instead of I-have-a-headache-can-this-just-finish-already amnesties, and the GHBH problem goes away. But that would involve actual action against 'established' accounts, rather than blaming alternates blindly. As if the disruption there is coming mainly from alternates! Simply, while I agree with you that "If folks are held responsible for their comments and actions on contentious issues then they will tend to be less contentious," it is plain that the folks who have to be held responsible are largely already there, and not being held responsible. Rewriting GHBH to rule out any legitimate socking will not address the problem, merely abandon the area to incivility and POV-pushing. Relata refero 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The (alleged) failure to deal with incivility by established accounts is not a justification for using sock puppets. They are two separate problems. To use a rough analogy, seeming corruption by rich people does not justify theft by poor people. Anyway, at the moment this appears to be a policy question and isn't germane to the AN/I. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree its not germane to AN/I, but they aren't two separate issues. Legitimate alternate accounts are a byproduct of incivility. Seeming corruption by rich people may justify redistributive taxation. Whatever. Come to WT:SOCK. Relata refero 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this isn't relevant to this board, but it seems that people are implementing or advocating a version of WP:SOCK that certainly isn't backed up by the policy. If I decided to edit in controversial areas, I might consider doing the same, as my edit count is of no object to me - at the current time, I have no desire to ever become a admin (at this rate I'd take 5 years anyway). If an editor does fall into disagreement with some of the regulars, there is a tendency for them to be hounded some distance beyond what would be considered to be an acceptable level of civility from somebody who isn't a 'name'. In a nutshell, I agree with contributor above with excellent name (for those who understand latin). No more bongos 05:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing other users on one's own user page

A while ago, I started a thread here with the same title (see the archive here) regarding User:GHcool using his user page as a WP:SOAPBOX and to call out other users, quoting them out of context and without a chance for rebuttal, effectively making them look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid.

Despite User:GHcool constantly changing the heading to make the incident seem more innocuous (see here, here, here and here), several administrators called on User:GHcool to remove the offending parts of his user page, which resulted in User:GHcool making a single edit, leaving the rest of the page as it was.

The page has since been extended by a few quotes (here, here and here).

Can any administrator have a word with User:GHcool and make sure he revises his user page?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:30

I've taken the liberty to change the title of this debate because I feel that it misrepresents the issue and begs the question. Furthermore, since I am unaware of any guidelines against changing the heading of a section in a non-talk page, I trust that nobody will criticize this action.

Its a shame that Pedro Gonnet feels the need to harass me like this. I could understand if he were one of the users I criticize on my page, but he isn't. Most of Pedro Gonnet's edits are perfectly acceptable to me. We have disagreed on talk pages in the past, but in general, I find that Pedro Gonnet is not a problem editor or a liar. I try to limit my criticisms to statements that are demonstrably false. I do not assume bad faith, nor do personally attack users. I feel that this does not solve any problems and would probably create more problems. I prefer instead to criticizing users' fallacious statements, since, in my opinion, the responsiblity of Wikipedia editors is to correct falsehoods, demanding proof, and noting a biased point of view. This is the third time somebody has tried to stop me from using my user page to explain my views and I expect and hope that it will be the third time the charges will be exonerated. Thank you. --GHcool 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of the new quotes mentioned above do, indeed, misrepresent the users by being taken out of context. I suggest you remove them from your userpage, or the end result is going to be the entire page being deleted. ELIMINATORJR 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminatorjr, you'll find that I'm a pretty reasonable person. Perhaps if you gave me feedback on the specific instance when you feel I misrepresented someone, I could review it and see if I could correct it. I think that course of action would be more productive and more cooperative than idle threats. --GHcool 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, this probably isn't the place. ELIMINATORJR 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! I recommend that anybody else who wants to discuss this matter talk directly to me on my user page like Eliminatorjr has done. There's no need to take time away from the busy administrators on this issue. --GHcool 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, since I am unaware of any guidelines against changing the heading of a section in a non-talk page, I trust that nobody will criticize this action." That is somewhat disingenuous, since I explicitly pointed you to the relevant guidelines on your talk page. Let me quote the relevant part for you:

“ Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. ”

The italics are in the original. Or are you trying to imply that these rules don't apply to this page since it is not strictly in the talk-namespace? That would be even more disingenuous.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 08.11.2007 08:57

I've taken the liberty of moving Pedro Gonnet's complaint to the bottom of the section, where it is more chronologically relevant. I've also taken the liberty of changing the title of this section to a more neutral phrase.

As Pedro Gonnet predicted, I interpret the guidelines listed on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to refer only to talk pages. This is the most logical interpretation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I'm surprised that Pedro Gonnet interprets such a clearly named guideline article to refer to anything other than talk pages. However, editing other users' comments violates the spirit of the guideline, so I will not do that and don't expect others to do that to me.

I don't interpret Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to mean that headings fall under the category of "Others' comments" or "editing comments." Headings are everybody's responsiblity, not just the person who posts it. By analogy, if I wrote a heading, "Pedro Gonnet keeps harassing me for no good reason," and then proceeded to discuss a specific problem I had with Pedro Gonnet on the administrators' noticeboard, I would hope that somebody would change this heading to reflect what is actually being discussed and something that would not beg the question. Thank you. --GHcool 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines to seek a wider consensus on this issue. —Random832 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

Ok, let's leave the WP:Wikilawyering to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Can we now get back to the subject of User:GHcool is using his user page as a WP:SOAPBOX and to call out other users and quote them out of context without giving them a chance of rebuttal? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 10:32

The subject is already being discussed on my talk page here. Please don't disturb Wikipedia administrators when talking directly to me would be much more effective. I already addressed and ammended my page because User:ELIMINATORJR provided a good argument in a civil tone for me to do so. I will treat your arguments with the same respect I've treated his if you take the attitude ELIMINATORJR has admirably taken. --GHcool 19:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

SPAM?

Is this really okay? See these contributions Special:Contributions/Zhanliusc. - Rjd0060 06:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been done before by other similar projects. Precedent from those experiences seem to say that it is permissible as long as the survey is legitimate, among other "requirements." —Kurykh 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OKAY. I have no idea, just wanted to point it out since he says he is going to add it to 200 admin's talk pages. - Rjd0060 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just spent 20 minutes trying to find it in the archives: link. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember receiving an email about something similar a while back, about some interview or survey... wait let me dig it up... "Request for opinions about our Showcasing events on the impact of Wikipedia" was the subject. The email goes on to discuss celebrations of "Jimmy Wales' work" in setting up the project, before suggesting some ways to celebrate, like distribution of "Wikipedia-related postcards" (my favourite :P), mascots and some wiki-related documentary... hmmm... ~ Sebi 07:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly (?) I am not one of the 200 randomly chosen admins. This looks like a legitimate academic survey, although leaving a note at 200 talk pages seems... spammish. That said, unless people have strenuous objections, I suggest leaving this up to the recipients. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems spammish to me too. And for better or worse, I've already deleted well over half. -- Hoary 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I could self-revert. On the other hand the would-be researcher could simply (i) write a description on a subpage of his, and (ii) link to it from a likely page. -- Hoary 10:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Its been done before - see User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf/Archive15#Survey Invitation - Special:Contributions/WikiInquirer. If I remember correctly it was legit, and after some discussion on one of the noticeboards (don't take my word fully on that - I can't remember for sure where it was discussed) (Oops I missed Bbatsell finding it) it was deemed harmless. Best part was, you got either a $10USD certificate to Amazon.com - or a 10$ donation in your name to WMF. I chose the latter myself. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've read a discussion of a similar event that led to the opposite conclusion. But since I don't remember any name involved, it's hard to search for.

I'm all in favor of academic research and I'm not strongly opposed to "mass-mailings" when they're for this purpose. But I suppose lots of other potential mass-mailers seriously (indeed fanatically) believe that nothing is more important than, oh, say, the rights to life of fetuses: if you allow spamming for academic purposes surely you should allow it for this or that other cause or matter of Faith (capital F).

It may be highly presumptuous of me to say the following, never having got an MPhil (let alone PhD) in anything like communication, but I think I'm also doing this person and his or her apparently inattentive supervisor a big favor by aborting [pardon me!] this attempt at research. If the research is what it claims to be, the methodology (to phrase it grandly) has a whopping great flaw in it. (See my message on his talk page.) They should rethink it, trash any results they've already got, and start afresh (perhaps following my own amateurish advice, which you're all of course welcome to refine, or even contradict). In view of this, I suggest that somebody else completes the job of deleting his many invitations. But you may on the contrary decide that it's me who's confused, and decide to revert my deletions. -- Hoary 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man deleted the rest of the "spam", I gave him the link to this discussion too. Only one left is [65] which was the only one I undid as I saw it thanks to my watchlist. Since I wasn't invited I don't much care about the survey itself, I just wanted to let you know that there was a discussion going on. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for doing so. But I think that this time I was right, and to hell with the contrary precedent. I wish them well with the research, which they can carry out just as well (indeed, I think much better) by soliciting participants in a different and more careful way. -- Hoary 11:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) As one of those "randomly" selected for solicitation, it strikes me as outright spam — which I happen to be allergic to. Regardless of the intentions, there are proper channels for initiating this sort of effort. From what I gather, there are those with authority to speak on behalf of the Project; targeting me for participation because I am armed without going through the proper channels does grate on me. --Aarktica 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is legit, the student should leave his/her advisor's university-based e-mail address so it can be verified. Otherwise, we're opening ourselves up to all sorts of general mayhem. Rklawton 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The message does provide some links to the university website and a university email address, which means that the person is at least a student. I'm not sure what the protocol for verifying identities is when doing online research, but I hope there is one that this person is following. Natalie 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of more formal process for this type of situation in the future. Ideally, I'd like to see some sort of contact page here or on Meta pointing to an appropriate Foundation representative who could 'sanity check' such requests. (While I wouldn't want the Foundation to be in the business of deciding which projects have scientific merit, they could verify that the research was being sponsored by a legitimate and responsible institution, that – where necessary – appropriate ethics approval had been sought and received, that the researchers provided contact information to participants, and that steps had been taken to protect the privacy of participants. The Foundation could also potentially screen out the requests that were some sort of phishing or commercial spam.) Most solicitations for participants could be placed on the Village Pump, the Administrators' Noticeboard, and/or a special noticeboard specifically for the purpose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If anything I feel the inappropriate thing was to go about reverting it. There isn't really a point to that.. Cowman109^Talk 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Message from Zhan Li regarding Survey

I do apologize to anyone who was made uncomfortable with my original approach and if this contravened any Wikipedia guidelines. This is a genuine survey that has already passed an institutional review board process as well as review by a professor, and I did leave my email address ( zhanli at usc dot edu ) and university profile weblink (and my advisor's webpage) with the original message. And as I mentioned in the message, full details of survey conditions and participant rights (and full contact details) were also linked. I understand that there are objections to the way I began sending invitations, and I accept the community's decision to revert my invitations. I chose the individual random selection approach for sample size and variable control reasons (there are simpler methods would have much easier and faster for me, but not as effective). Regarding the point that sending the invite to 200 pages seems to be a disconcerting number, the size is not unusual. We are typically told to expect a 10-20% response rate, so only perhaps 40 responses would be expected from 200 invitations. But I understand why people might feel it was a "spammish" size. Regarding the point made by User:Hoary that the survey method was flawed as anyone could click on the survey link posted on an admin message page, this is a good point (though the survey questions do include a question specifically asking confirmation that the respondent is an administrator and any self-report survey is at least partially dependent on the honesty of its respondents). I am sure that there are ways that my research method could be improved. This is a project for an introduction to research methods course (the first time I've done any surveying).

It has been suggested that I post this survey invitation to an Administrator noticeboard (WP:AN ? ) instead. If this is a path that people on this board can generally agree on, please let me know. I will monitor this board for responses.

I very much appreciate people's guidance on this Thank you everyone, Zhan Li ( zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I, being the person who first brought this to the attention of ANI, agree with the above comments. The way you went about notifying the users of the survey wasn't entirely appropriate. I support the idea to add it to Administrators' Noticeboard and let the admin's decide for themselves if they want to become involved in this. - Rjd0060 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(As a fellow academic researcher with survey research experience) If your IRB will permit, you probably would be better served contacting admins individually via e-mail instead of posting a link to the survey anywhere in Wikipedia where it can be seen by everyone. That would preserve your random sampling methodology while ensuring a higher level of security for your survey. It would take a little while to click on the "e-mail user" link and paste your message 200 times but that's not too different from editing 200 user pages. --ElKevbo 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Spam. While not specifically to the point of how we feel about survey invitations, they do give the general feel about how we feel about mass posting of any kind of link. If you want a random sampling methodology, you probably need to limit participation to invitees. To do that, you probably will have to email the involved users, using the "email this user" link in the left hand toolbox on each selected user's page; but that would also be viewed as like spamming. To limit self-selected participation to admins, you can with the help of an active admin create a page containing a survey password and have it immediately deleted. Then a central notice can point to the deleted page, so that only admins will be able to see the password (admins can review deleted pages). Please, go ask your instructor whether a random sample or self-selected sample is better. Then ask them why... because that is how you will learn. GRBerry 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that drawing a distinction between a 'random sample' and a 'self-selected sample' is a bit of a stretch in this case. As Zhalinusc notes above, he expects (at best) a 10-20% response rate to his invitation. So he doesn't have a choice between 'random' and 'self-selected' samples—he has a choice between 'admins who will respond to a boilerplate spam message on their talk pages' and 'admins who will respond to a request on WP:AN'. Unless he's interested in doing research to measure the effectiveness of talk page spam, I see a pretty limited distinction between the different classes of self-selected participants he will get. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now contacted everyone (or I think I have. sorry if I have left anyone out inadvertently) involved in the original discussion to inform them of this subsequent discussion. Thank you very much for the advice given by everyone so far. Clearly there are people with far more experience and expertise in this kind of research method than I have. GRBerry has commented that emailing users with invitations would also be viewed as spam and has suggested setting up a password-protected page in collaboration with an admin. Would there be a way of limiting to approx. 200 the number of people "asked" or "shown" the page (regardless of whether they actually decide to participate)? Thank you. Zhanliusc 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with GRBerry's view that e-mail invitations may be perceived by a significant number of people as spam. There will be a number of people who view any unsolicited contact as unwelcome, regardless of the purpose or origin of the contact. But the bottom line is that a random sampling methodology demands that you invite potential respondents to participate. I could be wrong but setting up a password system and trying to limit it to admins sound relatively complicated and time-consuming, particularly when compared to e-mailed invitations. If you're really concerned that e-mailed invitations will negatively affect your response rate, bump up your sample size (which is virtually free using electronic surveys) and note this as a potential limitation in your write-up. --ElKevbo 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Stratified (when possible) random sampling is best, but when participation is voluntary, it's still a self-selected sample (unless - theoretically - you get a very high response rate; in practice I've never heard of that happening). Rklawton 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody very much for the helpful responses again. I really want to come to a solution which minimizes the chance of people worrying about spam, even if as people have noted above, it means better randomization/sample control is not possible ( I will just have to write up the limitations). I am also under some time pressure so I would like to come to a solution as soon as possible. Can I go ahead and assume that posting to the WP:AN noticeboard with an invitation and a link to a deleted page containing the survey link would be acceptable? (if so, please can someone help me create the deleted page then)? Alternatively, is there an admin-only email list that I can ask a list manager permission to forward the invitation to?. Zhanliusc 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from your nemesis, the jerk who deleted most of your invitations. Again, I didn't enjoy doing that: on the contrary, I'm inclined to give lots of help to anybody doing serious research, as you appear to be. As you'll have noticed, this page gets very full very quickly, and discussions roll off the top. I therefore suggest that all of us who are interested continue this discussion on your talk page. -- Hoary 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Before sending out any mass-mailings, you should probably run it by Jwales or Mindspillage first. --Aarktica 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)